Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[William Schryver]

And this would be one reason to want it squashed. I think that john would have been better off with letting it be published and then responding to it with his own arguments. Seeking help from a third party to have the piece crushed seems a little cowardly. But I am also sure that he has his reasons.

Of course, he had his reasons. But one of those reasons cannot have been that he had already read the article itself.

The beauty of what has happened over the course of the past 72 hours is that Dehlin has managed to raise awareness of the article, and produce a buzz of anticipation for it, thus guaranteeing a larger audience than it ever would have had otherwise.

As for "responding to it with his own arguments" ... well, I'm rather persuaded that Greg has left no room for that. If there were, prior to now, any doubts in the minds of faithful LDS concerning Dehlin's motives and agenda, Smith's paper will dispel them all.

[why me]

reelmormon - I see you go by a pseudonym. Maybe you've been publicly maligned and slandered before with your real name, I don't know. But if you haven't....you might want to think about what that would be like before you judge my actions.

More importantly, I honestly, sincerely believe that MI/FARMS/FAIR hurt the church, its members, apologetics, and the people they target when they stoop to ad hominem attacks, so I feel justified in escalating to church leadership. I am told that an apostle and several GA's were involved in telling the Maxwell Institute to stop this piece. If you support your priesthood leaders, then maybe you might consider that my escalation was a good thing, not a bad one.

Just a thought for you to consider. Feel free to dismiss.

I think the problem is: we just don't know that you are speaking the truth since very few people have read the article. I do know that it is perfectly okay for people to engage others in debate and discussion in articles. But I have never seen someone go to a GA out of fear of being exposed or engaged in debate. What you did was to prevent freedom of speech. Nothing glorious in this at all.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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.

That said, I have yet to identify a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Quite to the contrary, what the article does is use Dehlin's own words, meticulously assembled and cited, to demonstrate that he (Dehlin) is what I have long claimed him to be: an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints.

The sooner this article appears in print, the better: it will conclusively expose Dehlin for what he really is.

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. Instead it shows conclusively that Dehlin is "an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints."

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

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I wonder just how you would respond if Dan and Greg would enlist GA help. Would you be so kind?

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?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Matthew J. Tandy

[mormonstories]

1) I really just wanted to get a post in on this fast moving thread... I mean, I opened it up over an hour ago, and it tripled i size before I got to what is the end of it as I start this post (2nd post down on page ten at this moment...).

2) JD, I appreciate in some ecumenical sense what you have tried to do with Mormon Stories. I have listened to many. Like others, I feel that in the past few months it has become far and beyond heavily weighted towards "against". If you wish to maintain your original premise, you might consider a course adjustment. However, I understand if over time your views of your role and the role of Mormon Stories has changed and you wish to take a new direction.

3) JD, I feel that your posting was vitriolic. I understand you were attempting to defend yourself, but it came across as vitriolic and over-the-top reactionary defensive. Your failure to post the original emails to Dan was lacking in wisdom, and I think you now realize that. Your original email was not to Dan, it was to a General Authority, and you copied Dan on it while addressing him secondly. How could this not be viewed by Dan as a personal attack not only on him and his scholarship, but an attempt to have a religious intervention? Your initial email, while having what could be considered valid but unverified concerns, was lacking in decency, respect, and a true desire to get to the bottom of an issue. Although you had not verified you were about to be broadsided unfairly, you took a rumor and you walked up and punched a person connected to the rumor. It was unprofessional, and far below what I have come to expect from you on Mormon Stories.

4) Vitriol has been on all sides in this thread. But it's always there. And honestly, while we can all do better on being more respectful or gentlemanly in our responses at times, the Gospel teaches us also not to be offenders of a word, and to be thick skinned. Go the extra mile. etc etc etc. Instead we get a critic insulting someone for being insulting, and vice versa without any truly well meaning analysis and critique.

5) I have personally been strengthened by FARMS, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and these message boards. I praise God Almighty for the great resource of knowledge that they have been. I do not find them to be perfect. Indeed, sometimes multiple, opposite views have been taken on the very same sites and in the same organizations and published regarding one topic or another. The value in them is that they have shown that there are a myriad of legitimate ways to view history and scripture and still retain a dazzling strength in witness of the Restored Gospel, which has allowed me to focus even more time on better understanding the aspects that make me a more Christ like person: Faith, Hope and Charity.

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.

[why me]

Of course, he had his reasons. But one of those reasons cannot have been that he had already read the article itself.

The beauty of what has happened over the course of the past 72 hours is that Dehlin has managed to raise awareness of the article, and produce a buzz of anticipation for it, thus guaranteeing a larger audience than it ever would have had otherwise.

As for "responding to it with his own arguments" ... well, I'm rather persuaded that Greg has left no room for that. If there were, prior to now, any doubts in the minds of faithful LDS concerning Dehlin's motives and agenda, Smith's paper will dispel them all.

And this is why I have no idea why he took the action that he did. If the article was engaging John's motives for his mormonstories and it took on some of his ideas and beliefs for the podcasts, I see no foul. And john should have just allowed it to be published and respond accordingly. Certainly the piece was not libelous etc. Why engage in censorship since his own podcasts are done free of censorship. Imagine if Greg or Dan would go to a GA to squash John's podcasts. The buzz in the critic boards would be severe and mocking. John needs to realize that going to a GA was the worse option that he could have done.

[William Schryver]

If this is as you say, why would ANY General Authority prevent it from being published?

As I understand it, the general authority in question has not read Smith's paper, yet.

[bluebell]

I had responded to jaybear's comment concerning rufus before i read the warning from the mods.

*deleted*

Edited May 10, 2012 by bluebell

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I tried to post this before the board went down:

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. Instead it shows conclusively that Dehlin is "an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints."

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

Cushan, that's just ridiculous logic there. If the topic IS John Dehlin and his objectives, then it cannot be ad hominem. If it is addressing an academic podcast he created and rather than address the issues it attacks Dehlin and uses that to conclude that the academic aspects are false, that would be ad hominem.

It is perfectly valid to analyze motivation and claims to neutrality by the historical ratio of topics and how they are handled.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

[wenglund]

Why would they need to make a concerted effort to do such a thing when we do it to ourselves so well?

Because we don't always do it to ourselves on certain issues and in the way they may hope. Obviously. Dehlin's email hubbub and his posts here are a case in point. I have no reason to believe that the Dehlin's GA and Dr. Peterson have been at odds on this or any other issue regarding the Church. Yet, Dehlin proposed pitting the one against the other if the other didn't comply with Dehlin's request.

Enough with the conspiracy theories; they've reached ridiculous levels on both sides of the argument.

It isn't a conspiracy when one simply describes the drama unfolding before one's very eyes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Matthew J. Tandy]

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.

John,

I appreciate the response. I personally feel that Dan, Will, and others have at times shared in the vitriol, but mainly in the context of a board where things tend to get personal. And it is definitely not the majority of the time either. I think it is important to distinguish between people when they publish an article or paper and when they are acting in a social capacity, even if LDS related. You are a prime example of this. Your questions are generally thoughtful in your podcasts. But in the subsequent comments you often come across as overly sensitive, hostile, and far from trying to bridge the gap from faithful to disbelieving cultural LDS. How you respond and conduct yourself in a focused and professional setting is different than in a forum or comment thread. I recognize you already know this principle, but it's good to keep in mind on days like today.

You do keep expanding the scope of influence involved. In your original post, you had indicated you heard that the Seventy in question had talked to someone, possibly even an apostle. It has steadily progressed from those vaguer, smaller beginnings of :

The GA told me that he would contact a few people in high places, and that he would do his best to intervene.

A few days later I was informed by a very, very reliable source that some very clear communication was given to the Maxwell Institute that publishing this article about me was ill advised, and that an apostle was involved in that communication.

to:

"I know at least a few GA's and an apostle who seem to agree with me"

I accept that perhaps since earlier today it had indeed expanded the scope. Otherwise, be careful that you keep it straight or you will be pounced on for rhetoric or conversational creep. Additionally, unless you have heard directly from them the reasons why, then it is not right to claim that they are necessarily on your side, though the end result may still be to your satisfaction. I recall a time where I had certain actions and a church activity forcibly cancelled when a distressed member went to the Stake President and wearied him until he came down on me to shut it down. Not for the reasons she said, but because he wasn't in the mood for a scene with that particular person as he knew she would make it grow bigger. Such a scenario is also possible in your case, considering your particular pulpit and elements of some followers of your website and podcasts. You can't say they "seem" to agree, therefore you "know" you are not alone because of them "seeming" to agree. It's a minor linguistic technicality that you didn't mean, but it makes a big difference in this case.

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.

Consider this: You and Dan don't see eye to eye. When you two get together, sparks fly on both sides. Choosing not to respond to further requests for dialogue seems to be the prudent thing to do unless one or both parties have significant changes. Because by continuing that dialogue, vitriol as we have seen today erupts. You punched him (metaphorically speaking) to get his attention because he had stopped responding since it always lead to fights. Avoid the fight, then get dragged in anyway. It seems silly. Does he mean harm to you? Beats me. I accept you believe so. But I believe you honestly mean harm to him, as you have frequently insulted in the comments on your website Dan on both a personal and academic level and repeated constantly exactly what you said here: That Dan, FAIR, Farms, etc are a danger to the church. It is unreasonable for you to then be baffled as to why he and others hold a grudge. Are you trying to bridge some gaps? Sure? But you have been burning bridges in others (and of course, some on this side of the fence are happily fanning the flames and starting a few themselves...).

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.

John, if your questions are all pointed against the historicity of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text, and that there are no good answers you are aware of for the Book of Abraham (and all attempts so far to address either have been an embarrassment), then you have moved beyond neutrality and bridging the gap, and instead are guiding the conversation to demonstrate to your ends the concerns you have. Is it acting honestly with yourself? Absolutely! But if you turn around and claim you are bridging the gap with the faithful and the non-faithful, or that you are neutral, etc, then you are not being honest. And therein lies the crux of WhyMe's statements. At the beginning, you were much more even handed. Since then you have lost many in the faithful camp, especially in the last few months. You have changed. Your podcast has changed. The question is whether or not you recognize that, and if you do, what will you do about it? You can either embrace the new direction (which is, honestly fine), or make a course correction. If you do neither, the calls of a wolf in sheep's clothing will only get louder. Be who you are, and proud (or humble...:-D) about it.

[Nemesis]

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

Nor has this site been contacted by a GA or anyone from the church to shut it down and delete posts. That's another rumor on the streets right now. Our isp shut us down for some reason and won't tell me why. Let's just say we are shopping for a new isp.

Nemesis

[ttribe]

Because we don't always do it to ourselves on certain issues and in the way they may hope. Obviously. Dehlin's email hubbub and his posts here are a case in point. I have no reason to believe that the Dehlin's GA and Dr. Peterson have been at odds on this or any other issue regarding the Church. Yet, Dehlin proposed pitting the one against the other if the other didn't comply with Dehlin's request.

I saw a guy who overreacted to hearing there was a story coming about him; not a devious schemer attempting to manipulate the masses of Mormondom.

It isn't a conspiracy when one simply describes the drama unfolding before one's very eyes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Kind of like how we can both look at a cloud and see completely different images. I guess I'm just not looking hard enough for those black helicopters.

Edited May 10, 2012 by ttribe

[Calm]

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.

and

More importantly, I honestly, sincerely believe that MI/FARMS/FAIR hurt the church, its members, apologetics, and the people they target when they stoop to ad hominem attacks, so I feel justified in escalating to church leadership.

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.

[wenglund]

If he's *really* so dangerous, why wouldn't the Church want his work stopped immediately? Something doesn't add up here.

It doesn't add up because your math seems based on false premises. It assumes that the Church would be in a position to stop him, and could stop him, if it wanted to (which it likely doesn't--though perhaps not for the reasons you suppose), and this even if they thought him dangerous. The Church doesn't have the power to stop him. The Church, by its own doctrine, cannot for the most part violate personal agency, nor does it have control over the internet. At best, it can only take Church disciplnary action against certain personal choices--and even there, such disciplinary action can, and have, engendered celebraty status for the disciplined within certain quarters, in some ways making the disciplined even more dangerous in a way.

How did you not know this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Rufus1,

I joined this message board a few weeks ago to pose some faith crisis questions. There are several regulars on here who mocked me and assumed I was something other then I stated. The majority were sensitive but it only takes a couple bad apples to make it seem they are all out to get you. Not sure why empathy is missing from some. I hope you see that most on here are kind and sincere. I wish you the best of luck

Also the world will tell you to abandon faith at every turn..... somewhere, somehow you have to find something to hold to, to stand your ground and say here and no further. there is evidence to discredit everything if we allow it to go that far. Have a great day

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I tried to post this before the board went down:

Cushan, that's just ridiculous logic there. If the topic IS John Dehlin and his objectives, then it cannot be ad hominem. If it is addressing an academic podcast he created and rather than address the issues it attacks Dehlin and uses that to conclude that the academic aspects are false, that would be ad hominem.

It is perfectly valid to analyze motivation and claims to neutrality by the historical ratio of topics and how they are handled.

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.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[ttribe]

It doesn't add up because your math seems based on false premises. It assumes that the Church would be in a position to stop him, and could stop him, if it wanted to (which it likely doesn't--though perhaps not for the reasons you suppose), and this even if they thought him dangerous. The Church doesn't have the power to stop him. The Church, by its own doctrine, cannot for the most part violate personal agency, nor does it have control over the internet. At best, it can only take Church disciplnary action against certain personal choices--and even there, such disciplinary action can, and have, engendered celebraty status for the disciplined within certain quarters, in some ways making the disciplined even more dangerous in a way.

So, you see conspiracies in the other guy's actions, but not *our* side.

How did you not know this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't be a jerk, Wade.

Edited May 11, 2012 by ttribe

[wenglund]

I saw a guy who overreacted to hearing there was a story coming about him; not a devious schemer attempting to manipulate the masses of Mormondom.

I agree with you about Dehlin's overreactiuon, but who said anything about the "masses of Mormondom"? My point was that Dehlin, like with anothers in a certain instance in the past, schemed to get a rumored MI article squelched before publication by pitting certain LDS against other LDS. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is something self-evidently documented on this very thread. How is it that you didn't see it?

Kind of like how we can both look at a cloud and see completely different images. I guess I'm just not looking hard enough for those black helicopters.

I am not looking for them at all...nor do I have my head stuck in the sand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

Managing situations like this must be one of the least enjoyable things you have to deal with and I can honestly say I feel a great deal of empathy for all the BS you are routinely subjected to.

Best wishes,

Phaedrus

Edit: Also I'm very sorry for your recent loss.

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.

[ttribe]

I agree with you about Dehlin's overreactiuon, but who said anything about the "masses of Mormondom"? My point was that Dehlin, like with anothers in a certain instance in the past, schemed to get a rumored MI article squelched before publication by pitting certain LDS against other LDS. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is something self-evidently documented on this very thread. How is it that you didn't see it?

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

I am not looking for them at all...nor do I have my head stuck in the sand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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).

[William Schryver]

mormonstories wrote:

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 believe this, at least, a misleading statement. I believe it is very likely purposely deceptive, coupled with a good measure of delusion, sifted down and topped off.

In what way and on what points do "at least a few GA's and an apostle ... agree" with you?

[wenglund]

So, you see conspiracies in the other guy's actions, but not *our* side.

I am not seeing conspiracy theories on either side.

Don't be a jerk, Wade.

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-

[Matthew J. Tandy]

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 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. Considering that Mormon Stories is also a site run by John, created by him, hosted by him, etc, it is logical to link his line of questions there directly to him and his motivations and styles. Additionally, it can be argued (although perhaps not yet convincingly), that John is no longer aiming for those four altruistic principles you cited. How would we determine this? By reviewing the content he has personally created. It has nothing to do with the direct arguments themselves, and everything to do with him.

Of course, if the article instead claims something like "John said there are people wavering in faith without any moral sins, but he's a jerk so don't listen to him, because jerks are liars and he's obviously sinning too" or some such, that would be ad hominem.

EDITED TO ADD: By the way JD, I am using you in this particular post to illustrate a logical point with him. It's not intended to be directly accusatory.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Matthew J. Tandy