Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Yahoo Bot]

But, yeah, John: welcome to the world of DCP. He's done this sort of thing many, many, many times in the past. He did it to Mike Quinn, when he tried to convince the participants on his home messageboard the Quinn had been excommunicated for "homosexual sin"; he's done this when people have pointed out that he's paid/employed to do apologetics; he did this in regards to the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Wash, rinse, repeat.

Indubitably false. Dr. Peterson is guilty of talking about Quinn after Quinn had outed himself. As we all did, by the way, who knew Quinn personally. You have tortured this story into a complete falsehood.

Dr. Peterson is not "paid" to do apologetics. He's an academic. He draws an academic salary. BYU imposes teaching and publication obligations on folks like him. From what I know he meets those obligations. I have often pointed out many times on this forum that you are obviously not very familiar with academia. Some profs are into womens' rights; some into gay rights; some into socialism; some into arch-conservative work with the Hoover Institute or the Witherspoon Institute. These profs spend their time doing these collateral things because they believe in the cause and they have the ability to write.

FARMS/MI is a non-profit. It has expenses. Somebody has to manage it. Just like Evangelical Review or Judaica are published by non-profits and have their particular religious missions, so does FARMS. Just as ER and Judaica are managed by academics who otherwise have normal teaching loads, so is FARMS/MI. The only thing that sets FARMS/MI apart from ER and Judaica is that FARMS/MI is dedicated to Mormon studies. A similar organization exists and is run at Claremont College.

Regarding the 2nd Watson Letter, that is a mystery to all of us and I find myself on the outs with the FARMS/MI crowd over my beliefs that the LGT is heresy, so I've give you that one.

Having just now caught up on the fallout from John's post on both boards, I am amazed at how folks don't seem to realize how much the "attack dog" apologetics being further confirmed and discussed here damages the Church

A common refrain, yes. But LDS "apologetics" is foisted upon the world by all sorts of folks -- inactives, actives, teenagers and elderly men. People in the church and some out. Some of it is abominable. Some very very good. There is no centralized control. They aren't puppets. It would be a very rare case indeed where an apologist would be counseled by his bishop to cease or change.

In terms of tone, apologists range from Kevin Christiansen and Kevin Barney, on the one hand, to Will Shryver and others like him on the other hand. There is no "tone" police or particular way apologists are trained to measure their tone.

But, the two organizations best-known, FAIR and MI, are very good for what they offer the Saints who have questions. FAIR doesn't really have much of an attack-dog tone and I would challenge any of you to focus on a piece where somebody's name or reputation is trashed.

FARMS/MI, on the other hand, does put out some polemical work. I don't agree with all of it but I agree with a lot of it. But to say that FAIR and FARMS injure the church or its mission is to engage in fantasy. They are available whipping boys for the likes of you because the General Authorities are too nice of men to be whipping boys, usually. In reality, these two organizations play a valuable role for us who live in the sticks who need answers and can give them.

John Dehlin, and his saga, are pretty interesting this week. He's had a meltdown and has trashed his site all by himself. Contrary to Kish's diatribe above against me, I don't begrudge the fellow trying to get his GA pal to protect him. That is done often and far more times that you could possible imagine. If he successfully derailed a hit piece, then I applaud his victory.

I do have a problem with Dehlin airing his porn stash, so to speak, on the internet so that the faithful can no longer trust him.

And, Liz -- I really tire of the mods trashing me personally. You really have no basis to do so. I am not a troll; I have well over a thousand posts and several years invested here.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I do have a problem with Dehlin airing his porn stash, so to speak, on the internet so that the faithful can no longer trust him.

Yahoo, do you switch to one-handed-typing-mode when you look at my avatar?

...not that there's anything wrong with it if you do.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But, yeah, John: welcome to the world of DCP. He's done this sort of thing many, many, many times in the past. He did it to Mike Quinn, when he tried to convince the participants on his home messageboard the Quinn had been excommunicated for "homosexual sin"; he's done this when people have pointed out that he's paid/employed to do apologetics; he did this in regards to the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Wash, rinse, repeat.

Indubitably false. Dr. Peterson is guilty of talking about Quinn after Quinn had outed himself.

No: DCP is guilty of trying to convince the TBMs at FAIR/MAD/MDD that Quinn was ex'ed for homosexual sin rather than insubordination and/or his historical writings, hence why DCP said, "I believe Quinn's homosexuality was known to his then-stake president." He (DCP) said this within the context of a discussion on the reasons why Quinn had been ex'ed, and why he has subsequently had a difficult time finding work in Mormon Studies academia.

Dr. Peterson is not "paid" to do apologetics. He's an academic. He draws an academic salary. BYU imposes teaching and publication obligations on folks like him.

Yep, and the bulk of his publications are apologetic in nature. He probably has a 40/40/20 workload division, and since he helped to convince the BYU administration that FARMS publications should count for promotion and tenure decisions, it is fair to say that his salary consists in part of him doing apologetics.

[_Carton]

In terms of tone, apologists range from Kevin Christiansen and Kevin Barney, on the one hand, to Will Shryver and others like him on the other hand. There is no "tone" police or particular way apologists are trained to measure their tone.

I'm not familiar with Kevin Barney, so I can't speak about him. I have read some of Christiansen's posts at MDD. He seems pretty easy going.

The one thing I think is interesting is that Schryver and Bill Hamblin seem to be the only ones posting at MDD who have read Smith's paper. Plus Schryver acts like he is good buddies with Peterson and Smith and Midgley. That says to me that Schryver's "tone" is acceptable to the people at the MI. Sounds to me like the people at the MI are much more like Schryver than they are like Bokovoy or Christiansen or the other "kinder, gentler" apologists.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe we should start another thread separate from all of the specific Dehlin stuff?

I think this may be an excellent way to get everyone on the same page, and possibly turn this whole incident into a positive rather than a negative.

I agree. I do think another discussion is in order, separate from the present thread.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Look at this:

I continue to be amazed at the capacity of those who don't actually know the story of The Affair of the Essay that None of Its Online Critics Have Seen to tell that story, in glorious detail.

Still, for all my admiration, I think I'll continue, once in a while, to post corrections here regarding fictions that seem to be hardening into "facts" in their creative narrations.

Here are two that I've recently noticed:

1. The description of Dr. Gregory Smith's essay as a "hit piece" originated with the Maxwell Institute employee who was John Dehlin's direct source.

False. That employee, whom I know well, has told me that he never used the phrase "hit piece." Moreover, he was not Dehlin's direct source. Nobody in the Maxwell Institute was.

2. Dr. M. Gerald Bradford, the director of the Maxwell Institute, himself opposed publication of the essay.

False. Jerry Bradford has told me that he hasn't so much as read the essay.

Okay, wait a second. I thought that Dehlin said that he received word about the essay from an M.I. employee, who did indeed call it a "hit piece"? Is this not the case? Second, Bill Hamblin said that he thought it was Bradford who decided not to publish the essay, and yet here is DCP, claiming that Bradford hasn't even read it. What is going on here? Did Bradford pull the plug despite not having read it? If so, then why are the apologists still carrying on about how critics have no business weighing in on the essay without having read it?

Or is this more of DCP's double-speak--i.e., that Bradford opposed it, but he hadn't read it; instead, he was just going on the basis of a request from a General Authority?

[_Nevo]

Okay, wait a second. I thought that Dehlin said that he received word about the essay from an M.I. employee, who did indeed call it a "hit piece"? Is this not the case?

No, it is not. Dehlin's informant was not a Maxwell Institute employee, but a friend of a Maxwell Institute employee:

Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely. (source)

You will notice that it was Dehlin's informant—not the Maxwell Institute employee—who stated: "I imagine [it] will be something of a hit piece."

[_Equality]

I continue to be amazed at the capacity of those who don't actually know the story of The Affair of the Essay that None of Its Online Critics Have Seen to tell that story, in glorious detail.

Still, for all my admiration, I think I'll continue, once in a while, to post corrections here regarding fictions that seem to be hardening into "facts" in their creative narrations.

Here are two that I've recently noticed:

1. The description of Dr. Gregory Smith's essay as a "hit piece" originated with the Maxwell Institute employee who was John Dehlin's direct source.

False. That employee, whom I know well, has told me that he never used the phrase "hit piece." Moreover, he was not Dehlin's direct source. Nobody in the Maxwell Institute was.

Okay, wait a second. I thought that Dehlin said that he received word about the essay from an M.I. employee, who did indeed call it a "hit piece"? Is this not the case?

Here is what John said about on one of the threads here:

In this instance, I was informed of the "hit piece" as THEY called it...not me....by people favorable to the M.I. . THEY told me that this was another one of those types of pieces. THEY were concerned and were fighting its publication. FROM THE INSIDE.

Looks like Dan is splitting hairs again. But I will refrain from saying it was an MI employee who called it a hit piece. It was an "insider" who got word from someone who worked at MI, who Dan now claims did not use the words "hit piece." But the insider who told John about it certainly got the impression that the article was "something of a hit piece." So I am not sure what Dan is getting his XXL panties in a bunch over.

[_Kishkumen]

Frankly, I don't know why we are still quibbling over the description of this piece of writing. Given Greg Smith's track record, and our respective interpretations of such things, I have no doubt that I and many other people would see it as a "hit piece," while those who happily write and publish such things will call it a mere "critique."

I don't see the point of controversy outside of our differing views of what constitutes a "hit piece."

[_Equality]

False. That employee, whom I know well, has told me that he never used the phrase "hit piece." Moreover, he was not Dehlin's direct source. Nobody in the Maxwell Institute was.

This is telling. Looks like there was some sort of Inquisition at the MI. I wonder what sort of interrogation techniques Peterson employed to extract the information that nobody at MI was a direct source for Dehlin.