The Art of Anti-Mormon War

[_Kishkumen]

Okay, so we shouldn't conjure scenarios, but you can. Got it.

Yes, Droopy is especially talented at conjuring scenarios that he finds very compelling.

[_Droopy]

Nothing incoherent here. What's interesting is that this entire things is grounded in the ancedotal testimony of John Dehlin, and nothing else. We actually don't as yet know what happened, and in what chronological order.

Wild speculation aside, we'll have to wait for some actual facts to come out of the woods here.

Here's a fact. Scholarly book review publications generally don't review people. They review books.

Scholarly book reviews review arguments, claims, motives, and the intellectual background and history of the author where its relevant.

You've been at this all day, Kish, and you.re getting more desperate and frustrated by the minute.

Its time to hit the showers.

[_Kishkumen]

Scholarly book reviews review arguments, claims, motives, and the intellectual background and history of the author where its relevant.

You've been at this all day, Kish, and you.re getting more desperate and frustrated by the minute.

Its time to hit the showers.

Droopy, I'll take my knowledge of scholarly book reviews over your bumpkin autodidact's experience any day of the week. There is a whole thread devoted to the topic of the standards of scholarly book reviews. The Review violated the basic etiquette and function of scholarly book reviews so often that it should have been shut down or its editor replaced long ago. Its past issues are a stain on BYU's academic reputation.

[_Stormy Waters]

I'm arguing that Bradford has a sheepish and disdainful attitude toward the very concept of academic scholarly apologetics, and that he used this situation as a pretext to purge the NMI of its "orthodox" members.

A reminder that Daniel wasn't "purged" he was reassigned.

From the original e-mail from Bradford to Daniel Peterson.

I will continue to support you in this regard. But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen. I plan to begin the process of finding a new editor right away. At the same time, I would welcome your continued involvement as a member of its soon-to-be-formed editorial advisory board. I believe you will continue to find much in it to commend, and it will be a better publication for your involvement.

It was Daniel who decided to quit entirely.

[_Tator]

Hey Droopy is it just that you and Danial and all the DCP worshipers are pissed that John Dehlin has a GA in his corner and your team doesn't?

Is it that simple?

[_moksha]

Where is the article? Where can I view/download it on the web. Did Dehlin himself ever read it? Who here has read it? Please point me to a single sentence in the essay in question for perusal?

Thanks in advance.

Loran

Good to see you back Loran. My own guess is that it is securely stored in the offices of the FAIR Bureau of Investigation, next to the Midgley report on Brother Palmer.

Have you heard whether the MDD crowd is arming itself with extra rhetoric and preparing to storm the Maxwell, in conjunction with the hot air from the Stadium of Fire?

[_Spektical]

Who cares if Dehlin has an agenda? The Mormon church has an agenda, too. It involves converting everyone on earth to its religion until the day that every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, and the great Jehovah declares the work to be done. That's one hell of an agenda.

That said, I don't see the big deal about the alleged Dehlin "hit piece." Let them publish it. If it's full of ad hominem, then MI just digs itself (and the church) a deeper hole. If it has some merit, then people can discuss the merits. I don't buy Dehlin's self-serving claims that he didn't want it published for the good of the church. He's started his own little movement and has a reputation to protect.

[_Dr. Shades]

Oh, so when you said:

I sure wish apologists had the integrity to keep their word they make in their exit posts from here.....

See my disclaimer at the beginning of this thread.

You actually meant:

It was in my first post on the "What motivates a man like John Dehlin" thread[.]

So in your world, "this thread" doesn't really mean "this thread." What other things do you say that we need to assume are at 180° variance with reality?

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.

Hey, all we're doing is taking Bill Hamblin at his word. So Hamblin is giving us his "usual blustering pretense to inside knowledge" and ought to "cough up some actual evidence, facts, or documentation?"

With friends like these. . .

[_Drifting]

Droopster,

The crux of the matter is actually that The Bretheren no longer wish it's various apologetic organisations to be associated with the style and tone of apologetics spewed forth by Peterson et al.
They have therefore acted in a " if thy right hand offend thee.." kind of way.

[_robuchan]

Tell me how Delhin has any input on this saga.

According to Dehlin's own account, posted on this very website, He was the one who received advance notice (from an unknown informant - the popularity of this kind of thing seems to be reaching pandemic levels) that a through scholarly paper highly critical of his Mormon Stories website and his general activities was forthcoming. He claims to have spoken to at least one General Authority about the matter, and the narrative that has grown out of this is that from here, the word went to Bradford, and Bradford used this as a pretext to purge and destroy NMI as an apologetic institution, after having spiked the essay in solidarity with Dehlin.

That's how. Haven't you been paying attention?

You're completely ignoring an assumption that we started with which is that the church is led by savvy men who understand what Delhin's motives are, and won't be tricked into making bad decisions by apostate members. Your rage always comes back at these men. You're assuming a really naïve GA got duped by Delhin and an opportunistic Bradford used it as an excuse to sack Peterson. You have absolutely no understanding of the church and BYU if you think this is accurate. BYU managers can't even go to the bathroom without asking the Board of Trustees for permission.