Kishkumen wrote:My source also says that Dehlin was fortunate he got it quashed, since it was calculated to make Dehlin look really, really bad.
Actually, at this point, I think the mopologists 'hit pieces' make the mopologists look bad, not John Dehlin.
Of course, the 'hit pieces' preach to the mopologist converts. They simply talk to the confirmation bias they already have: you're either with the mo-po's, or against them. If you're against them, then the singular objective is to discredit the opposition.
Dan Peterson and his cabal's cunning linquistic exercises are to pick from what someone says out a blurb completely out of context, creating a caricature/strawman of what their targets say. Then, they assassinate the character of the person with the goal to appear to destroy credibility. There is never an intent to engage in an honest dialogue, only to discredit.
For example, Midgley picks out of context "There is no reason to believe in a literal Jesus Christ...but I choose to believe and have faith anyway." When he quotes the first phrase without the second, he distorts the meaning, and then calls his target an "Antichrist", knowing that such language will declare that the target is a wolf in sheep's clothing and worthy of vilification. Then the fawning sycophants pile on the insults to make a monster out of the target.
When I laid out for DCP that he bears responsibility for his buddy's divisive and inaccurate language, he stood right there beside him and refused to do so. Then he accused me of "bearing false witness", claiming that I said he called people "antichrist", which I never did -- I only said he agreed with the sentiment. Then, over and over again, he would say "stop bearing false witness" in a single-minded effort to discredit. At one point he said about me, "credibility zero", which of course was his intent all along.
Hamblin so viscerally hates Dehlin he had to be shut down in a thread -- which has to be a miracle on mad-board.
So, in my impression, the worse the hit-piece is, the more it clearly demonstrates the vile hatred these guys have for someone they consider an enemy. Their hubris is their undoing.
If I understand Dehlin's logic for not having it published originally, it was that such a piece would do harm to the Maxwell Institute and thus BYU and the church -- and he actually cared that it not be published not to protect himself, but rather, to protect the institution. Now that the institution is clearly not behind the hit piece, then having it published simply will demonstrate that the mopologists at "mormoninterpreter" are clearly in defiance of the direction of the church at present.
I really don't think that the piece can damage Dehlin. The worse it is, the more it damages the mopologist community.