Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm puzzled by the fact that, if Dehlin has really been upset for years about the alleged ad hominem articles published by FARMS/MI, why did he only decide to suppress publication of an article about him? Why didn't he start suppressing articles years ago?

[blackstrap]

Let's see... there is ad hominem the Latin phrase which Cushan says he is talking about when he says he does not like anyone talking 'about' someone particularly in a perjorative manner .

Then there is an ad hominem fallacy which is a way of describing a type of flawed argument,which Cushan says he was not refering to.

I probably have it all wrong though...sorry.

[Wiki Wonka]

Just a reminder that this response from Scott Gordon got buried back on Page 6 of this mega-thread:

8 ) A few weeks back I wrote Scott Gordon to ask if he intended to publish the article. He declined any knowledge of the article, but did not respond regarding whether or not he intends to publish the article. Still waiting for that response.

For the record:

I wrote the following email to John on April 14.

Scott Gordon

Apr 14

to John

FYI,

FAIR is not writing an article about you at the current time, and I know of no current plans to do so.

John responded:

Date: Apr 14, 2012 12:11 PM

Subject: Re: Quick chat?

To: "Scott Gordon"

I'm very happy to hear that you have no plans to publish this article. Can you please let me know if this ever changes BEFORE you publish the article? I'd like to save you, me, the church, and Mormonism one big headache if I can. I don't think anyone wins via ad hominem arguments....except the enemies of the church. They certainly win.

I'm only posting one paragraph of his email as I am generally uncomfortable posting emails. I think the paragraph gets the point accross. I'm not sure why John is claiming here, and on another message board, that I didn't respond. I did respond and he acknowledged that response. Since FAIR and I are being drawn into this issue anyway, maybe I should reconsider.

Scott

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Let's see... there is ad hominem the Latin phrase which Cushan says he is talking about when he says he does not like anyone talking 'about' someone particularly in a perjorative manner .

Then there is an ad hominem fallacy which is a way of describing a type of flawed argument,which Cushan says he was not refering to.

I probably have it all wrong though...sorry.

No, I think you have basically captured my point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that talking about someone in a perjorative manner is "wrong," but I firmly maintain that doing so in an apologetic effort to defend the faith and bring souls unto Christ is misguided and destructive to say the least.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

An interesting prospect. Please let me know if he accepts!

[Bob Oliverio]

Seems like tons of CYA and damage control going on in this thread.

[Pahoran]

Seems like tons of CYA and damage control going on in this thread.

That's true, but I'm not sure that's how John would describe his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

If I owned a board:

I would prohibit argument about what is and what is not a logical fallacy.

[Bill Hamblin]

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,

I'd like to say that Dan and Greg are sincerely trying to do what they feel is right. They feel that Mormon Stories and Dehlin are hurting A LOT of people in how you do things.

You see, this cuts both ways. Why do you think they are insincere in their beliefs?

[blackstrap]

If I owned a board:

I would prohibit argument about what is and what is not a logical fallacy.

Would that be because such an argument would be flawed?

[Avatar4321]

Two questions: Ive been reading through and I havent seen them answered. I may have missed them.

1) Is there an actual paper?

2) When can we read it?

Normally I wouldnt care but now I would like to see it just because of the buzz from the thread.

I can tell you that apologetics helped me get my testimony. mostly because with every answer they gave was plausible, but always with the caveat that we need to go to God and find out for ourselves. And I eventually did that.

[Calm]

Two questions: Ive been reading through and I havent seen them answered. I may have missed them.

1) Is there an actual paper?

2) When can we read it?

1) yes 2) it has not been announced where and when it will be published yet

[Bob Oliverio]

That's true, but I'm not sure that's how John would describe his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ironic though - isn't it.  A thread on national news about a high profile mormon national figure, Harry Reid, making huge news with his support of that which is direct conflict of our Church, gets locked down by this board.  Yet a feud, between two individuals from Provo, that will garnish little if any attention outside of the BYU campus goes on ridiculously for pages!   

Focus people!

 

[Storm Rider]

Two questions: Ive been reading through and I havent seen them answered. I may have missed them.

1) Is there an actual paper?

2) When can we read it?

Normally I wouldnt care but now I would like to see it just because of the buzz from the thread.

I can tell you that apologetics helped me get my testimony. mostly because with every answer they gave was plausible, but always with the caveat that we need to go to God and find out for ourselves. And I eventually did that.

If there is a paper, it obviously needs to be added to. This latest bit of silliness needs to be included. I did not have a good impression of John before, but his actions on this little episode have demonstrated to me an utter ignorance and inability of being able to analyze his own actions, to see what is fact, and to have any degree of remorse for being the backside of a donkey. I still am shocked that anyone would threaten anybody that you must do what I say or I will go talk to a GA. A threat that he had already carried out on an article he had not seen. Who does this? "You better do what I say or I am going to tell my daddy!" I am flummoxed with such behavior.

I would post the article now, without malice, but to factually lay out how a LDS can turn from a position of faith into a well of saccharined poison.

Insults to other posters=removal from thread.

[Storm Rider]

Ironic though - isn't it. A thread on national news about a high profile mormon national figure, Harry Reid, making huge news with his support of that which is direct conflict of our Church, gets locked down by this board. Yet a feud, between two individuals from Provo, that will garnish little if any attention outside of the BYU campus goes on ridiculously for pages!

Focus people!

Oh come on, Bob. The fact that an individual has an opinion that differs with a position of the Church is not news. Brother Reid takes a reasoned position that is different. What is the story? That LDS are individually responsible for their own thoughts and actions? Or the fact that we have a policy on politics?

[volgadon]

Ironic though - isn't it. A thread on national news about a high profile mormon national figure, Harry Reid, making huge news with his support of that which is direct conflict of our Church, gets locked down by this board. Yet a feud, between two individuals from Provo, that will garnish little if any attention outside of the BYU campus goes on ridiculously for pages!

Focus people!

DanGB, I didn't know that we had to post according to your scale of importance.

[wenglund]

Ironic though - isn't it. A thread on national news about a high profile mormon national figure, Harry Reid, making huge news with his support of that which is direct conflict of our Church, gets locked down by this board. Yet a feud, between two individuals from Provo, that will garnish little if any attention outside of the BYU campus goes on ridiculously for pages!

Focus people!

Thanks for joining in, not once, but twice. You sure know how to make a point. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buzzard]

Just a curious question from a relative newcomer. Has a thread ever gone to 15 pages in less than 24 hours before?

BTW, this is much better than the movies. I wish I'd brought some popcorn.

[why me]

Excellent point WhyMe.

John, I do want to sincerely ask you: How would you have felt if Dan Peterson, hearing that you were going to do a podcast that heavily scrutinized Dan and his motivations and words, and writings and etc, and rather than first come talk to you, immediately went to an Apostle or Seventy in an email, addressing them while merely copying you, and essentially warning them of you and hinting at further efforts to dissuade you via ecclesiastical means? How well would that really go over in non-believer circles? With the tables turned, don't you think various less than friendly to LDS boards would be in an equal furor?

It would go over like a lead balloon but they would love it. The critic boards would be lit up with conspiracy theories about the church and the maxwell institute, and dan, it would be claimed, would be in the pockets of the GAs and getting paid for it. Also, Greg and Dan would be called cowards for taking the heat and hypocrites too.

[why me]

I can tell you that apologetics helped me get my testimony. mostly because with every answer they gave was plausible, but always with the caveat that we need to go to God and find out for ourselves. And I eventually did that.

And this is the point of apologetics. To present things as plausible. When apologetics defends a religious faith and there is not evidence to support the notion of god, the only thing that they can do is to give plausible accounts. But it is up to the reader to be convinced. With mormonism it is just a tad different since there is the book of mormon etc. But no member can expect an apologist to present conclusive evidence that the book is true. If they did, god would be confirmed as existing and faith goes out the window. It would be the same with the book of abraham. I never thought that a manuscript existed that proved the book of abraham. If it did exist, the lds church would have been proven true by conclusive evidence and faith would go out the window.

So, it comes down to the following: does FAIR or the Maxwell Insititute do a good job in the plausibility department?

[why me]

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?

I think that the paper needs to be published first. The way john should have done it was simple: the paper is published. He responds. You come on to talk about the issues. John responds. No hurt no foul. Just dialogue and discussion. Or dan could have come on to present his case. No matter what would have happened, it would have shown john to be brave and his reputation would be increased, if he made a good case for his podcasts.

Now...since he also deals with information, can someone squash his podcasts...can a GA interfere and ask him to stop? Imagine the outcry from the critics if this happened? And would john listen?

When a person is in the public spotlight, and John is within the small circles of the mormon spotlight, the person needs to take the heat a little better and not call for protection from a GA. It shows fear of being exposed and seeking to have information squashed. Not good.

[why me]

An interesting prospect. Please let me know if he accepts!

To talk about a paper that hasn't been published would be like blowing bubbles in the wind. What is there to talk about? No one knows what is in the paper, especially the listeners.

[Log]

Nevermind. Plausible deniability is the name of the game.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

When I read something like this, I begin to wonder if there really isn't more to the Calvinistic TULIP model of salvation than I have conceded in the past. I've been in some of the same callings as Rufus (and then some), read the same book, as well as some other decidedly less-faith promoting, and been disappointed with interactions with some in the Church (including an apostle), though my six children all over the age of 20 (oh, and my great great grandfathers include Orson Pratt, Marriner Wood Merrill, and Ebenezer Beesley). I have had my own personal struggles and demons to overcome, some of which are quite despicable. Yet through it all I have managed to maintain a quiet faith born of a witness of Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration, and an expression from the Lord of His love to me. The only sense I can make of it -- why I remain (what I consider to be) a faithful Latter-day Saint while others will lose faith -- is akin to Calvin's concept of Perservence of the Saints. I have certainly done nothing in mortality to warrant the faith with which I have been blessed, but it is there nonetheless. Was it because I was more valiant in the preexistence than I have managed to be in mortality? Perhaps. Or am I simply the recipient of blessings because of the good works of my forebearers? Likely. Whatever the reason, the challenge I now face is being more charitable with those who have not been so endowed. We all ought to do so.

Great post -- and I say that because it mirrors what I was thinking, and so obviously it must be great.

I had read an earlier post about how someone said that whether you were Mormon or not depended upon whether you felt that God wanted you to be Mormon. I thought about that post for a while, and decided that I did not FEEL like God particularly wanted me to be Mormon more than anyone else, but that somehow, despite some hardships and trials, I continue to feel grateful and confirmed in the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that this is the Lord's Church.

I can understand a crisis of faith. But ultimately, I get lost when people describe their crises of faith because I always end up asking "Where shall we go -- who else has the words of eternal life?" I personally can NEVER get past that question, but somehow the unbelievers and apostates do. That single difference may be all of the difference.

And lots of times, the "crisis of faith" problems seem pretty shallow as well.

[CASteinman]

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.

Rufus, I felt the pain in your story. But it appears to me, from the limits of my information, that your pain has led you to make some false accusations. You have been asked to validate those claims -- which if you did, they would not appear to be so false. Rather than do so, you have decided to continue being hurt.

Where did you see vitriol from Daniel Peterson in such form that it required you to leave the Church?