Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[ttribe]

You keep falsely accusing me of conspiracy theories, and I, with considerable restraint, have responded civilly and in good faith, and yet you somehow think I am the one being a jerk. Lovely.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Right..all those condescending "How did you miss it?" "How did you not know?" questions - restrained, civil and in good faith.

BTW, I made no accusations. I made no false accusations. I made an observation.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

and

If you are concerned enough to go to church leadership to stop this, perhaps you will also take a few minutes to find some examples of your concern and post them on the thread that has been opened for that purpose.

Thank you.

One might start with Greg Smith's review of Meldrum's use of DNA evidence in "Rediscovering the Book of Mormon" in which Smith critiques Meldrum's spiritual experiences in his work, and even Meldrum's personal interpretations of his patriarchal blessing.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=793

[Calm]

One might start with Greg Smith's review of Meldrum's use of DNA evidence in "Rediscovering the Book of Mormon" in which Smith critiques Meldrum's spiritual experiences in his work, and even Meldrum's personal interpretations of his patriarchal blessing.

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=1&id=793

Please post this on the other thread as requested by the mods and post specific examples from the article rather than the whole article.

[juliann]

Matthew J. Tandy,

I regret my vitriol, but I feel like the true offense is FAIR/FARMS/MI/Peterson/Midgley style ad hominem and personal attacks, but you may disagree with me, which is fine. I know at least a few GA's and an apostle who seem to agree with me though, so I know that I'm not alone in my feelings that what they do is hurtful and counterproductive.

I included GA's and cc'd Daniel Peterson for the simple fact that for the most part (if not entirely) he stopped responding to my emails to him a long, long time ago. It was the only way I could think of to get his attention. I honestly think he means to harm me, so why would he respond to polite email requests? That was my thinking, anyway.

I'm eager to include more faithful participants on MS, but I have sincere concerns about the BOM and BOA (among other things), so when someone comes on defending them, I am only asking sincere, honest questions out of genuine concern. At least I bring both sides into the discussion. Can't say the same for FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

Anyway, I won't try to convince you any more. All I'll say is....I'm trying to do what I feel is right. And I feel like the Maxwell Institute and Peterson/Midgley are hurting A LOT of people in how they do things, and I believe that bullies should be stood up against. And I honestly believe that they are bullies. Mean ones. Even if they smile and have the capacity to be polite and witty too.

The problem is that you are a bully by your own definition. I think that is why so many are turned away by your behavior, you excoriate others while doing exactly what you complain about. I find your behavior incomprehensible for someone claiming to be a peacemaker. Why the hatred of FAIR and FARMS? And why the inability to see that they are two separate entities who have little to do with each other beyond a few individuals that contribute to both? Again, accuracy is important for us but it is important for you, too.

I join Cal and Kevin in asking for specific examples of wrong doing so that it can be addressed. I would also ask that you tone down the rhetoric and stop attacking so that you can be the mediator that you want to be. I see no evidence whatsoever that you have anything but contempt for those who step up to defend the church and I think that permeates much of what you say. I think a friendly outstretched hand, without rancor and demonizing with the other hand, could go a long way for a lot of those who find your behavior unkind. If defenders of their faith have disappointed you be an example and show us the way.

An apology for attacking Scott for not responding to your email when he obviously did would be a nice start.

[William Schryver]

It's not ridiculous logic. Let me explain it to you. The stated objective of Mormon Stories is:

l

"to ensure that the projects we undertake 1) support individuals in Mormon-related faith crises, 2) save marriages, 3) heal families, and 4) celebrate, challenge, and advance Mormon culture in healthy ways."

According to Schryver, in an attempt to show that Mormon Studies fails in this effort, the piece shows that John is an "apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints," in the exact same breath in which he states that the article does not contain a single instance of ad hominem.

If the logic still escapes you, you may wish to google ad hominem.

The objective of Smith's paper, as far as I could see, had nothing whatsoever to do with mormonstories' stated objectives.

Smith's paper extensively cites John Dehlin's own words, from which it was rather easy for me to see confirmed my long-standing judgment that he is an evangelizing apostate from Mormonism whose transparent objective, regardless of what he may ostensibly claim, is to erode the faith of the Saints.

I have yet to observe in the article a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy, the precepts of which you quite obviously do not comprehend.

Edited May 11, 2012 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

It's not ridiculous logic. Let me explain it to you. The stated objective of Mormon Stories is:

"to ensure that the projects we undertake 1) support individuals in Mormon-related faith crises, 2) save marriages, 3) heal families, and 4) celebrate, challenge, and advance Mormon culture in healthy ways."

According to Schryver, in an attempt to show that Mormon Studies fails in this effort, the piece shows that John is an "apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints," in the exact same breath in which he states that the article does not contain a single instance of ad hominem.

If the logic still escapes you, you may wish to google ad hominem.

I am not sure you correctly understand the point or what is an ad hominem fallacy. It is not ad hominem fallacy to question a persons motive if the person's motives are the argument in dispute, though it is an attack on the person. It is only ad hominem fallacy when the motives are irrelevant to, and a distraction from, the argument in dispute. In other words, not all arguments against the person (ad hominems) are fallacious. Only those that attack the person, where the person is not the issue.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 11, 2012 by wenglund

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I know exactly what it is, thank you. The goal appears to be that the current, and possibly even past, motivations of John Dehlin are not as altruistic as he verbally claims. To address a person and their claims of motivation is not ad hominem.

An ad hominemen argument is an argument based upon a person's motivation or character. If the piece shows, as Schyrver claims, that John is an evil apostate evangelist who wants to bring people out of the church, then the article presents ad hominem arguments.

It's not that complicated.

[Log]

Ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy.

[jwhitlock]

And before you holier than thou, pious posters on here try to judge me...

Rufus

You gotta love this kind of stuff. Speaks volumes.

[wenglund]

Right..all those condescending "How did you miss it?" "How did you not know?" questions - restrained, civil and in good faith.

I was expressing bafflement, not condescention. Do you understand the difference?

BTW, I made no accusations. I made no false accusations. I made an observation.

What you claim to have observed, is in controvention with what was said by the ultimate authority of what I say and think, and what can be documented.

Yet, somehow in your mind I am the jerk. Again, lovely.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

The objective of Smith's paper, as far as I could see, had nothing whatsoever to do with mormonstories' stated objectives.

Smith's paper extensively cites John Dehlin's own words, from which it was rather easy for me to see confirmed my long-standing judgment that he is an evangelizing apostate from Mormonism whose transparent objective, regardless of what he may ostensibly claim, is to erode the faith of the Saints.

I have yet to observe in the article a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy, the precepts of which you quite obviously do not comprehend.

Well, not having read the paper, I'm not going to continue the argument. If you're correct that this entire paper was a personal attack on John himself rather than an attack on Mormon Stories, then thank God the GA's intervened.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

An ad hominemen argument is an argument based upon a person's motivation or character. If the piece shows, as Schyrver claims, that John is an evil apostate evangelist who wants to bring people out of the church, then the article presents ad hominem arguments.

It's not that complicated.

You are wrong. Perhaps it is you who should Google it. Cushan, I am not looking for a fight, but certainly agreeing on this basic term which, as a former academic of the ancient near east, I am more than aware of and schooled in, would be important to ending this side diversion.

Ad Hominem

"an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it"

I am using it in the academic dialogue sense. I can write a paper against the character of Joseph Smith, and that is not ad hominem. I can then write a paper against the theological argumentation of Joseph Smith regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, but then throw in a comment about how he founded Mormonism to sleep with other women, and that would be ad hominem (and wrong).

I can review the principles of a book without mentioning the character of an author. If I begin calling the author's take on a subject irrelevant because he is an apostate, that is ad hominem.

[ttribe]

I was expressing bafflement, not condescention. Do you understand the difference?

Does "Do you understand the difference?" not seem a little condescending to you?

What you claim to have observed, is in controvention with what was said by the ultimate authority of what I say and think, and what can be documented.

Yet, somehow in your mind I am the jerk. Again, lovely.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't say you ARE a jerk. I said don't BE a jerk. Indeed, there is a difference there.

[Log]

Relevant to the ad hominem canard:

On Sophistical Refutations

In December 1993, Gary James Bergera, Signature's director of publishing, announced to readers of the Salt Lake Tribune that "Mr. Peterson continues to insist that character assassination and ad hominem attacks are respected hallmarks of the intellectual enterprise."36 But Mr. Bergera is wrong, and he is equivocating.37 By ad hominem "attacks," he obviously means the use of insulting or abusive language. I do not advocate such rhetorical attacks. However, the classical ad hominem is an argument, and I do believe, along with virtually all logicians, that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate, relevant, and significant—provided their limitations are clearly understood and their conclusions properly weighted. Obviously, they can be abused. But they are by no means invariably fallacious.38

I will admit that this nuanced view of the subject runs counter to the way many people speak of arguments ad hominem.

In twentieth-century usage, an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to dis credit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author. That this is a disreputable procedure is clear enough in cases where the argument itself is "followable": in which those being addressed have the opportunity of addressing themselves systematically and exclusively to "relevant" considerations.39

The popular view, however, is inadequate. But we must be clear, in order to make sense of this, just what it is we are talking about here: An ad hominem argument is precisely that—an argument. It can be a good or bad argument, valid or invalid, relevant or irrelevant. Insults, on the other hand, while they may in a sense be ad hominem (i.e., "against the man") are not arguments at all, neither of the ad hominem variety nor of any other. It is not entirely clear what Mr. Bergera has in mind. If we have made irrelevant ad hominem arguments, the proper response would be to identify these and to rebut them with counterarguments. This nobody at Signature has ever done. (Threats of legal action do not constitute cogent arguments.)40 If, on the other hand, he wishes to charge us with insults or abuse, it is difficult to imagine that we have said anything that even approaches the sort of vituperative language that the good folks at Signature have used against F.A.R.M.S. and against leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Words like "infantile," "dishonest," "cowardly," "self-serving," "paranoid," "self-righteous," "rationalizing," "obscurantist," "libelous," "tasteless," "spiritually abusive," "character assassination," "immature," "pseudo-scholarly," "confused," "scurrilous," and "Machiavellian" come immediately to mind, and there are many others.)41

Hmm. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[treehugger]

Opps

Edited May 11, 2012 by treehugger

[jwhitlock]

My post came from my heart and pained me greatly to relate to you all. I now have been mocked by those of you who have chosen to do so. I do not stand as a judge of anyone but, I am entitled to relate how I feel.

You all have this wonderful knowledge of how arguments are to be phrased and the fallacies of logic memorized and will surely pick apart anything I have to say. I am not here to debate anything with you. I am not inclined to even participate on these types of boards, however I felt compelled to do so in defense of John Dehlin. I have never met the man , but I have listened to his podcasts and read some of the things he has written, and can feel a humility and concern emanating him, a supposed critic. Whereas I read Peterson and other from the Maxwell Institute who are the supposed apologists, and I feel the spirit of contempt and hostility in their chosen voice. Their distain for one struggling is palpable and it led me away from the church. Many of your words and likewise divisive and filled with contempt.

All one has to do to find the source of my pain is read many of the responses to my first post. I'm sure you are all going to your heaven clothed in the glory and righteousness of your God. You have earned it by casting stones at those who disagree with you and through your hate for those who supposedly oppose you.

It boggles the mind that you can make the claim in bold above, and then proceed to do just that. And you wonder why we don't take your story at face value?

[William Schryver]

Well, not having read the paper, I'm not going to continue the argument. If you're correct that this entire paper was a personal attack on John himself rather than an attack on Mormon Stories, then thank God the GA's intervened.

As far as I can tell, the notion of "intervention" you seem to imagine has occurred here did not, in fact, occur.

I very much look forward to the publication of this important and timely article.

[Tarski]

Well, well, well ... I can now see why John Dehlin was so anxious to see Greg Smith's article censored.

I have now read about 1/3 of the article. It is an absolutely devastating piece of work--devastating to Dehlin's proclaimed "objectivity" and "balance," that is.

It is bad to strive to be objective when as everyone knows (especially at FAIR) objectivity is ultimately impossible as one will inevitably have a point of view and succumb to the desire to lead others to see things the way one has come to see things through this futile attempt at objectivity. It is especially insidious when the person does it indirectly without force or bullying but instead by resorting to evidence etc. Showing respect to those that still believe differently is just a devilish trick. Repugnant.

John Dehlin should follow the example of the church, the MI and FAIR with regard to respect, objectivity, bias, foregone conclusions, and the sneaky desire to convince.

Right?

Umm, but I am having a hard time formulating what that example would be exactly. Let me go read some of those FARMS reviews again and maybe a few of those new world horse apologetics to kick start my memory.

Or maybe John doesn’t toe the party line and is therefore just a dissident ( strangely a good thing only if you are in the other group), a wolf in sheep’s clothing who must be subjected to the by now well known treatment. The ingroup punishes dissent--even noncoercise respectfull dissent-- one way or another (I would prefer another).

[Cushan Rishathaim]

You are wrong. Perhaps it is you who should Google it. Cushan, I am not looking for a fight, but certainly agreeing on this basic term which, as a former academic of the ancient near east, I am more than aware of and schooled in, would be important to ending this side diversion.

Ad Hominem

I am using it in the academic dialogue sense. I can write a paper against the character of Joseph Smith, and that is not ad hominem. I can then write a paper against the theological argumentation of Joseph Smith regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, but then throw in a comment about how he founded Mormonism to sleep with other women, and that would be ad hominem (and wrong).

I can review the principles of a book without mentioning the character of an author. If I begin calling the author's take on a subject irrelevant because he is an apostate, that is ad hominem.

Log's citation of Daniel Peterson on ad hominem should help provide some clarity. According to what Schryver has shared (and Peterson's interpretation of the expression) it is very much an ad hominem piece.

[wenglund]

Good, gosh, golly, Wade! I guess I must be as naive as that General Authority who stepped in on the matter!

I wasn't aware that a General Authority had "stepped in"--at least beyond having recieved several unsolicitied emails from Dehlin. And, since the General Authority isn't here stating his position and involvement in the matter, I have no idea whether he was as niave as you on the matter. All I can speak to is what I did speak to, and that was your false assumption about me think there was a conspiracy.

What an intersting development this is turning out to be, but I'm beginning to remember (rather vividly) why I walked away from this online defense thing. (Hint: it has something to do with the prevelance of an either/or mentality; as in, you're either with us or against us, no matter what).

Again, I can't speak to, nor have I spoken to your perceptions of "either.or mentality"--to be honest, I don't know what this has to do with me correcting your false perception that I was being conspiratorial and you thinking I am the one who is a jerk.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

You are wrong. Perhaps it is you who should Google it. Cushan, I am not looking for a fight, but certainly agreeing on this basic term which, as a former academic of the ancient near east, I am more than aware of and schooled in, would be important to ending this side diversion.

argumentum ad verecundiam

[ttribe]

I wasn't aware that a General Authority had "stepped in"--at least beyond having recieved several unsolicitied emails from Dehlin. And, since the General Authority isn't here stating his position and involvement in the matter, I have no idea whether he was as niave as you on the matter. All I can speak to is what I did speak to, and that was your false assumption about me think there was a conspiracy.

Again, I can't speak to, nor have I spoken to your perceptions of "either.or mentality"--to be honest, I don't know what this has to do with me correcting your false perception that I was being conspiratorial and you thinking I am the one who is a jerk.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let it go, Wade. Until today, it had been 9 months since I last participated on this board. I now remember all the reasons for that decision; I think I'll make that decision again.

[DWhitmer]

For the record, I'm going to lay out the facts (as I know them) regarding the Greg Smith, Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley happening of the past few weeks and months...Maxwell institute

This reminds me of Nibley's aptly placed comment:

"Twenty-three years ago on this same occasion, I gave the opening prayer, in which I said: "We have met here today clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood." Many have asked me since whether I really said such a shocking thing, but nobody has ever asked what I meant by it. Why not? Well, some knew the answer already..." (Hugh Nibley, Leaders and Managers)

If this is the first sign that an "apostle" would actually put a self-righteous black rob into submission (for reasons good for church members and truth), than praise God they were fools enough to pick the wrong fight.

Let's face it, LDS church choices, callings, etc. have nearly always been expedient, not inspired. Need I remind anyone of the admissions of a lack of spiritual sensitivity among leadership of all ranks. Or the curse that has darkened the minds of the entire church?

This church will go down in world history as a second Vatican, who pursued selfish endeavors at the expense of the Word of God. With the Romanish church, it was the Bible that was withheld and obscured. With the Mormons, it was/is the Book of Mormon.

Had Joe never started a church (and requiring BoM converts to show their faith by joining it), the Nephite record would have gone freely to all denominations. America is on fire and the black robs have made such statements as "BoM events happened outside of America" and "Jesus can't return until the New Jerusalem is built."

Not a single Mormon is talking of the imminency of the coming economic collapse, the anti-Christ, the punishment on hypocrites by the wrath described by John, etc.

The writing was on the wall for Jared, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni and the Three Nephites. Is the writing on the wall now? Listening to Mormon Stories shows it is and many are leaving, feeling, it's time to align direclty with Jesus, not priesthood, not prophet, just Jesus! Thankfully, those same immigrants who were lighted upon by the Holy Spirit, to come to this land and establish this nation, likewise were inspired about how church should be. Protestants fulfill BoM & Bible prophecy - they have the favor of God, which includes church. Many stumbled, but not all. Jesus visited people before J.Smith and is visiting them now. It's time to get out of the boat of religion and onto the water with Jesus - for what it's worth.

You are out of the thread and likely off the board.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

argumentum ad verecundiam

Yes and no. It was a statement that I am not ignorant to ad hominem and it's current and academic meanings. Since you implied I didn't know what I was speaking about ("If the logic still escapes you, you may wish to google ad hominem."), it was a relevant inclusion to point out that I am not, for instance, a car salesman who may not be familiar with debate tools.

I am quite aware of the use of it as a valid argument. However, Log's post, which I read and gave a rep point to, deflects the definition you provided initially when you said:

ad hominem, meaning an attempt to counter his efforts by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of Dehlin

It was to this modern and negative view of ad hominem that you provided that I was specifically addressing in the context of whether this article neither of us had seen did or did not do. In fact, you could have used a made up word such as "frazzlepuff", but since I am concerned with the definition as you provided it as a cogent element of your point in the post, I believe everything was addressed properly.

This is a non-issue other than it was your central tenant, using the definition you provided, which was being argued. That you have since adjusted it to the broader view of ad hominem has no bearing on the central points made. I am however pleased that, without fully agreeing, we seem to have come to a general agreement.

[wenglund]

Does "Do you understand the difference?" not seem a little condescending to you?

I view it as inquisitive, not condescending. I know litte or nothing about you, though from what little experience I have had with you, I formed some fairly reasonable assumptions about what you may or may not have understood. However, I have recently discovered that what I thought you might know, I was baffled to learn that you may not have known--or at least it may not have occur to you in this case. Since I was wrong in my reasonable assumption, it is clear that I really don't know you at all. And, because I don't know you at all, it is wise for me to ask, rather than assume. That is what I did.

I didn't say you ARE a jerk. I said don't BE a jerk. Indeed, there is a difference there.

I didn't say that you said I "ARE a jerk." I said you accused me of BEing a jerk and thinking I AM a jerk?

But, I have no interest in contributing any further to his ridiculous exchange.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-