Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_RayAgostini]

It seems, however, that you see some kind of equivalence between this little discussion board of private opinion and the Church-supported and authorized apologetics of their print journals. That is where the two of us differ greatly.

What I don't understand about you and Scratch, is that you've both argued, as nauseam, that these journals have long lost any credibility. Isn't this a chance to bury them even deeper in it? Or do you genuinely fear that they might have solid and convincing enough arguments to actually convince members (the three or four who read them, that is) that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? You're giving them far more credibility than you ever have, as a "real threat" to John. You're giving me the impression that you really don't want these criticisms to be made public. for what it's worth, from the outset, I don't believe they'll convince me that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and I'm pretty sure I can well anticipate most of the arguments that will be forthcoming.

I didn't become acquainted with Mormon apologetics yesterday. I read the very first FRB (initially RBBM) in 1989, and all of them until the late '90s. I've also been on Mormon-related discussion boards for 12 years now, and I don't expect any rabbits to be jumping out of hats. I've also closely followed the Dehlin/Peterson debates where they've occurred, and I closely followed John's posts and his "history" with FAIR/MAD. There's really no need for you to tell me what I "don't understand", because I've been involved with it for considerably longer than you have, or even most here, apart from the "veterans" themselves. In fact, I believe I was "officially" involved with FARMS (1981) even before DCP was.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray:

There is a difference between saying that the Review has no real credibility in the wider world--out in the "Marketplace of Ideas," so to speak--versus worrying about the impact it could have within TBM culture. As for this:

Or do you genuinely fear that they might have solid and convincing enough arguments to actually convince members (the three or four who read them, that is) that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

Their arguments don't have to be "solid and convincing." That's the point. They can rely strictly on their credentials, their authority, and their affiliation with BYU. Far too many leaders in the Church--many bishops and stake presidents--are simply "yes men" who will bow to whatever the BYU "anointed" have said. You seem to be forgetting that a lot of what turns up in the Review is spin-doctoring, ad hominem attack, smear-campaigns, and distortion. So, this isn't a matter of "solid and convincing" argument--it's about the damage that this authoritative but malignant source could wreak.

And who knows? Maybe they will publish anyways, despite the admonitions from the General Authorities. Certainly, some of the Powers That Be at FARMS don't like being told what to do.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm still very curious about what Scott Gordon said in response to John's "warning."

Meanwhile, we have been met with a stone wall of silence from Dr. Peterson, who instead has opted to write blog posts about how much he enjoys hearing vulgarity and profanity (even though he himself is too much of a milquetoast chicken to actually ever use expletives). It's psychologically fascinating to behold.

No response from Scott as of April 14th. Still hoping one comes.

I wouldn't hold your breath. He's probably waiting on directions from the Maxwell Institute--waiting to see whether or not they're going to publish.

[_Kishkumen]

There is a difference between saying that the Review has no real credibility in the wider world--out in the "Marketplace of Ideas," so to speak--versus worrying about the impact it could have within TBM culture....

Their arguments don't have to be "solid and convincing." That's the point. They can rely strictly on their credentials, their authority, and their affiliation with BYU. Far too many leaders in the Church--many bishops and stake presidents--are simply "yes men" who will bow to whatever the BYU "anointed" have said.

I generally agree with this. I don't find a great deal of what I read in these journals persuasive, but I don't doubt that numerous people with priesthood authority to separate people from their membership in the LDS Church do. Furthermore, this is a person's life we are talking about here, and that is precisely what the apologists don't seem to care very much about. They have a vision of what they think Mormonism is about, and if one crosses their line, they will attack that person, regardless of the consequences. John Dehlin is a decent fellow, who has tried to help a lot of hurting people, because the LDS Church has yet to catch up to the challenge of the internet and other issues.

It seems to me that the apologists are smarting that a lot of their lame apologetics are falling flat, leaving John Dehlin and his friends to pick up the pieces by offering kindness and honesty in place of aggression and disingenuous scholarship about the Book of Abraham and so forth. No wonder the apologists are ticked off. But their anger is no justification for attacking John. I am happy that someone was adult enough to step in and put a stop to it.

[_Runtu]

I generally agree with this. I don't find a great deal of what I read in these journals persuasive, but I don't doubt that numerous people with priesthood authority to separate people from their membership in the LDS Church do. Furthermore, this is a person's life we are talking about here, and that is precisely what the apologists don't seem to care very much about. They have a vision of what they think Mormonism is about, and if one crosses their line, they will attack that person, regardless of the consequences. John Dehlin is a decent fellow, who has tried to help a lot of hurting people, because the LDS Church has yet to catch up to the challenge of the internet and other issues.

It seems to me that the apologists are smarting that a lot of their lame apologetics are falling flat, leaving John Dehlin and his friends to pick up the pieces by offering kindness and honesty in place of aggression and disingenuous scholarship about the Book of Abraham and so forth. No wonder the apologists are ticked off. But their anger is no justification for attacking John. I am happy that someone was adult enough to step in and put a stop to it.

I will never understand the personal hostility and aggression on both sides of the critic/apologist divide. I learned a long time ago that most people, no matter where they stand, are good people who honestly believe what they say. There are some bad eggs among critics (for some reason they're usually "Christian") and of course some of the nastier apologists. I just don't see the point.

[_RayAgostini]

...versus worrying about the impact it could have within TBM culture.

Which likely to be no more impact than what MDDB has on "TBM culture", precisely none. In fact that board has probably turned more TBMs into apostates than the Tanners Salt Lake City Messenger.

Their arguments don't have to be "solid and convincing." That's the point. They can rely strictly on their credentials, their authority, and their affiliation with BYU. Far too many leaders in the Church--many bishops and stake presidents--are simply "yes men" who will bow to whatever the BYU "anointed" have said. You seem to be forgetting that a lot of what turns up in the Review is spin-doctoring, ad hominem attack, smear-campaigns, and distortion. So, this isn't a matter of "solid and convincing" argument--it's about the damage that this authoritative but malignant source could wreak.

You're way out of the ballpark here, Scratch. I'm sure stake presidents and bishops all over America, Europe, Asia, and Australasia are going to be grabbing this issue and warning their flock about that "wolf" John Dehlin. No doubt about it. And with the "I am a Mormon" campaign in full swing, and Mitt on the verge of the US presidency, this issue is going to be a ripper of a mass sellout.

I'm also a great admirer of Dan (along with John), but when I asked the last two missionaries I had in my home if they knew DCP, their reply was "who?" FRB/FARMS? "What's that?" Message boards like this one, and others, sometimes lead us, the participants, to think that the whole Mormon world is as riveted to the issues as we are. Not so.

[_Runtu]

I'm also a great admirer of Dan (along with John), but when I asked the last two missionaries I had in my home if they knew DCP, their reply was "who?" FRB/FARMS? "What's that?" Message boards like this one, and others, sometimes lead us, the participants, to think that the whole Mormon world is as riveted to the issues as we are. Not so.

I would just say that John has a great deal of credibility because he has been fair to the church. If the FARMS folks went after him, members at large might not pay attention, but when you Google his name and start getting links to articles about how evil an apostate he is, I'd say such articles have an impact.

[_Kishkumen]

Which likely to be no more impact than what MDDB has on "TBM culture", precisely none. In fact that board has probably turned more TBMs into apostates than the Tanners Salt Lake City Messenger.

BS. No way.

You're way out of the ballpark here, Scratch. I'm sure stake presidents and bishops all over America, Europe, Asia, and Australasia are going to be grabbing this issue and warning their flock about that "wolf" John Dehlin. No doubt about it. And with the "I am a Mormon" campaign in full swing, and Mitt on the verge of the US presidency, this issue is going to be a ripper of a mass sellout.

I'm also a great admirer of Dan (along with John), but when I asked the last two missionaries I had in my home if they knew DCP, their reply was "who?" FRB/FARMS? "What's that?" Message boards like this one, and others, sometimes lead us, the participants, to think that the whole Mormon world is as riveted to the issues as we are. Not so.

First of all, Ray, the people I would be most concerned about here are the ecclesiastical leaders of John and his close friends and allies. It does not take a mass sell out of the journal to cause real harm. All it takes is a motivated stake president who is instilled with a sense of alarm by reading the hit piece.

And who gives a crap what a 19 year old kid who has barely read the Book of Mormon before leaving on a mission, if he was lucky, knows about the existence or nonexistence of DCP? What matters is whether the CES and stake president types know the man. And I would guess the odds are much better in their case.

How many missionaries have you known to hold Church courts on the Wasatch Front?

Give me a break.

[_Carton]

... when I asked the last two missionaries I had in my home if they knew DCP, their reply was "who?" FRB/FARMS? "What's that?" Message boards like this one, and others, sometimes lead us, the participants, to think that the whole Mormon world is as riveted to the issues as we are. Not so.

I think this is very true. Before I became aware of and started getting involved with Mormon-related message boards, I had never heard of any of these people whose names we throw around as though they are celebrities and known in every Mormon household on the globe. I've started to pay attention in my ward and stake, and asking questions of people now and then. No one I've talked to knows who Daniel Peterson is, or the FARMS Review. Few even know what "apologetics" means.

I haven't come across anyone who is aware of this message board, or who posts on a Mormon-related message board of any kind.

I think we represent the .01% of Mormons who know about or care about these things. There are probably what, about 5 million or so English-speaking Mormons in the world? Of those, probably less than half have any current association with the church. .01% of that would be 25,000, and I don't even believe there are 25,000 people total, in the world, who are aware of these things.

[_RayAgostini]

BS. No way.

That's the argument I've often read here, and elsewhere, that MAD-style apologetics has turned many away from the Church. It made me quite anti-Mormon for a while.

First of all, Ray, the people I would be most concerned about here are the ecclesiastical leaders of John and his close friends and allies. It does not take a mass sell out of the journal to cause real harm. All it takes is a motivated stake president who is instilled with a sense of alarm by reading the hit piece.

And who gives a crap what a 19 year old kid who has barely read the Book of Mormon before leaving on a mission, if he was lucky, knows about the existence or nonexistence of DCP? What matters is whether the CES and stake president types know the man. And I would guess the odds are much better in their case.

I'm not only taking about missionaries, but stake presidents and bishops. I think you grossly underestimate their general ignorance of these matters.

McMurrin (a.k.a. "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City") went through all of this, but was saved by Mc Kay, and it is evident from the GA who stepped in that there are still "David O. McKay's" in the Church.

What also puzzles me is that anyone would think that should this "hit piece" be censored, and that's what it amounts to, it's going to come out anyway, in other forms, in other publications, on FAIR, and FAIRWiki, and on the FAIR blog.

You delude yourself.

Might as well tackle it head-on once and for all.