Wiki Wonka wrote:2) It is a review of Mormon Stories, or, perhaps more accurately, the Mormon Stories "movement." In doing so, it extensively quotes John Dehlin and explores his publicly stated motivations behind Mormon Stories (and, if I recall, talks a bit about some material that was posted on StayLDS). There are quotes from an interview with the Larsens. Since the essay also includes quotes from Dehlin's public Facebook feed (unlike Dan Peterson's private Facebook feed, which was recently copied to this board), Kishkumen will, without a doubt, consider it a hit piece.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I second Kishkumen's comments on your response. One area of concern, having seen some of these guys in action, is that when they select quotes from the podcasts, particularly the John Larsen podcast, they fail to put the quote in context. If I say, for example, that there is "no reason" to believe in a literal Christ as son of God, that doesn't mean I don't believe it, but rather, that such a claim cannot be proven through reason. If the interviewee later states that he chooses to believe anyway, and the reviewer omits that material comment, then the reviewer has altered the meaning of the interviewee. Did the reviewer lie? No -- he quoted the interviewee accurately, but not completely.
I laud your work at FAIR in trying to present issues as even-handedly as possible -- it's a vital resource, mainly because it tries to be as factual and complete as possible -- at least it does at its best.
But as dblagent noted, there are some in the Mormon apologist community who use disingenuous picking from words to take offense and then discredit the person. All of the ones mentioned have done this. Dan, particularly, makes claims he doesn't read my posts, then quotes my words verbatim -- something that only was stated in my post, then makes a caricature of it -- a strawman -- and distorts the meaning of the original post. This is disingenuous and wrong. All of them have an objective: when they consider an individual to be a threat to the church, then they will do all they can to discredit, label, and dismiss the individual. They fail to read the argument, or even address it in the least -- it's always about the person, not the argument.
They have declared war on "cultural Mormons", on those who ask "why stay", and in particular, those who remain active while holding what they consider to be threatening views. To them, we are the "anti-christ", and while they claim they didn't use the word, they stand firmly behind the article that does. It betrays their intention -- one which will reap the anger it sows.
