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

[_Buffalo]

You're one of the most hateful posters here, Stem. It's truly sad. You used to have a more open heart, a kinder outlook on those with whom you disagreed. What happened to you?

Buffalo, that you are blind to the hate here and trying to put it on another, is a sad situation you've found yourself in. I wish more for you.

Stem, Lord knows I love you, but the hate you see is really coming from inside you. Let it go, Stem. Let it go.

[_Carton]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this story. When has a general authority ever had, let alone exercised editorial authority over what gets printed in the FARMS Review?

Seriously. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?

My impression has been that very few general authorities (and even fewer members) pay any attention to the FARMS Review, or know anything about it. I just can't believe that a GA is now on the editorial board of that all-but-invisible journal.

[_Kishkumen]

Your post would come off as far more meaningful if it wasn't true that the behavior you say you oppose is common here and in part you even support. I said it long ago, it seems for the most part, the arguments and complaints on this board filter down to nothing more than hypocrisy. Its a sad place to work from when you complain about the poor behavior of others from a place that holds at its highest virtue poor behavior. I bleieve it was Pahoran who once said something a long the lines of the folks (and when I say that you know that I mean the majority of posters here) who post here will strain at the tiniest of LDS indiscretions but blindly swallow the elephant sized indiscretions by those here as if they are good. His wording was much better as you can imagine, but it rings true.

A lazy tu quoque does not work here, stemelbow. But of course you know that. I know you are unwilling to go to the effort of providing any substantive response to my post.

You obviously completely ignored the fundamental issue. There is no monolithic entity or single opinion here at MDB to absorb your aspersions against it. You are boxing at phantoms. If you ever muster the fortitude to engage what I actually said instead of indulging in further lazy nonsense, let me know. I am eager to see what you have to say by way of a real attempt to defend apologetic slams against fellow Mormons printed in a journal operating with the support of a Church university.

I just don't see a rival organized effort on this board.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, Lord knows I love you, but the hate you see is really coming from inside you. Let it go, Stem. Let it go.

You love me? I'm touched. Sorry to say, the hate you see in me is really coming from this place. 'Tis sad you are blinded by the trickery. I do wish more for you.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this story. When has a general authority ever had, let alone exercised editorial authority over what gets printed in the FARMS Review?

Seriously. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?

My impression has been that very few general authorities (and even fewer members) pay any attention to the FARMS Review, or know anything about it. I just can't believe that a GA is now on the editorial board of that all-but-invisible journal.

That is good new, I think.

And the only reason we have to think that GAs have never paid attention to the apologists is because the apologists say so. I am not inclined to take their word for it.

Perhaps this is why apostles have spoken at their meetings and thanked them for their good work. Maybe this is why the late apostle Neal A. Maxwell was a fan and his name now graces the NMI.

[_Equality]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this story. When has a general authority ever had, let alone exercised editorial authority over what gets printed in the FARMS Review?

Seriously. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?

My impression has been that very few general authorities (and even fewer members) pay any attention to the FARMS Review, or know anything about it. I just can't believe that a GA is now on the editorial board of that all-but-invisible journal.

If you're right, I guess we'll see the piece in the next edition of the FARMS Review, no?

[Guest]

A lazy tu quoque does not work here, stemelbow. But of course you know that. I know you are unwilling to go to the effort of providing any substantive response to my post.

You obviously completely ignored the fundamental issue. There is no monolithic entity or single opinion here at MDB to absorb your aspersions against it.

I speak generally, of course, and have clarified that many times. Generally speaking those on this board are a hostile bunch. This does in no way suggest there is a monolithic entity or single opinion here. It merely suggests there is hostility within the very atmosphere here. To deny it and employ sophistry in order to jump around the point is not going to work on me.

You are boxing at phantoms. If you ever muster the fortitude to engage what I actually said instead of indulging in further lazy nonsense, let me know. I am eager to see what you have to say by way of a real attempt to defend apologetic slams against fellow Mormons printed in a journal operating with the support of a Church university.

I just don't see a rival organized effort on this board.

You are a bonehead if you think I have any interest in defending any slams against anyone that are not merited. In other words the only slams I support are slams against the aggressive accusers and provokers here or anywhere they hide.

much like you I don't imagine I'd appreciate anything from Greg Smith or Daniel Peterson that went after Dehlin personally. Incidentally, I don't' support Dehlin's slams on others here. Particularly since he took off just afterward and that he offered them in a place that will gain him high praise.

[_Carton]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this story. When has a general authority ever had, let alone exercised editorial authority over what gets printed in the FARMS Review?

Seriously. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?

My impression has been that very few general authorities (and even fewer members) pay any attention to the FARMS Review, or know anything about it. I just can't believe that a GA is now on the editorial board of that all-but-invisible journal.

That is good new, I think.

And the only reason we have to think that GAs have never paid attention to the apologists is because the apologists say so. I am not inclined to take their word for it.

Perhaps this is why apostles have spoken at their meetings and thanked them for their good work. Maybe this is why the late apostle Neal A. Maxwell was a fan and his name now graces the NMI.

It would have to be one of the Big 15. And I'm sorry, I just can't imagine one of them taking the time to read a 100 page "hit piece" or "critique" of John Delin (someone I didn't know about until just recently) and then calling down to Daniel Peterson and ordering him to not print it for ... what were the reasons now?

If the Big 15 were going to become editors of BYU journals, why wouldn't they have put the kibosh on the Meldrum article too?

Or are you saying they're just getting started, and this is the first time they've exercised their editorial powers?

I'm just saying most of this story stinks in my opinion. No offense intended to John Delin, but I just don't think he's important enough for the Big 15 to care whether or not Peterson (or Smith or whoever) wants to publish a hit piece/critique about him.

I mean, what would it really matter? Are you trying to say that so many people would be offended by a hit piece/critique of Delin that they would stop going to church or paying their tithing or doing their home teaching?

I just don't get it.

[_stemelbow]

It would have to be one of the Big 15. And I'm sorry, I just can't imagine one of them taking the time to read a 100 page "hit piece" or "critique" of John Delin (someone I didn't know about until just recently) and then calling down to Daniel Peterson and ordering him to not print it for ... what were the reasons now?

If the Big 15 were going to become editors of BYU journals, why wouldn't they have put the kibosh on the Meldrum article too?

Or are you saying they're just getting started, and this is the first time they've exercised their editorial powers?

I'm just saying most of this story stinks in my opinion. No offense intended to John Delin, but I just don't think he's important enough for the Big 15 to care whether or not Peterson (or Smith or whoever) wants to publish a hit piece/critique about him.

I mean, what would it really matter? Are you trying to say that so many people would be offended by a hit piece/critique of Delin that they would stop going to church or paying their tithing or doing their home teaching?

I just don't get it.

Those are some pretty good points, Carton. I appreciate you offering your thoughts.

[_Equality]

It would have to be one of the Big 15. And I'm sorry, I just can't imagine one of them taking the time to read a 100 page "hit piece" or "critique" of John Delin (someone I didn't know about until just recently) and then calling down to Daniel Peterson and ordering him to not print it for ... what were the reasons now?

I think John said that he didn't think the GA had read the entire piece. That you did not know about Dehlin until recently does not mean that the Brethren have likewise been ignorant of his activities. He has had a high profile for half a decade or more now. They are very aware of him and his activities. He has a brother who works (or used to anyway) for the church at a pretty high level. He was the editor of Sunstone for a while. He is frequently quoted in national news articles about the church.

If the Big 15 were going to become editors of BYU journals, why wouldn't they have put the kibosh on the Meldrum article too?

Or are you saying they're just getting started, and this is the first time they've exercised their editorial powers?

I don't think anyone knows whether this is the first time a GA has used his power to put the kibosh on a planned article in the FARMS Review. It wouldn't surprise me either way.

I'm just saying most of this story stinks in my opinion. No offense intended to John Delin, but I just don't think he's important enough for the Big 15 to care whether or not Peterson (or Smith or whoever) wants to publish a hit piece/critique about him.

He's at least as "big" as others the Brethren have historically taken an interest in.

I mean, what would it really matter? Are you trying to say that so many people would be offended by a hit piece/critique of Delin that they would stop going to church or paying their tithing or doing their home teaching?

I just don't get it.

It's not so much the people who would be directly offended by the hit piece, but the media firestorm that could erupt in the wake of such a piece that I think might have been the concern. John has connections at media outlets around the country. I can see a cautious GA preferring not to take the risk of such a media shitstorm in the midst of a presidential election year in which one of theirs has a chance to take the White House.