Speaking Against The Church V Speaking Against An Institution Of The Church.

[Calm]

What is worse is that you bully someone you believe to be a female.

Shouldn't make any difference if it's not physical. Unless you are suggesting that women inherently aren't able to stick up for themselves verbally while men are?

A woman should never get a pass if she is misbehaving just because she is a woman.

If you really think selek is bullying you, report him to the mods. Otherwise it just appears you are attempting to bully him into silence.

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

Shouldn't make any difference if it's not physical. Unless you are suggesting that women inherently aren't able to stick up for themselves verbally while men are?

A woman should never get a pass if she is misbehaving just because she is a woman.

If you really think selek is bullying you, report him to the mods. Otherwise it just appears you are attempting to bully him into silence.

If you wish to interject please send a pm, he has and does and he has been corrected privately on it before. From my beginnings here he has attacked me. And ironically I was the one publically warned about nannying in the very thread wherein Selek was playing a nanny.

[Somebodyz]

That makes sense if being the editor was akin to having an assignment to stay after meetings and clean the bathroom. However, if being THE editor has some responsiblity associated with it, then the logic seems to fall to pieces. However, you do get brownie points for trying to put lipstick on that sow's ear.

Even a bathroom cleaner, deserves to be 'let go' face to face, rather than by email. ..and the bathroom board, shouldn't find out they've lost their positions via the news or internet postings.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Somebodyz

[Calm]

If you wish to interject please send a pm

You are the one who has taken it public. Please report me if you feel I have crossed a line.

[Scott Lloyd]

what if the specific reason you are complaining about is a policy or view the brethren directed said institution to implement?

To me that makes a stark difference from the examples you use?

It's not clear that's the case with the matter at hand.

A few weeks ago on another thread, I commented that I support the Brethren, but I am used to receiving their counsel and direction through established priesthood channels or clearly expressed from the pulpit or disseminated through official written or other sources, not conjectured or written about through the rumor mill.

[Scott Lloyd]

That said, I think speaking against any organization that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” is as bad as speaking against the Church or its affiliated institutions, more due to possessing an attitude that is not “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, or based in a belief "in doing good to all men” than due to the resulting harm (if any) to the organizations or the people associated with them.

Expressing disagreement with a decision because of the adverse consequences it portends is not denigrating that which is praiseworthy.

And we should not or need not have it spelled out for us in every instance what is virtuous or praiseworthy. Much of the time we should be able make that determination on our own.

In my case I embrace the past content of the FARMS Review as praiseworthy and would support its continuation in the same vein in one form or other, whether it be the establishment of an independent journal or something else.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

Expressing disagreement with a decision because of the adverse consequences it portends is not denigrating that which is praiseworthy.

And we should not or need not have it spelled out for us in every instance what is virtuous or praiseworthy. Much of the time we should be able make that determination on our own.

In my case I embrace the past content of the FARMS Review as praiseworthy and would support its continuation in the same vein in one form or other, whether it be the establishment of an independent journal or something else.

We are on the same page on all three points. On the third point, I would also say the same thing about points that support of MI and its direction (the OP didn't specifically mention FARMS/FAIR/MI, which suggests why my remarks are so general in nature).

Edited June 24, 2012 by CV75

[selek1]

It had been my intent to let this thread die in well-deserved ignomy, but since you threw out the CFR, I offer the following evidences from your own mouth (or at least keyboard):

I- From your earliest days here, you have pushed the party line characterizing (without evidence) the the apologetic works under discussion as hateful, etc.

You have done so both dogmatically and uncritically.

Though it appears from your own words and from a report in SLTrib that there was use of personnel attacks by Apologetics.

Salt Lake Tribune:

Review writers responded to critics’ allegations by ... sometimes writing scathing and often personal attacks on those who challenged LDS origins. It was, [the Review writers] believed, the essence of apologetics.

You have mischaracterized Will Schryver's arguments and statements for rhetorical advantage:

I responded that your statement is an admission of use but that you do not see the use as significant.

You have acknowledged ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric exist in both MI and FAIR.

You now claim a victory which is both hallow and deceitful.

(and before you respond with more "prove it" type statements, first prove that I have made the claim that ad hominem and/or antagonistic rhetoric exist in MI or FAIR writings. here is a starting point though, I only every responded to your statement of claiming no "significant use".)

II- You have accused the faithful of deceit, trickery, and of acting in less than good faith.

... moving the goal post from "ad hominem" to "ad hominem logically fallcy" is par for the course.

You now claim a victory which is both hallow and deceitful.

While I understand the accusation you're making- I must point out that's not what “hallow” means. I found the slip of the tongue to be both highly amusing and deeply ironic.

William had ample oppurtunity to restate his position from the older post, I even used his words - in context - to create a thread. In that thread I made the claim that William is acknowledging use of "ad hominem", william responded to the thread, but he never then nor presently has stated that my explanation of his statement is incorrect; he had ample oppurtunity to correct my understanding of his statement, he did not correct my understanding of his statement; therefore, it must be concluded that he agreed and presently agree with my explanation of his statement.

This last bit is patently false. Will Schryver has made every effort to correct treehugger's caricature- but she won't have it.

From the thread "Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou” (which was your first foray into the “apologetics is bad” meme:

And your point is that your experience is different from Rufus. Speaking for myself, and based on at least two posts of yours in this thread i.e. "yawn" and "go somewhere else then", even if Rufus showed you what Rufus was referring too, I doubt it would do anything to make for constructive discussion.

Frankly, I view the majority of this thread as an embarrassment. Much of the posts seem like the conduct of pre-teens.

Viewing the conduct of lds apologists elsewhere, it is not surprising in the least that those same people here fail to see how the conduct of members of the Church can negatively affect other members of the Church.

I feel confident that salvation is found in charity and not in "rhetoric about ad hominems and hit pieces" or in "angry, clever, passive-aggressive rebuttals".

The implication, of course, being that such rhetoric and rebuttals are primarily the province of the apologists (you were, at that point, lecturing Dan Peterson).

You had previously (passive-aggressively) lambasted Daniel for having the temerity to defend himself:

"Do you think that this back-and-forth on issues unrelated to Doctrine/Teaching of the LDS Church, which back and forth relates solely to the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, do any good at all? For anyone?"

-------------------------------

You are correct in one regard: nowhere did you explicitly endorse Bradford or the MI decision.

Nonetheless, you have constitently (and in my opinion, falsely) criticized the apologists affected by the Bradford decision, and explicitly equated criticism of Bradford and the MI with criticism of the Church.

I contend (and others apparently agree) that this is clear evidence of where your loyalties lies and the course of action you wish to see undertaken.

[ERayR]

If you wish to interject please send a pm, he has and does and he has been corrected privately on it before. From my beginnings here he has attacked me. And ironically I was the one publically warned about nannying in the very thread wherein Selek was playing a nanny.

A word of advice: You will find the ones you are trying to bully into submission are not that easily subdued. You would do better to understand that when you post here your words are subject to disagreement.

[rameumptom]

Treehugger,

When Randy Bott, a BYU religion professor, recently told the media that we believe in the curse of Cain, do you think those who criticized him and BYU were wrong to do so? Do you really think that BYU or MI = the Church? I highly doubt that any reasonable person could make such a connection.

BYU didn't have to bring FARMS into the fold, if it didn't like it. It didn't have to promise to leave FARMS' apologetic efforts intact, and under FARMS people. If, after a decade of BYU ownership, there was a change, why didn't BYU and MI just ask FARMS to leave and become independent again? If this was BYU policy, then why fire Dan Peterson via email while he was out of town?

Has BYU become so callous and liberal that it goes back on its promises and stabs people in the back? Or is this just a Bradford issue going on? Should we just blame Bradford, or would you also have us blame BYU and perhaps the Church for such onerous actions and betrayals?

[altersteve]

Hugh Nibley often criticized BYU. But I don't see that as criticizing the Church.

[Buzzard]

In any given ward along Utah's Wasatch Front, one is apt to encounter at least as many active members who are dyed-in-the-wool University of Utah fans who trash BYU on game days as the other way around. So far as I know, none of them has ever been disciplined for it. In fact, a good many preside as bishops and stake presidents, I daresay.

Discipline may not be forthcoming, but anyone who speaks against a BYU athletic team is either an apostate or on the high road to such. Nuff said.

[thesometimesaint]

BYU as football Independent. Big fish in small pond.

BYU as part of Pack 10. Small fish in big pond.

Nuff said.

[Aliwe]

When Randy Bott, a BYU religion professor, recently told the media that we believe in the curse of Cain, do you think those who criticized him and BYU were wrong to do so?

I don't believe that you believe in the Curse of Cain anymore.

Bruce R. McConkie (1978): Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation.

Unfortunately, when revelation changes like that, it can't be part of the original, single deposit of faith imparted by Christ.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[Nemesis]

I don't believe that you believe in the Curse of Cain anymore.

Bruce R. McConkie (1978): Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation.

Unfortunately, when revelation changes like that, it can't be part of the original, single deposit of faith imparted by Christ.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Whats with all the random derails? Please add something to the discussion so that it can continue instead of nonsense like this.

Nemesis

[treehugger]

Thank you for admitting that you have not evidence that I support the decision of Dr. Petersons dismissal. I have not made a comment either way concerning the dismissal or the manner in which the dismissal was received. And I shall not comment either way.

It had been my intent to let this thread die in well-deserved ignomy, but since you threw out the CFR, I offer the following evidences from your own mouth (or at least keyboard):

I- From your earliest days here, you have pushed the party line characterizing (without evidence) the the apologetic works under discussion as hateful, etc.

You have done so both dogmatically and uncritically.

You have mischaracterized Will Schryver's arguments and statements for rhetorical advantage:

II- You have accused the faithful of deceit, trickery, and of acting in less than good faith.

While I understand the accusation you're making- I must point out that's not what “hallow” means. I found the slip of the tongue to be both highly amusing and deeply ironic.

This last bit is patently false. Will Schryver has made every effort to correct treehugger's caricature- but she won't have it.

If I may, respectfully, reuse your phrase The part in bold "is patently false".

William Schryver has not, to date - to my knowledge and I have looked for it, made any effort to correct my caricature of his statement. IF has made any effort, I really would like to see it.

Given that, I standby my previous statement with a slight correction: His claim to victory is meritless and deceitful. (thank you for the correction on the phrase I used)

Here is a list of those I believe have attempted to address my caricature:

Log,

Tao,

Paharon,

CAsteinment - mentioned it

Selek1-you commented on Log comment

But, to date, in all honesty, I have not seen any effort by William to address or correct my caricature of his statement. If you know where it is, I will edit my comments accordingly to his rebuttal(s) of my caricature.

From the thread "Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou” (which was your first foray into the “apologetics is bad” meme:

The implication, of course, being that such rhetoric and rebuttals are primarily the province of the apologists (you were, at that point, lecturing Dan Peterson).

I have never suggested or implied that "apologetics is bad".

I disagree with what seems to be certain accepted "tactic" but I do not disagree with scholarly - whether professional or amateur - defense of the faith.

And you should stop trying to play mind-reader, the "rhetoric and rebuttals" or what ever it was, were the exact words of a poster James, who was lamenting that the back and forth among what - He and I assume (I assume much or many of the "critics" are religious) - where actions of people from all sides who claim religion.

And I agree with James, that certain interaction among those who claim Christ do a disservice to all religion.

You had previously (passive-aggressively) lambasted Daniel for having the temerity to defend himself:

yes, I asked Dr. Peterson "What do you think would happen if you did not respond" I believe Dr. Peterson has started a thread about some ridiculous remarks xander made on an other board. Dr Peterson responded to my question essentially that nothing would be different and don't blame the victim.

Do you realize that the quote you use to suggest I was questioning Dan, is a specific and direct response to Stargazer, using stargazers own words (I believe it was stargazer)

------------------------------

You are correct in one regard: nowhere did you explicitly endorse Bradford or the MI decision.

Nonetheless, you have constitently (and in my opinion, falsely) criticized the apologists affected by the Bradford decision, and explicitly equated criticism of Bradford and the MI with criticism of the Church.

I contend (and others apparently agree) that this is clear evidence of where your loyalties lies and the course of action you wish to see undertaken.

Let us be very clear, I have made no commentary either for or against what seems to accepted as Bradfords decision to dismiss Daniel Peterson and to do so by email.

What I have commented on, is the bravodo of which certain people had in judging Bradford, suggesting he is in apostacy, and stating he was not Temple worthy. I also commented that I was suprised that people seem supportive of making sure the new direction of MI is not succesful.

But, once again, and last of all, I have made no commentary as to decision, nor the manner it was delivered. And I will not make commentary to the decision or manner of deliver.

[treehugger]

I should like to point out to all, that I have not commented on whether I see a difference between criticizing the Church v. an institution of the Church. And I will do so now.

I believe at dialogue between Scott Lloyd and another fellow, capture what could be a fine line. I am not sure how involved the Apostles are in the workings and day to day minutia of institutions of, for lack of better words, the "business side" of the Church. To the extent that someone criticises business doings, as business, then I say have at it.

However, I do see a real danger in a person criticizing business dealings, which the person believes where directed to occur by an Apostle or the Prophet. It is at that point, I believe the person is in danger of starting to criticize the Church.

And I would not recommend beginning or engaging in a practice of criticizing the Church. The business end, sure, so long as you know it is business and not personal against the Church.

[selek1]

Thank you for admitting that you have not evidence that I support the decision of Dr. Petersons dismissal.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why you cannot be taken seriously.

I said you had not explicitly endorse the MI decision.

I spent the entire post providing evidence to support my conclusions.

A blanket misrepresentation of my argument is not a rebuttal- it's a strawman.

In point of fact, for all your contortions in trying to avoid the inescapable conclusions of the evidence, you have never explictly denied supporting the decision.

You have argued in support of Bradford's decision, bolstered the idea of silencing the apologists, and lambasted good men such as Will Schryver and Dan Peterson without ever specifically endorsing those actions.

You have carried water for the enemies of the Church and of Dan Peterson in particular- without every actually stating your "actual" position.

This bears a striking (and embarrasing) parallel to a particular politician who wanted to support a controversial (and immoral) position, but didn't want to open and honest about it with his constituents.

In the politician's case, being pinned down would have direct political (and fundraising) consequences.

Why are you so reticent to plainly state your position vis-a-vis Bradford's behavior and the future of apologetics within the Church?

Edited June 26, 2012 by selek1

[treehugger]

Selek, I do not owe anyone a statement on what happened. Can you explain why I must wear my religion on my sleeve for you?

I not have made any comment direct toward Dr. Peterson since the happenings where discussed here.

I challenged a what still remains a meritless claim by William schryver, do not think it goes unnotice that you nor he have provided the evidence to show I made a patently false claim. Expecting a member to put forth meritorious claims is not carrying water for enemies.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[selek1]

You are still trying to misrepresent my position as camouflage for refusing to state your own.

Like the Birther nonsense, this could all be avoided if only you were a little more forthcoming and a little less dodgy.

Ironically, your position that "when we speaking ill of Bradford, we are speaking ill of the Church" does just as much to condemn you as it does us.

If Bradford, as Director of the MI, represents or embodies "the Church"- then so too did Daniel Peterson as Editor of the MI's publications (and Schryver and the others as contributors).

If criticizing Bradford was criticism of the Church, then so too was criticism of Daniel Peterson and the other authors of the Review/Journal.

All that time you spent running around in circles and shrieking, "Ad hominem, ad hominem!, my kingdom for a thesaurus!", you were actually (according to your own logic) in defiant and vocal opposition to the Church.

Kinda erodes the foundation of the whole "meritorious claims" rameuptom, though....

Edited June 26, 2012 by selek1

[treehugger]

Selek, your number 45 clearly shows you are not interested in discussion.

Where did I state speaking ill of bradford is speaking ill of the church. CFR on that.

If you would please take time to read post 42 you would stop with your continued false claims. Go read post 42.

You seem all too wanting to fight and conjure up baseless accusations rather than wanting.g to address what I have posted.

CFR that William Schyver made every effort to correct my caricature.

I suspect you would agree with what I posted in post 42.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[Bikeemikey]

You are still trying to misrepresent my position as camouflage for refusing to state your own.

Like the Birther nonsense, this could all be avoided if only you were a little more forthcoming and a little less dodgy.

Ironically, your position that "when we speaking ill of Bradford, we are speaking ill of the Church" does just as much to condemn you as it does us.

If Bradford, as Director of the MI, represents or embodies "the Church"- then so too did Daniel Peterson as Editor of the MI's publications (and Schryver and the others as contributors).

If criticizing Bradford was criticism of the Church, then so too was criticism of Daniel Peterson and the other authors of the Review/Journal.

All that time you spent running around in circles and shrieking, "Ad hominem, ad hominem!, my kingdom for a thesaurus!", you were actually (according to your own logic) in defiant and vocal opposition to the Church.

Kinda erodes the foundation of the whole "meritorious claims" rameuptom, though....

I have been following the discussions between you and treehugger with interest. Why I do not agree with all of treehuggers positions as argued and also do not agree with all of the language used in expressing them, I can honestly say i in no way see your conclusions about treehuggers subtext or motives are not supported by the quotes you have been using.

When I read your posts I consistently see conclusions about the individual being extrapolated well beyond the scope of the post. I see that you have been around the boards a lot and know many of these better far better than I ever will, however, the conclusions you draw, from limited if any evidence, regarding certains posters "real" intentions undermines the credibility o some of the excellent insights and arguments you often make.

This entire thread is now derailed by unsupportable claims you made about a posters intentions, in a very hostile manner I might add, rather than te merit of the question addressed in the opening post.

That is very disappointing for me as I am not close to the people and debate at hand but very interested in discussion of the facts/opinions related to what happened, not your personal opinion as to the negative motives of the individual asking the question.

Even if all of treehuggers motives are insidious, that does not make discussion of the question/topic started by that person insidious.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been following the discussions between you and treehugger with interest. Why I do not agree with all of treehuggers positions as argued and also do not agree with all of the language used in expressing them, I can honestly say i in no way see your conclusions about treehuggers subtext or motives are not supported by the quotes you have been using.

When I read your posts I consistently see conclusions about the individual being extrapolated well beyond the scope of the post. I see that you have been around the boards a lot and know many of these better far better than I ever will, however, the conclusions you draw, from limited if any evidence, regarding certains posters "real" intentions undermines the credibility o some of the excellent insights and arguments you often make.

This entire thread is now derailed by unsupportable claims you made about a posters intentions, in a very hostile manner I might add, rather than te merit of the question addressed in the opening post.

That is very disappointing for me as I am not close to the people and debate at hand but very interested in discussion of the facts/opinions related to what happened, not your personal opinion as to the negative motives of the individual asking the question.

Even if all of treehuggers motives are insidious, that does not make discussion of the question/topic started by that person insidious.

For the record, I too saw the emergence of this thread as a rather transparent insinuation that expressing disapproval of Dr. Bradford's behavior or disappointment with his decision amounts to opposing the Church. So I can't fault Selek for drawing that conclusion.

Until more comes to light about the Brethren's supposed micromanagement in this matter, I don't see the notion as a given, however obliquely it is expressed.

[treehugger]

For the record, I too saw the emergence of this thread as a rather transparent insinuation that expressing disapproval of Dr. Bradford's behavior or disappointment with his decision amounts to opposing the Church. So I can't fault Selek for drawing that conclusion.

Until more comes to light about the Brethren's supposed micromanagement in this matter, I don't see the notion as a given, however obliquely it is expressed.

See post 42 herein.

[Scott Lloyd]

See post 42 herein.

I had already read it. What point do you wish to make by referring me back to it?

Add-on: It's not self-evident to me that when a BYU department head speaks the thinking has been done, if that's what you're implying.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd