ERayR Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Hmmm... will Greg Smith's article be published somewhere, so we can see how 'critical' it is?I hope so
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I submit that virtually EVERY thread on apostate/critic message boards is rife with ad hominem and "tone issues," whereas the same could only be said of a minute fraction of MI articles, if at all.Could you start a new thread with them....similar to the open threads giving examples of apologist ad hom? I think that would be helpful. 1
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 while I agree with most of your commentsand see him grabbing low hanging fruit in terms handling difficult issues in mormon history and theology........ but where else do you get interviews with Richard Bushman, Daniel Peterson, Scott Gordon, Teryl Givens where they are asked the tough questions and one can feel like those kinds of issues get addressed in an open way? you don't he is it.I think the appeal has more to do with the format (podcasts). There are have been far more in depth interviews. Scott for instance, has appeared on Q&A national radio shows as well as national news. Podcasts actually tend to be less comprehensive merely because there is no check and balance system. You are limited to the knowledge of the interviewer and there are no footnotes to check sources. So this is, again, part of the successful narrative but even you would have to admit that nationally known figures like those you mention have certainly had more exposure and critique for years than anything on one podcast. 2
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I think Dehlin is not so much influencing people as he is meeting them where they are at, offering them understanding, and not trying to get them to go one way or the other in their personal journey.This is why he has become as popular as he has.Apologists can do nothing to counter him.He is playing on an entirely different field.He is popular, he is charismatic, he is empathetic and he is successful. However, this is no longer a battle with "apologists" unless you are talking about us irrelevant message board denizens. It is now national news and you are correct, that is an entirely different field with others picking up the ball. This is a story of the ongoing construction and maintenance of competing narratives more than personalities. ( It would be nice if everyone dropped the names altogether.) I can only imagine how many grad students will be eyeing this active goldmine as a topic. 1
Popular Post why me Posted June 30, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 30, 2012 This is the very effective narrative that they have created. That is why an analysis of competing goals or texts becomes threatening because they are not immune from the same accusations they make. I do think that pointing out our failures has been helpful. I have to wonder if similar threads listing their "ad hominem" or "tone" would ultimately be helpful to them in becoming a little more kind.I have found that this 'tone' strategy' is being used more by the critics as a way to silence apologists and church members who may respond to critic attacks. It is certainly something that critics seem to enjoy bringing up. On the one hand, many claim that the church is a cult and yet, when church members show passion for what they believe in and defend the thing they love with human emotion, suddenly, church members are told to be more christlike because they belong to the true church and neuter their tone to that of a mind controlled freak, being subdued and emotionless. In other words, boring. We see this entering into this thread also.For the critic being christlike is being without emotion, subdued, mystic in tone, polite, kind, boring, and generic. 5
Senator Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Could you start a new thread with them....similar to the open threads giving examples of apologist ad hom? I think that would be helpful.Umm...I don't think it would be in Will's best interest to initiate any thread wanting to extract examples of ad hom in apostate/critic message boards. 2
why me Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 He is popular, he is charismatic, he is empathetic and he is successful. When he first started out, I did not see him as charismatic or empathetic. I just saw him as a person seeking answers to his own questions and inviting guests that he thought best to answer those questions he needed answers to. I do think however that he has now found a niche and he is milking it for all its worth. I kind of feel sorry for John Larsen. He began his podcasts because John Dehlin stopped his podcasts. But now that John Dehlin is back, John Larsen is on the back burner not making too much of an impact.
why me Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 No doubt this is why he worked so hard to have Greg Smith's article suppressed, right?Yeah - one where the opposing team is kept chained up in the locker room.But it doesn't have to be this way. Greg can still publish his piece. I don't understand why he just doesn't publish it anyway. Why submit to censorship from someone who wishes the church to be more open with its history etc?
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I have found that this 'tone' strategy' is being used more by the critics as a way to silence apologists and church members who may respond to critic attacks. It is certainly something that critics seem to enjoy bringing up. On the one hand, many claim that the church is a cult and yet, when church members show passion for what they believe in and defend the thing they love with human emotion, suddenly, church members are told to be more christlike because they belong to the true church and neuter their tone to that of a mind controlled freak, being subdued and emotionless. In other words, boring. We see this entering into this thread also.For the critic being christlike is being without emotion, subdued, mystic in tone, polite, kind, boring, and generic. This is why I come back to message boards when I'm trying to figure out something. Somebody will almost always come up with a completely new and astonishing insight. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Can only "scholars" be apologists?Seems so...if you are not published you can't be in the club to be tossed out. Dan has long been a target for his work and faith, and will be so for a long time. He is in good company...Nibley comes to mind. When you have strongly held opinions on issues, someone is always gets offended. In Dan's case it seems and entire discussion board has been created to attack him. He is good at what he does and that angers those who are not. To Dan I would say…better to be hated for taking a stand than not. Most who attack him have their life centered on what they do not believe, rather than what they do. So “Chin-Up” Dr Peterson. I have lost many friends for being honest about my beliefs instead of saying what they wanted to hear. I sure hope I spelled this all correctly...this Ipad from my sick bed is not easy. Edited July 2, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 This is why I come back to message boards when I'm trying to figure out something. Somebody will almost always come up with a completely new and astonishing insight.And here I thought it was for me.
Somebodyz Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 When he first started out, I did not see him as charismatic or empathetic. I just saw him as a person seeking answers to his own questions and inviting guests that he thought best to answer those questions he needed answers to. I do think however that he has now found a niche and he is milking it for all its worth. I kind of feel sorry for John Larsen. He began his podcasts because John Dehlin stopped his podcasts. But now that John Dehlin is back, John Larsen is on the back burner not making too much of an impact.Yet John Larsen is in the news today, with his band of merry men/women.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/mormon-group-plans-mass-w_n_1637877.htmlhttp://resignmormon.blogspot.co.uk/Making a different kind of impact maybe and still the 'look at me, look at me'. I don't get the fan fare about leaving.
William Schryver Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Could you start a new thread with them....similar to the open threads giving examples of apologist ad hom? I think that would be helpful.Somehow I don't think this board would appreciate me linking to thefoyer.org, MDB, postmormon.org, etc.Besides, all one need do is go to any of those boards, at any time, day or night, on any day of the year, and examine a few threads. Finding examples of ad hominem on those boards is equivalent, in terms of difficulty, to finding a returned missionary on the BYU campus. 1
why me Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Yet John Larsen is in the news today, with his band of merry men/women.http://www.huffingto..._n_1637877.htmlhttp://resignmormon.blogspot.co.uk/Making a different kind of impact maybe and still the 'look at me, look at me'. I don't get the fan fare about leaving.I knew that they were in the news but Larsen has not made the impact with his podcasts as Dehlin has done. I think to get press today is rather easy. Have a gimmick such as this mass resignation idea, do it over something secular as gay marriage. Or bring up something that the church practiced over a hundred years ago such as polygamy and claim racism based on denial of priesthood for the african americans before 1978. And then suddenly the internet press picks up on it and a way they go.But what happened to Helen Radkey? She came, she went and now she is gone. Famous for 15 minutes with the press. Edited June 30, 2012 by why me
why me Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Somehow I don't think this board would appreciate me linking to thefoyer.org, MDB, postmormon.org, etc.Besides, all one need do is go to any of those boards, at any time, day or night, on any day of the year, and examine a few threads. Finding examples of ad hominem on those boards is equivalent, in terms of difficulty, to finding a returned missionary on the BYU campus.But you see Will, it is perfectly okay for exmormons to do this because they are not mormon anymore. But if one is still in the church, this freedom is not granted because these people still belong to Christ's church. I don't understand the logic but such is what it is.
William Schryver Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Umm...I don't think it would be in Will's best interest to initiate any thread wanting to extract examples of ad hom in apostate/critic message boards. Why is that?
DBMormon Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I think the appeal has more to do with the format (podcasts). There are have been far more in depth interviews. Scott for instance, has appeared on Q&A national radio shows as well as national news. Podcasts actually tend to be less comprehensive merely because there is no check and balance system. You are limited to the knowledge of the interviewer and there are no footnotes to check sources. So this is, again, part of the successful narrative but even you would have to admit that nationally known figures like those you mention have certainly had more exposure and critique for years than anything on one podcast. Show me where I can read or listen or watch interviews by the men I named where they take on the tough questions in a live interview.??? Edited June 30, 2012 by DBMormon
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Somehow I don't think this board would appreciate me linking to thefoyer.org, MDB, postmormon.org, etc.Besides, all one need do is go to any of those boards, at any time, day or night, on any day of the year, and examine a few threads. Finding examples of ad hominem on those boards is equivalent, in terms of difficulty, to finding a returned missionary on the BYU campus.Don't need links and squabbling on minor message boards doesn't go anywhere. I'm talking about big players saying things such as "Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.” while they criticize others for "ad homimen" or tone as they now call it. They all need to take a deep breath and clean up the "tone", too but they really don't seem to even see let alone acknowledge what they say. It just seems like that is a more practical approach than merely accusing them of it. Just sayin'. 1
Senator Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Why is that?Because of your own history in said boards.Unless of course you yourself are open to such scrutiny, then it might be a truly enlightening exercise.
William Schryver Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Don't need links and squabbling on minor message boards doesn't go anywhere. I'm talking about big players saying things such as "Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.” while they criticize others for "ad homimen" or tone as they now call it. They all need to take a deep breath and clean up the "tone", too but they really don't seem to even see let alone acknowledge what they say. It just seems like that is a more practical approach than merely accusing them of it. Just sayin'.I'm uncertain as to whom you are referring when you say "big players".
William Schryver Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Because of your own history in said boards.Unless of course you yourself are open to such scrutiny, then it might be a truly enlightening exercise.I would that my entire oeuvre of message board posts were open to scrutiny, all in its context within the threads where the posts occur. I have all but pleaded for it to be done.As to my "history", there are two distinct histories: the one that comprises "things as they really were," and the mythological one that exists only in the collective imagination of my numerous enemies and those who have been naively deceived into believing their myth.Again, I call upon all to scrutinize my posting history in its contextual entirety. PLEASE! And anyone who believes they have identified something for which I would do well to apologize, I beg you to bring it to my attention.There are a few people (and I thank them) who have taken the time necessary to scrutinize that history in sufficient detail that they come to recognize that the allegations made against me have no merit and that I have been the target of an extraordinary propaganda campaign, just as the FARMS Review and its many contributing authors have recently been targeted. This is something I predicted a year ago in the wake of the public excitement about me. It is remarkable to see how similar in means and method has been the recent effort to discredit and publicly humiliate Dan Peterson. I expect that this same set of tactics will be employed again in the near future against someone else the apostates would like to see silenced. So long as it continues to be effective, they will not abandon this approach. Edited June 30, 2012 by William Schryver 2
juliann Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Show me where I can read or listen or watch interviews by the men I named where they take on the tough questions in a live interview.???That is an unreasonable request. I don't even know how to respond to a claim that Dan has only been asked hard questions by one interviewer. Surely you aren't claiming that Bushman, of all people, hasn't had unbelievable exposure on every level. Try PBS. I wonder how many LDS themed symposiums he hasn't participated in. Dig up Scott's interview on the Alan Colmes radio broadcast. Now I know you are not going to do that anymore than I am. But it can be settled much more easily than going through all that. Tell us what you heard from the one interview that you think isnot available anywhere else and we can show that to be correct or incorrect or even ask some of the men you listed. (And frankly, I doubt that Dehlin would make this kind of claim for himself. He emphasizes the understanding supportive element from what I have seen) The Patheos column explains the situation quite plainly: http://www.patheos.com//Mormon/Odd-Couple-Rosalynde-Welch-06-29-2012.html .. . . in 2001, there were numerous Mormon journals—including BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Irreantum, and others—that had been dealing with precisely these issues for decades, and by 2004, long before Mormon Stories got started, the Mormon blog-world was well launched on its treatment of the same. To my knowledge, Mormon Stories has not brought to light any new historical knowledge or even any novel historical interpretation; the organization does not fill any actual intellectual void. 3
robuchan Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 It is remarkable to see how similar in means and method has been the recent effort to discredit and publicly humiliate Dan Peterson. I expect that this same set of tactics will be employed again in the near future against someone else the apostates would like to see silenced. So long as it continues to be effective, they will not abandon this approach.I'm confused. Did Delhin fire Peterson? Or did the LDS church fire Peterson?
William Schryver Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I'm confused. Did Delhin fire Peterson? Or did the LDS church fire Peterson?Neither.
Calm Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) But what happened to Helen Radkey? She came, she went and now she is gone. Famous for 15 minutes with the press. It would appear that the new limitations the Church put on inappropriate inputting and accessing of information are working. She won't be news without new material to work with. Edited June 30, 2012 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts