Kishkumen wrote:I'm too exacting to take you seriously. I guess that makes us even.
Fine. Here. Take a lookie, I suppose.
[quote=”Dehlin”] So why did I fight the article? I did it because I believe in my heart that the old school, disingenuous, ad hominem-style apologetics a la Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley are very, very damaging: to the church, to its members, to its former members, and mostly to its targets.[/quote]
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23840&p=585725#p585725
Dehlin wrote: In my mind, this wasn't about censorship. It was about using the church's own levers of power to try to keep DCP, Midgley, etc. from harming the church, LDS apologetics, BYU and many others more than they already have.
Heya
Kish wrote:
CFR.
Golly. Did you guys follow any of the affair?
here
Dehlin wrote:Yes, yes, yes. Please don't allow the apologists to distract this thread from its purpose -- to lay out the facts. When you guys engage in "tit for tat" exchanges with them, it only serves to take attention away from the real issues. They seek to act as lightning rods....taking the attention away from where it really should be.
here
[quote=”DehlinJ”] Seems like typical DCP dissembling and distracting… Please....somebody ask DP if he was planning on publishing the piece, and what stopped him from publishing it.
Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.[/quote]
lala
[quote=”Dehlin”] I just believe that he, along with Louis Midgley and others, sometimes act like abusive and occasionally deceptive thugs in their role as apologists. [/quote]
and the not being credible thing
[quote=”Mr JDehlin”] It's so classic...and condemning. I have incontrovertible proof of 1) the existence of the essay/hit piece....2) his knowledge about it....3) the GA condemnation of the whole enterprise....and 4) his direct censure (as it relates to all this).....so his use of the word "alleged" stands as a classic, yet condemning example of his continued disingenuous-ness as an apologist. The only thing that keeps me from releasing the evidence is my respect for those (including the GA's) who have supported me -- but you can count on him and his followers to take advantage of me in this regard (plausible deniability -- another classic LDS apologetic tactic...it's their whole foundation...really...when you get right down to it).
Does anyone else note how sad it is that Daniel Peterson now communicates from a solo blog where he doesn't even allow comments.....that he no longer even has the ability or credibility to directly engage in the difficult conversations? This is LDS apologetics in the 20th and 21st centuries...retreat only to places where you are surrounded by supporters...because if you engage critics directly in a neutral forum....you come off looking so silly...as if you are trying to prove the location of Santa's workshop.
I really, honestly, truly feel sorry for Daniel Peterson, Mike Ash, Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, John Lynch, Jack Welch, etc. They have built their houses upon sand, and now the foundation is slowly washing away. Even the brethren seem to see the writing on the wall (though we obviously have a long way to go in that regard). Still -- so much of their life's work is truly (and unfortunately) an embarrassment and damaging to the church, Mormonism and Mormons alike: a sad, destructive sham.
So I feel sorry for them that in some sense, they have been (and ultimately will be) left out to dry. As dupes. More importantly, I feel sorry for them that in trying to be helpful to the situation, they have only accelerated the pain/damage.....vs. served as a constructive part of the solution. The data from our survey are very clear (at least to me) -- LDS apologetics accelerate disaffection and disillusionment from the LDS church, because: 1) their responses are often mean-spirited and un-Christlike, and 2) they are simply not credible (i.e. tapirs, steel isn't steel, etc.)...so when someone who is truly struggling reads their stuff, they eventually walk away saying, "If this is the best that the church can do....then I'm outta here."[/quote]
Do you write nasty reviews aimed at fellow LDS folk published through BYU?
Little do you know...just kidding.
What is weird is your goofy, sloppy, and lackluster attempts to slime John Dehlin.
What? Slime? What substance am I using? His own words? Sheesh I went for brevity and thought others had read along.