Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[Daniel Peterson]

Let me get this straight. The article does not contain a single instance of ad hominem, meaning an attempt to counter his efforts by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of Dehlin.

You might want to read a little bit about the practical logical error called the ad hominem fallacy.

The ad hominem fallacy isn't "pointing out a negative characteristic" in a person. For example, it isn't even remotely logically fallacious, let alone ad hominem, to observe that Pol Pot committed mass murder or that Bernie Madoff seems to have been greedy.

Nor is the ad hominem fallacy "pointing out a negative . . . belief" in a person. For instance, a writer who points out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies, or that Aristotle believed that some people are slaves by nature, hasn't committed an ad hominem fallacy.

The ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance. It is committed when one points to an irrelevant fact or characteristic about a person in order to support or (much more commonly) to refute a proposition advanced by that person.

For example:

"Jones draws extensively on patristic and scholastic texts to show that belief in the real presence of Christ in communion was universal in Christendom prior to the Reformation."

"Oh yeah? Well, Jones is a notorious anti-Semite."

Or:

"Dr. Goldstein argues persuasively in his article that lower marginal tax rates contributed to much higher rates of Transylvanian economic growth during the period in question."

"Well, he would, wouldn't he? I mean, he's a Jew, right? And Jews just love money. So I don't buy it."

Or:

"Schaalje, Fields, and Roper use nearest-shrunken-centroid analysis to show that the Stanford study purporting to demonstrate Spalding's authorship of the Book of Mormon is fatally flawed."

"No thanks. They're connected with the Maxwell Institute, and Maxwell Institute writers never offer any real arguments, just ad hominem smears. I still believe that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon."

This type of reasoning is why so many people, including many of those within the Church itself, are embarrassed by Mormon apologists.

I hear this claim pretty frequently, but have never actually seen any data regarding exactly how many people in the Church are embarrassed by Mormon apologists.

If we're simply talking about the miraculous power of anecdotes, of course, I've got a very large number that would seem to suggest precisely the opposite.

More importantly, though, as I've pointed out, "this type of reasoning" is, actually, not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy at all.

.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[wenglund]

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.

If so, then all your finger-pointing will be missed. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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:

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.

"Frazzelpuff" it is then. From the beginning, your assessment of this issue amounts to a bunch of frazzelpuff.

[jwhitlock]

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.

The thing that struck me after reading this was its similarity to the writings of Harold Camping.

[Pahoran]

This reminds me of Nibley's aptly placed comment:

Snip long proselytizing rant.

And now to slaughter your sacred cow:

David Whitmer was clearly a conservative, low-church Protestant throughout his life. He enlarged his definition of "scripture" to include the Book of Mormon because he had to -- his undeniable supernatural experiences left him no choice. But he then carried on as if nothing much else had happened. Receiving no such supernatural experiences about the relevations (in contrast to others) he disregarded them as long as they disagreed with his interpretation of what he was willing to receive as scripture. Thus it is that his testimony of the supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is superlatively important, because it is clear that if those events had not happened, he would have refused to believe them; while his rather stupid opinions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, tainted as they clearly were by personal jealousy and animus, are rather worthless, since they merely reflect his own personal prejudices.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Matthew J. Tandy]

"Frazzelpuff" it is then. From the beginning, your assessment of this issue amounts to a bunch of frazzelpuff.

Apparently you are not interested in actual data and cogent argumentation. When specific examples were cited, you chose to ignore them. You shifted your position on what you meant. And then, you adopt a humorous word as an insult and fling it my way without any useful contribution to the argument.

That said, I am amused by your particular adaptation of frazzlepuff. Even though it was pointless, it was still amusing.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I think it's good, on the whole, to get these attitudes out on the table. No more pretending.

Seriously? How about Dan's ridiculous attack blog.

I invite any and all to take a good look at my "ridiculous attack blog":

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/

Browse through a random but representative selection of my posts there over the past two or three months, or whatever it's been.

The blog may, of course, be ridiculous. Besides being a moral pygmy and a really nasty person, I'm a notorious idiot and, thus, quite incapable of judging that for myself. But it seems a bit of a stretch to call it an "attack blog."

Oh wait, he doesn't allow comments to his lecture sessions.

I have to admit that not having to deal with comments from the likes of Xander is one of the charms of the no-comments policy. Life is short.

I have heard that Dan Peterson is a rather nice guy in person.

It's a lie. Don't fall for it.

But he has a viciousness behind a computer and keyboard. His approach seems to be to go for the jugular and let the pieces fall where they may afterward.

It would be helpful to be able to examine a few specific examples of this.

[DWhitmer]

The thing that struck me after reading this was its similarity to the writings of Harold Camping.

This is typical of those unable to think for themselves. Everthing is either mine or weird. Make fun.

Snip long proselytizing rant.

And now to slaughter your sacred cow:

Let me prepare myself for wizardry of the marvelous one...not.

David Whitmer...supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon...his rather stupid opinions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, tainted as they clearly were by personal jealousy and animus, are rather worthless[..blah, blah, blah, my name is ]Pahoran

True, David was to testify of the BoM, not J.Smith. Was David faithful to that call? How surprising you would mock a person foreordained over two millennia ago, called by God, faithful to the call.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

DWhitmer: Your post is completely irrelevant to this thread. It has nothing to do directly with the mysterios article involving John Dehlin, nor the interaction of Dan, John, and a general authority. Please open a new thread if you wish to preach about the fallen restored church. Wait. That's against the board rules. On second thought, please just try to stay on topic.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

You might want to read a little bit about the practical logical error called the ad hominem fallacy.

The ad hominem fallacy isn't "pointing out a negative characteristic" in a person. For example, it isn't even remotely logically fallacious, let alone ad hominem, to observe that Pol Pot committed mass murder or that Bernie Madoff seems to have been greedy....

I believe you’ve missed the point. If you will return and review my comments, I have consistently used the expression ad hominem in terms of argument, rather than fallacy.

In so doing, I was simply responding to Schyver’s assertion that the article does not feature “a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy,” but instead, attacks his character demonstrating that Dehlin is “an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints.”

According to this statement, the article presents an ad hominem argument, meaning “an attempt to counter his efforts by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of Dehlin” (quoting my own initial post).

I hear this claim pretty frequently, but have never actually seen any data regarding exactly how many people in the Church are embarrassed by Mormon apologists. If we're simply talking about the miraculous power of anecdotes, of course, I've got a very large number that would seem to suggest precisely the opposite...

Fair enough, I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that the "many" to which I referred includes myself and the majority of Church members I associate with.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[Daniel Peterson]

My sojourn takes me to Mr. Peterson's writings, and he was not the only one, but the tone and vitriol of what was being written by these supposed men of God, totally turned me from a believer desperately holding on to my now fragile testimony, to a person shattered. Where was the humilty and respect of the Savior? Where was the kind and nurturing messages I had hoped for? What I found was akin to my elementary days and middle school days of schoolyard name calling and pious denunciation of those to whom the authors so disagreed. . . . I can honestly say that I owe my personal apostacy to those "intellectuals" at Fair/Farms/ and the Maxwell Institute.

It would be helpful to have a few specific and representative specimens of my bad tone, vitriol, arrogance, disrespect for the Savior, unkindness, unwillingness to nurture, and pseudo-intellectuality.

As a kindness, could you please furnish a few?

Mr. Peterson, when John Dehlin writes that you and your associates and turning people away from the church, he is telling you the truth. I am one example of thousands who went looking for help and assurance and ended up inactive and lost.

I regularly receive emails telling me quite the opposite. And I doubt that a week goes by without at least one or two oral comments to the same effect.

What am I to make of this?

Could you, perhaps, supply some data demonstrating that I'm having a net negative impact on thousands of Latter-day Saints?

And before you holier than thou, pious posters on here try to judge me, please understand, I was in a bishopric in Utah. I have been in an Elder's quorum presidency, and I have held many other leadership positions. I have six kids all under the age of 15. I was a 6th generation member with a very strong testimony. You would be wise to heed my words and to humble your tone and set as your mission a desire to bring souls unto Christ, rather than the opposite.

That's a very strong concluding statement.

[jwhitlock]

This is typical of those unable to think for themselves. Everthing is either mine or weird. Make fun.

Not making fun at all. Your comments are very similar to Camping's writings in their tone and in their direction towards organized religion.

Leaving the irony of your black and white accusation aside, your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is "unable to think" gives me some fairly good insight into your own narrow biases - and the lack of credibility for your position due to those biases.

In any case, you need to work on your sarcasm. It doesn't compare well to the more articulate posters here, who are quite entertaining to read. Far too heavy handed, and not much finesse.

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe you’ve missed the point. If you will return and review my comments, I have consistently used the expression ad hominem in terms of argument, rather than fallacy.

Logical fallacies pertain to arguments, and only to arguments.

A name or an exclamation or an adjective cannot be logically fallacious.

In so doing, I was simply responding to Schyver’s assertion that the article does not feature “a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy,” but instead, attacks his character demonstrating that Dehlin is “an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints.”

I don't think that anybody has denied that the article is critical of John Dehlin.

Is criticism of John Dehlin intrinsically wrong, inescapably illegitimate, out of bounds in principle? If so, why?

What about criticism of, say, me?

Fair enough, I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that the "many" to which I referred includes myself and the majority of Church members I associate with.

In order to weigh your statement at all, I would need to know something about the Church members you associate with. Are you talking about your entire stake or ward? Are you talking about a handful of disaffected ex-Mormons? Are you talking about your large, faithfully Mormon extended family? I would really be surprised, frankly, if there's a ward or stake or large extended family anywhere that even knows we exist, let alone is deeply embarrassed by us.

[Daniel Peterson]

The only thing that matters to me is that someone in a Church Leadership role (GA or an Apostle) made the decision that this article was inappropriate to be published. For me, this is all that really matters. This decision was made by our Leaders and we should not be questioning the wisdom of such a decision.

It would be interesting to see an email or other corresponce from this GA or Apostle and the reasons they felt this article was inappropriate, though.

Do you have any reason to believe that any General Authority has seen the article?

Although it's possible, I don't.

[blackstrap]

1. John D should consider adding 6 more statements to his list of 'values'

2. Way too much can be said about commenting on an unread article.

3.If I composed an article and some anonymous GA called or wrote to me suggesting that it not be published,I would give that due consideration

or perhaps I would just start sharpening a stick in case he wanted to take it for a spin.

4. Cushan's arguments are faulty because he is left-handed - is an example of ad hom .

Edited May 11, 2012 by blackstrap

[Pahoran]

Logical fallacies pertain to arguments, and only to arguments.

A name or an exclamation or an adjective cannot be logically fallacious.

I don't think that anybody has denied that the article is critical of John Dehlin.

Is criticism of John Dehlin intrinsically wrong, inescapably illegitimate, out of bounds in principle? If so, why?

What about criticism of, say, me?

In order to weigh your statement at all, I would need to know something about the Church members you associate with. Are you talking about your entire stake or ward? Are you talking about a handful of disaffected ex-Mormons? Are you talking about your large, faithfully Mormon extended family? I would really be surprised, frankly, if there's a ward or stake or large extended family anywhere that even knows we exist, let alone is deeply embarrassed by us.

Mr Chushan has at least occcasionally enjoyed the company of such fine upstanding Latter-day Saints as your malevolent stalker, his most vocal disciple and other denizens of the Sty. Could they be the "Church members" to which he refers?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Rufus, although I very much empathize with your difficulties with the church, I am at a lose as to how you came to the conclusion that Dr. Peterson is "vicious behind the keyboard". He does, often, use heavy doses of sarcasm, but usually directed at critics who seem to unfairly malign on a regular basis. It sounds like your criticism may be second hand information? I say that, because I have read many articles and listened to many videos by Dr. Peterson, plus I have read his recent blog posts. I just haven't seen what you are suggesting. Not saying it isn't possible, as I have not read "everything", but from what I have read, it doesn't seem in character for him to "viciously attack" anyone.

At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, smug, or egocentric, may I say that, in my own judgment, it's not in character?

I have plenty of flaws of which I'm acutely aware. (And no, I'm not going to list them, not even for the convenience of my ever-eager and insatiably voracious Malevolent Stalker.) But viciousness simply isn't among them.

There are some out there who profess to be mystified at the chasm between the jovial and relatively decent Peterson-in-real-life and the mean-spirited, nasty, unscrupulous Peterson-of-web-and print. But the chasm is a myth. I'm not schizophrenic. I'm not Jekyll and Hyde. The image of me as a cruel and heartless demon when in front of the computer is sheer fantasy. It's not true. It's scarcely even loosely tethered to reality.

Incidentally, Libs, thanks for the kind comments.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

I am told that an apostle and several GA's were involved in telling the Maxwell Institute to stop this piece.

If you know that, you know more than I do.

In fact, I am told that several from within your own ranks who have read the piece find it to be distasteful, FWIW.

I know of one such person. I'm aware of no others and, because I know how widely the article has circulated in these parts, I suspect that he's the only one.

And he was your ultimate source (whether you know him or not). Interestingly, he disliked the idea of the article, and became your ultimate source, before he had read it.

[Daniel Peterson]

An ad hominemen argument is an argument based upon a person's motivation or character.

That, of course, isn't what the ad hominem fallacy is.

And, just for the sake of clarity -- without any particular reference to John Dehlin -- discussions of a person's motivation or character aren't necessarily either fallacious or irrelevant.

But it would be, precisely, a fallacy of ad hominem irrelevance to argue that Frank's geometrical proof is wrong because he's a known womanizer, or that Bobbi Sue's opinions on art have no merit because she routinely exceeds her credit card limit.

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.

That's simply not true. You don't understand the meaning of ad hominem.

Leave John Dehlin out of the picture again: It would be an entirely legitimate academic venture to attempt to show that some historical figure (say, the Byzantine emperor Justinian) was a bad man rather than the good man many have historically thought him to be, or to try to argue that some other historical figure (say, Alger Hiss) was actually a Communist agent seeking to do damage to the United States and the West even though he appeared, outwardly, to be a patriotic American civil servant. There would be absolutely nothing ad hominem -- in anything remotely like the normal usage of that term -- about either one of those arguments.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would like to echo this sentiment. Dan has to put up with a lot of nonsense. I experienced just a tiny dose of this type of treatment from some extreme ex-Mormons for a paper I wrote in grad school. It wasn't fun and I can't imagine having to put up with constantly for years.

Dan, I'm sorry for the way you have been treated over the years by some critics. Their behavior is inexcusable.

I think in general, the tone of both criticism and apologetic responses could made more civil. I listened to Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens respond to some very biting criticism at a conference I attended. Their responses were measured and kind and I really learned from that experience.

I had an "aha" moment a couple of years ago ... maybe 18 months. I re-read something I had posted in a thread and realized that I would never speak like that in "real life" to another human being. I was horribly disapointed in myself and, as much as I know this sounds stupid, came to realize that there are real-life human beings on the other end of my computer screen. They have families, struggles, strengths, and weaknesses, and when I realized that my words (via a message board) could actually cause real-world hurt to another person, I promised myself I would improve and write on these boards and on my blog, only in a way that matches how I hope to treat people in real-life.

I've still got a long way to go.

John and Dan -- I have respect for both of you and wish you well.

Thanks, Seth.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Logical fallacies pertain to arguments, and only to arguments.

A name or an exclamation or an adjective cannot be logically fallacious.

The term "fallacy" refers to an improper argumentation in reasoning. Again, this was never the issue I was addressing. As you yourself have pointed out, ad hominem arguments may or may not be logically flawed. Right or wrong, they are simply an attack on a person's character. From the beginning, I was simply pointing out the irony of the fact that Schryver suggested that the article attacked John's character (an ad hominem piece), but did not present any arguments based upon the ad hominem fallacy.

Surely you can see my point.

I don't think that anybody has denied that the article is critical of John Dehlin.

Is criticism of John Dehlin intrinsically wrong, inescapably illegitimate, out of bounds in principle? If so, why?

I haven’t read the article, so I’m not passing judgment. However, I personally maintain that an article designed to paint a member of the Church who runs a website designed to "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" as an “apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints” is wrong.

What about criticism of, say, me?

I certainly don’t support nor agree with the personal criticisms and ad hominem attacks you frequently endure.

In order to weigh your statement at all, I would need to know something about the Church members you associate with. Are you talking about your entire stake or ward? Are you talking about a handful of disaffected ex-Mormons? Are you talking about your large, faithfully Mormon extended family? I would really be surprised, frankly, if there's a ward or stake or large extended family anywhere that even knows we exist, let alone is deeply embarrassed by us.

For a case in point in terms of the reasoning behind this sentiment, see the above post from Paharon.

[Daniel Peterson]

David Whitmer was clearly a conservative, low-church Protestant throughout his life. He enlarged his definition of "scripture" to include the Book of Mormon because he had to -- his undeniable supernatural experiences left him no choice. But he then carried on as if nothing much else had happened. Receiving no such supernatural experiences about the relevations (in contrast to others) he disregarded them as long as they disagreed with his interpretation of what he was willing to receive as scripture. Thus it is that his testimony of the supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is superlatively important, because it is clear that if those events had not happened, he would have refused to believe them; while his rather stupid opinions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, tainted as they clearly were by personal jealousy and animus, are rather worthless, since they merely reflect his own personal prejudices.

A very insightful reading of (the real) David Whitmer, I think.

Thanks for that.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

That, of course, isn't what the ad hominem fallacy is.

And when did I say it was?!!

Sigh

[Bill Hamblin]

For John Dehlin.

Greg Smith says thanks for all the extra material for his lengthy appendix he is now writing for his paper.

Guess 104 pages was just not enough for this fascinating topic.

It is fascinating to note that if Dehlin had not attempted to suppress the article it might have garnered a few hundred readers when published. Since he has created a scandal about it by trying to suppress it, it will now no doubt reach thousands.

[Bill Hamblin]

Since Dehlin is eager to tell all sides of every story, I'd be happy to volunteer to appear on his Mormon Stories podcast to discuss Greg's paper, Dehlin's attempt to suppress its publication, and the state of LDS apologetics.

Well, John, will you accept my offer?