Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Nevo]

Why do people seek out John Dehlin? Partly for the reason that you don't like, because he is closer to where they are at, and they trust him as someone who understands them. What they get from FAIR/NMI, etc. is attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb. The trust has been violated, and the people who did the damage appear to have the institutional support of the LDS Church, no matter how many times they claim they are independent or what have you.

If you want people to trust the Church, then the Church will have to do something to win that trust back. FAIR and NMI have done too much damage to these people for you to expect them to trust those organizations.

I was with you up until you went off about questioning members being "attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb" by "FAIR/NMI, etc." What on earth are you talking about? This sounds deranged to me. I've not seen anyone attacked, much less "brutalized," for merely asking questions.

[_Stormy Waters]

Well noted. Let's just say that I find JD's ministrations more likely to confirm and deepen people's doubts than assuage them.

I think this is simply a natural byproduct of an open discussion of the difficult issues of Mormonism.

Two things. First, I don't speak for "apologists" or "the church." Second, by "privately" I don't mean alone ("in isolation and pain"). I mean not in public (i.e., not via a podcast, blog, etc.). I'm not convinced that the "Oprahfication" of American culture—public confession as a form of therapy—is a particularly good thing. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

Do you support the church when they hold fast and testimony meeting? Do you support the church when they meet for general conference? Why shouldn't those who experience doubt be afforded the same privilege to assemble and discuss their similar experiences and similar beliefs?

[_Kishkumen]

I was with you up until you went off about questioning members being "attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb" by "FAIR/NMI, etc." What on earth are you talking about? This sounds deranged to me. I've not seen anyone attacked, much less "brutalized," for merely asking questions.

Sure, Nevo. If Louis Midgley gets in John Dehlin's (Rodney Meldrum's/Grant Palmer's/Sandra Tanner's, etc., etc.) face and shouts some paranoid fantasy implicating Dehlin in the death of missionaries in his mission, or Trevor Holyoak parks on John's Facebook page looking for juicy tidbits to place on the FAIRWiki, my description is "deranged."

If struggling members who show up on MDD are told that they are already good as lost to Christ, I am simply exaggerating by saying they have been brutalized.

What is "deranged" in my view is your odd ability to overlook this stuff as though it had never happened or dismiss it as though it were not such a big deal, while making the person who raises it out to be the "deranged" individual. Odd that.

[_Kevin Graham]

Why do people seek out John Dehlin? Partly for the reason that you don't like, because he is closer to where they are at, and they trust him as someone who understands them. What they get from FAIR/NMI, etc. is attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb. The trust has been violated, and the people who did the damage appear to have the institutional support of the LDS Church, no matter how many times they claim they are independent or what have you.

If you want people to trust the Church, then the Church will have to do something to win that trust back. FAIR and NMI have done too much damage to these people for you to expect them to trust those organizations.

I was with you up until you went off about questioning members being "attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb" by "FAIR/NMI, etc." What on earth are you talking about? This sounds deranged to me. I've not seen anyone attacked, much less "brutalized," for merely asking questions.

Where the hell have you been? Everyone knows, for example, that the MAD forum is owned and operated by the same talking heads that own and operate FAIR. They changed the name because they wanted to obscure that association, but those of us in the know, understand they they two are really one and the same.

Case in point, when the Church presented a press release in response to the Randy Bott controversy, the forum moderators dictated from their pulpit what this meant and then forbid any further inquires on the subject. Right after left, threads were shutdown simply for trying to discuss this controversial issue. They were attacked for disagreeing with the moderator's interpretation of this press release. By and large, it was completely misunderstood and misrepresented by folks like Dan Peterson and the usual FAIRites, who kept saying the Church refuted Bott's claim. It did no such thing. All it did was say his opinion wasn't binding on the Church and the Church has no official position as to why blacks were not given the priesthood. This is just one example of the many ways in which these folks try to shape public opinion in their own image. They really don't care for open discussion because that always leads to trouble for Mormons who aren't supposed to be discussing or even thinking about this stuff.

And I have started a number of threads in the past that did little more than ask a challenging question. Without exception, the mods would shut down the thread after the apologists had a conniption fit. They'd even use the negative response I got as a good reason for shutting down the entire thread. I usually only have time to post on the weekends so I sometimes start a thread on Sunday and then wait until Saturday before I go back and respond to those who chose to participate. What I usually discover is that the thread was shut down within hours of the initial post. Many times no reason is given, they just do it because they know they can get away with it.

[_Kishkumen]

Where the hell have you been?

This is what I immediately thought. I think, unfortunately, that it is asking a little much for people who run with the bullies to question their choice in doing so. Obviously, they made a choice a while back that they would view these antics as acceptable behavior. They have, with rare exceptions like mercyngrace, not batted an eye at the perpetration of aggression against wavering members, and now when it appears like other members whose opinions might matter don't agree, they will double down on the denials that they have invested in for the sake of feeling OK about themselves.

Doubtless it will take some serious intervention to end the cycle, and I don't doubt that these guys will feel like they were wronged by a GA gone bad on the day it happens. Few will ever accept that they were just bullies , who attacked fellow members of the Church in contravention of Christian principles and the order of the priesthood, or passive enablers of bullies.

Look what happened in the immediate aftermath of the GA's involvement in getting the Smith piece pulled. They attacked Dehlin for suppressing "free speech" and they implicitly turned on the GA for allowing himself to be manipulated by the apostate Dehlin. It was an ugly scene.

[_Nevo]

Sure, Nevo. If Louis Midgley gets in John Dehlin's (Rodney Meldrum's/Grant Palmer's/Sandra Tanner's, etc., etc.) face and shouts some paranoid fantasy implicating Dehlin in the death of missionaries in his mission, or Trevor Holyoak parks on John's Facebook page looking for juicy tidbits to place on the FAIRWiki, my description is "deranged."

Well yes. How do either of those things relate to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute's approach to honest seekers?

If struggling members who show up on MDD are told that they are already good as lost to Christ, I am simply exaggerating by saying they have been brutalized.

I've never seen this. People with genuine questions are generally treated compassionately—trolls looking to pick a fight, not so much. In any case, what has MDD to do with FAIR or the Maxwell Institute? Yes, I am aware that MDD grew out of a board once run by FAIR, but message board posters do not now and never have spoken for FAIR.

[_EAllusion]

I've never seen this. People with genuine questions are generally treated compassionately—trolls looking to pick a fight, not so much.

I've seen it repeatedly. One thing I've seen, hinted at by your post, is that their troll radar isn't always the best. Someone asking a sincere question with potential negative implications is assumed to be a troll and attacked. Maybe all this time you were pumping your fists, thinking "Get the troll!" but the truth is some of those people were actually asking genuine questions.

This attitude extends to sources like FAIRwiki which can very harshly put down people who think there is something to virtually any argument that is critical of the Church. Suppose you are a member who just found out about the whole stone in a hat approach to Book of Mormon translation and are worried that this strengthens the position that the Book of Mormon was fraudulently produced. You go to FAIRwiki and read what was quoted earlier. Do you not see how this might lead them to feel personally attacked? Brutalized might be a hyperbolic term, but people get treated harshly all the time. Once you're determined to be on the way to apostasy or are too friendly to critical arguments, look out.

[_Kishkumen]

Well yes. How do either of those things relate to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute's approach to honest seekers?

How can you possibly justify the negative implications of the framing of that question. You are saying that John Dehlin is not honest and is not seeking? Who are you to say so?

I think your view has been warped by too much involvement in negative apologetics.

I've never seen this. People with genuine questions are generally treated compassionately—trolls looking to pick a fight, not so much. In any case, what has MDD to do with FAIR or the Maxwell Institute? Yes, I am aware that MDD grew out of a board once run by FAIR, but message board posters do not now and never have spoken for FAIR.

Well, I am astounded that you have never seen it, because a number of us lived it, so we are not all that moved by the fact that you have failed to notice the many times this happens.

[_Nevo]

I've seen it repeatedly. One thing I've seen, hinted at by your post, is that their troll radar isn't always the best. Someone asking a sincere question with potential negative implications is assumed to be a troll and attacked. Maybe all this time you were pumping your fists, thinking "Get the troll!" but the truth is some of those people were actually asking genuine questions.

It's possible that a sincere questioner has occasionally been hit with friendly fire but I really don't think it has happened very often. If it has, they weren't victimized by FAIR or the Maxwell Institute but by overzealous amateur defenders of the faith.

This attitude extends to sources like FAIRwiki which can very harshly put down people who think there is something to virtually any argument that is critical of the Church. Suppose you are a member who just found out about the whole stone in a hat approach to Book of Mormon translation and are worried that this strengthens the position that the Book of Mormon was fraudulently produced. You go to FAIRwiki and read what was quoted earlier. Do you not see how this might lead them to feel personally attacked? Brutalized might be a hyperbolic term, but people get treated harshly all the time. Once you're determined to be on the way to apostasy or are too friendly to critical arguments, look out.

I just looked at the FAIR Wiki page you're referring to. I agree that the tone is a bit strident and might be off-putting to some. I do think several FAIR Wiki entries could stand to be a bit less defensive about "critics" (sometimes the "critics" are right and that should be acknowledged). But I'm not sure that anyone should feel beaten and bloodied by such apologetic responses. At worst, they're simply unconvincing.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Both FAIR and the Maxwell Institute serve as models for how critics should be treated, and thus if either of these two organizations is harsh, biting, sarcastic, or vicious, it sends the message that it is okay to treat perceived critics in this way. This is, to some extent, probably why you get "friendly fire" on the messageboards. What doesn't really make sense to me is your apparent view that *any* "fire" is justifiable. Even if someone is a bona fide troll, what use is there in treating this person badly?

As for the odd scenario of "sincere questioners" being "brutalized," or whatever: I think you sort of have a point. After all, it's not really possible to "see" either the FARMS Review or the FAIR blog--or whatever--actually "dealing" with sincere questioners. Instead, people with real questions come to these publications and can see the snark and the biting lanaguage. E.g., someone might have read Quinn's book on magic, only to follow up by reading Bill Hamblin's review of it. I don't think it's hard to understand how someone with sincere questions might feel "brutalized" or betrayed, etc. in reading this.