Who is Dehlin's Target?

[_stemelbow]

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

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

CFR.

Golly. Did you guys follow any of the affair?

here

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.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

So, he is criticizing some of Daniel & Louis' writings, OK. I don't see what is wrong with that. I think it has been fairly clearly shown that some of their writings do match that description. I would not characterize all of their writings that way, but the fact that they are known for this behavior is kinda their own doing, not John's.

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.

Sounds like a worthwhile goal to me. Daniel et al. could refrain from attacking fellow LDS people and that would certainly go a long way toward addressing the problem. I think John was right to raise everyone's consciousness concerning these activities. I applaud his efforts.

Golly. Did you guys follow any of the affair?

here

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.

What does this have to do with Midgley and Peterson? Here he is clearly talking about you, static, and other such folk.

[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.

Yeah, I think in that instance he went too far. I think up to the point he called Daniel a "pathological deceiver," however, he was on firm ground. Daniel is known for dissembling and distracting. He does a fine job of providing a textbook example of lying by omission that President Kimball could have pointed to in his Miracle of Forgiveness

I just believe that he, along with Louis Midgley and others, sometimes act like abusive and occasionally deceptive thugs in their role as apologists.

Yeah. Well, that is what he believes. At least he had the good sense to keep it to an explicit matter of his belief rather than implying diabolical thing in dozens of underhanded ways like Greg Smith did in his piece on Laura Compton.

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."

I agree with most of what John says here. He is very straightforward, and his points are, to my view, well demonstrated by many evidences. I don't think he needs to feel sorry for Daniel et al. After all, those guys get paid to do what they love best. It is all gravy for them, practically. I feel sorry for the people who understand that what they do is deleterious, who are hurt by it, and that the Church is actually complicit in alienating its own members through supporting these guys when they do this kind of thing.

All of it could be solved to my satisfaction if they would desist from abusing Church resources by criticizing fellow LDS folk through BYU. It's not a whole lot to ask.

[_stemelbow]

Sheesh, Kishcumin.

you called for references for the things you seem to think were obvious. I"m not about to enter into some battle about nothingness with you. I'm happy you concede that my claims work. That's all.

[_Kishkumen]

Sheesh, Kishcumin.

you called for references for the things you seem to think were obvious. I"m not about to enter into some battle about nothingness with you. I'm happy you concede that my claims work. That's all.

Basically you were called on your crap, and it is apparent now that you have nothing.

Your claims work like all other claims work. They work as claims. The next step is demonstrating their validity. This is what you fail to do.

[_stemelbow]

Basically you were called on your crap, and it is apparent now that you have nothing.

Your claims work like all other claims work. They work as claims. The next step is demonstrating their validity. This is what you fail to do.

Sheesh again. I said his target is folks like DCP. He said he did what he did to stop folks like DCP. You say, such is a worthy goal. I say, fine. Go at it. But that's doesn't matter, my claim is validated.

I said he seems to be trying to paint DCP as irrelevant and all that. he says they have no credibility. I pretty much vindicated my claim through these quotes.

Its like every other day with you. One day you seem reasonable and nice. The next you're upset and irrational. Don't get it.

[_Kishkumen]

Sheesh again. I said his target is folks like DCP. He said he did what he did to stop folks like DCP. You say, such is a worthy goal. I say, fine. Go at it. But that's doesn't matter, my claim is validated.

Ah, you see, this is your way of twisting things. He said that his goal was to stop the attacks, not to stop folks like DCP as people. I am sure he would be perfectly happy to have DCP continue to do the other many things he tells us he spends endless hours on, if he would only cut out those moments when he indulges in attacks.

I think that sounds reasonable. I am even more generous than Dehlin, however. All I want is that the attacks should stop emanating from the hallowed halls of the Lord's University. Is that so much to ask? It's not as though I or anyone else is trying to shut down the NMI. We just want this dark mark on Elder Maxwell's legacy to end.

It is a noble goal, in my view.

I said he seems to be trying to paint DCP as irrelevant and all that. he says they have no credibility. I pretty much vindicated my claim through these quotes.

No, I don't think so. First of all, realize that John is upset. I mean, look at what poor DCP does when he gets miffed at me! He furiously types one of his little slams at Sic et Non, smoke pouring out of his ears. What a sight that must be!

What he is saying is that the attacks are irrelevant. And they are. They add nothing of value to the world. They are, rather, a pollution upon it. It is a terrible shame that a man as lovely as Elder Maxwell should have this putrescent garbage of mean spirited rhetoric preserved in anything with his name on it. What a travesty!

In case you are wondering, I really liked Elder Maxwell. He wrote some of my favorite inspirational LDS fiction. Both Elder Maxwell and I are fans of alliteration. That is another real credit to him.

Its like every other day with you. One day you seem reasonable and nice. The next you're upset and irrational. Don't get it.

I am reasonable and nice on most days, stem. I am sorry you weren't picking up on that.

[_stemelbow]

Ah, you see, this is your way of twisting things. He said that his goal was to stop the attacks, not to stop folks like DCP as people. I am sure he would be perfectly happy to have DCP continue to do the other many things he tells us he spends endless hours on, if he would only cut out those moments when he indulges in attacks.

I think that sounds reasonable. I am even more generous than Dehlin, however. All I want is that the attacks should stop emanating from the hallowed halls of the Lord's University. Is that so much to ask? It's not as though I or anyone else is trying to shut down the NMI. We just want this dark mark on Elder Maxwell's legacy to end.

It is a noble goal, in my view.

Sheesh. You'll quibble with any old technicality you can muster. I answered who is being targeted. You wish to throw in the clarification that while DCP and others are targeted its not them as people that are targeted, afterall Dehlin hasn't sent any bombs to his house, but against their words. Fine...you object to me answering simple questions with simple answers. You want to throw out every caveat you can because, well, I'm LDS or something.

No, I don't think so. First of all, realize that John is upset. I mean, look at what poor DCP does when he gets miffed at me! He furiously types one of his little slams at Sic et Non, smoke pouring out of his ears. What a sight that must be!

What he is saying is that the attacks are irrelevant. And they are. They add nothing of value to the world. They are, rather, a pollution upon it. It is a terrible shame that a man as lovely as Elder Maxwell should have this putrescent garbage of mean spirited rhetoric preserved in anything with his name on it. What a travesty!

In case you are wondering, I really liked Elder Maxwell. He wrote some of my favorite inspirational LDS fiction.

Goodie.

I am reasonable and nice on most days, stem. I am sorry you weren't picking up on that.

Okay, most days. You are probably right, it is most days. Today is not one of those most days it seems.

[_Kishkumen]

Sheesh. You'll quibble with any old technicality you can muster. I answered who is being targeted. You wish to throw in the clarification that while DCP and others are targeted its not them as people that are targeted, afterall Dehlin hasn't sent any bombs to his house, but against their words. Fine...you object to me answering simple questions with simple answers. You want to throw out every caveat you can because, well, I'm LDS or something.

Technicality? I think it makes a huge difference whether the concern is a certain category of their writings or the person as a whole. If you are so cavalier about the difference, it surprises me that you care enough to engage us on this issue.

John Dehlin wants attacks on fellow LDS folk to end. I do too. It is not like we would be upset to have Louis Midgley write more articles like his in memoriam for Hugh Nibley, which, by the way, I thought was wonderful. Who would complain if Dr. Peterson were to follow up with more on Nephi's Asherah? I can't imagine the decent person who would.

Is that too complicated for you to understand, stem? I think you get it fine; you just don't like the fact that the point we are making is valid, and that the change we would like to see would actually make the LDS world a better place. You are too busy fighting for your own team to see that.

Goodie.

I am sorry you think my genuine affection for the late Elder Maxwell and concern for his legacy are worth only your sarcasm.

Okay, most days. You are probably right, it is most days. Today is not one of those most days it seems.

Oh, I think so. I have been very clear about where I am coming from, and I think I am making a very good case for ceasing attacks on other LDS people from the halls of BYU and under the name of Elder Maxwell. You would hardly think it required my pointing it out it is so obvious.