The Art of Anti-Mormon War

[_Kevin Graham]

The rift between Dan and the "new vision" of Maxwell has been in the works for quite some time and predates the John Dehlin issue, so Droopy is quite simply not up to speed (no surprises there) and hasn't even bothered to read what Dan and Bill have already said about this. He's attacking John as if he is the issue, but the issue is simply this: The Church no longer wants to endorse Dan's brand of apologetic aggression. If Droopy thinks this is just something Bradford came up with on his own, then well, he's deluding himself as a good Peterpologist would be expected to do.

Go educate yourself on this subject first Loran. Then maybe you'll be worthy of response.

[_beastie]

Face it, Droopy. You can't leave us alone. In another week or so you'll be writing another late-night song about us.

[_Droopy]

The rift between Dan and the "new vision" of Maxwell has been in the works for quite some time and predates the John Dehlin issue, so Droopy is quite simply not up to speed (no surprises there) and hasn't even bothered to read what Dan and Bill have already said about this.

Yes I have, and I have noticed the change in the content of NMI scholarship over the last several years myself.

You, however, are not going to convince me (or anyone not already devouring the chum) until you are able to abandon your usual blustering pretense to inside knowledge and cough up some actual evidence, facts, or documentation.

The idea that the Church sacked Dan and several other longstanding NMI scholars because of their "apologetic aggression" is preposterous for the simply reason that this "apologetic aggression" meme is nothing more than the self serving concocted fantasy (like the chapel/Internet Mormon idea) of the Internet apostate anti-Mormon posse centered here and in a few other on-line venues.

I've been reading Daniel's, Midgley's and other's apolgetic work since the late 90s, and I have yet to see this "aggression" or tendency to ad hominem abuse that apostate critics contend defines the enterprise. Indeed, as ad hominem abuse veritably defines exmo Internet anti-Mormonism, as it has been a salient feature of anti-Mormonism since the 19th century, one must be forgiven for thinking that what is going on here is, yet again, a massive, collective exercise in in-group projection.

Indeed, given your history on the Internet, your fantastic hypocrisy in branding others as aggressive name callers, even if true (which is isn't as anyone familiar with the work of these people knows very well), would only serve to brand you in turn as a very big and overheated pot.

If Droopy thinks this is just something Bradford came up with on his own, then well, he's deluding himself as a good Peterpologist would be expected to do.

I've never said that. What I've been arguing all along, including at the new Facebook site, is that Bradford is part of an intellectual movement within NMI and BYU (which I associate with the present trend among some LDS intellectuals toward the "NOM' or "Neo-Orthodox" perspective) that is uninterested in apologetics because its fundamental project is a rapprochement and accommodation with the surrounding secular academic and larger culture.

Go educate yourself on this subject first Loran. Then maybe you'll be worthy of response.

[_Droopy]

Face it, Droopy. You can't leave us alone. In another week or so you'll be writing another late-night song about us.

As I said, I came back to deal with this issue and this issue only.

After that, I will leave you to your own devices again.

[_Chap]

Face it, Droopy. You can't leave us alone. In another week or so you'll be writing another late-night song about us.

As I said, I came back to deal with this issue and this issue only.

After that, I will leave you to your own devices again.

After what has happened in the last few days, for the MD board to be given the benefit of a full-scale Droopy visitation like this is rather like the USS Missouri sailing into Tokyo Bay in September 1945, only to receive an all-out attack from kamikaze clown planes armed with custard pies.

(And ... the doggy. Want see the doggy again!)

[_Droopy]

Yes, the Brethren are really embarrassed and ashamed of NMI:

“FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point. I see a bright future for this effort now through the university.”

- Gorden B. Hinkley

[_Chap]

Yes, the Brethren are really embarrassed and ashamed of NMI:

“FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point. I see a bright future for this effort now through the university.”

- Gorden B. Hinkley

Well, he was speaking as a man.

[Guest]

The problem with your hypothesis, Droopy, is that you're assuming that Dehlin--and perhaps Bradford--have got so much power that they're basically able to take over (usurp?) some very powerful forces and figures in the world of LDS apologetics. You just cited the late Pres. Hinckley. So, what--are you arguing that Bradford--who was appointed head of the MI by BYU--is acting out in a "spirit of apostasy"? The bottom line is that your musings here are completely incoherent.

[_robuchan]

This isn't about John Dehlin.

Well, it most patently is, to a great degree.

Does it matter if Dehlin is proven to be an intellectual fraud with a personal agenda?

It would seem so, yes.

Go ahead and assume John Dehlin is an enemy to the church.

Of course he is. He's made that crystal clear. His entire Mormon Stories project is grounded in a counter-LDS mindset and worldview.

Also go ahead and assume the church is run by men savvy enough to understand this.

They are, yes.

This saga is not Peterson vs Dehlin. This is the church vs Peterson. The church didn't like what he was doing and removed him from his position.

That is John Delin's story. From your vantage point, it is nothing more than wild, preconceived speculation.

I'm completely ignoring Dehlin's story. I'm going on Peterson's blog primarily. And secondarily on the email exchange between Peterson and Bradford.

Tell me how Delhin has any input on this saga. Peterson is employed by BYU/the church not Delhin. Delhin didn't fire him. BYU/the Church fired Peterson.

Are you saying BYU/the church is acting irrationally based on input from Delhin? If so, how is that an indictment on Delhin and not the church? It's the church's responsiblity, not Delhin's, to act in the church's best interest.

If the church takes input from an enemy and acts in a way that's against their best interest, who do you blame? The church or the enemy? Your beef is with the church not Dehlin. Be honest with your feelings.

[_Kishkumen]

You know who (other than John Dehlin) is responsible to be concerned about John Dehlin?

His priesthood leaders.

End of story.