Defamation: The Apostate Grand Strategy?

[wenglund]

Do you not find any truth in the substance of Robuchan's post?

I don't share his/her opinion.

It seems like you have attacked his character, rather than what he has said.

It is clear that you don't understand the important difference between an investigatory question and an attack.

Be that as it may, I find it interesting that you were so quick to express concern about the alleged attakc on the character of someone posting anonymously (I am not sure how that works or why it would matter in cases on anonymity), while yet remaining silent thus far about the alleged attack on the character of a person posting under his IRL name; and that you thought to note that I didn't address what the anonymous poster had said, while failing to note that the comments of the anonymous poster didn't address what the OP had said, and that you are also here not addressing what I said.

Do you see the irony here as well?

The good news is, since you are posting anonymously, your unflattering irony won't reflect poorly on your IRL character, so you are somewhat safe there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There's a lot emotionally ladened accusation infused with all this. It would be nice to be able to cut through it and assess what has actually been said and done.

This emotionally laden accusation is made all the more rich in irony with the call for public disclosure by someone posting anonymously. Hilarious!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[yootaw]

I don't share his/her opinion.

It is clear that you don't understand the important difference between an investigatory question and an attack.

Be that as it may, I find it interesting that you were so quick to express concern about the alleged attakc on the character of someone posting anonymously (I am not sure how that works or why it would matter in cases on anonymity), while yet remaining silent thus far about the alleged attack on the character of a person posting under his IRL name; and that you thought to note that I didn't address what the anonymous poster had said, while failing to note that the comments of the anonymous poster didn't address what the OP had said, and that you are also here not addressing what I said.

Do you see the irony here as well?

The good news is, since you are posting anonymously, your unflattering irony won't reflect poorly on your IRL character, so you are somewhat safe there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, as indicated in my first post, I do see the irony. However, I think that it is funny that you assign so much value to posting under your real name. Does posting under your real name somehow make your comments more right? There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the kindness of posts and the use of real names (unless it is a negative correlation -- some of the most mean-spirited posts are posted without psuedonym).

I believe that I understand the difference between an investigatory question and an attack. I will take your word that you meant it otherwise, it just didn't read that way to me. Personally, I think that robuchan's post was very thoughtful.

Extremist critics and extremist apoligists seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. Both use tactics that I don't endorse. There also seem to be a lot of space in the middle to share ideas thoughtfully, and with respect.

Edited July 14, 2012 by yootaw

[ERayR]

Yes, as indicated in my first post (# , I do see the irony. However, I think that it is funny that you assign so much value to posting under your real name. Does posting under your real name somehow make your comments more right? There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the kindness of posts and the use of real names (unless it is a negative correlation -- some of the most mean-spirited posts are posted without psuedonym).

Take a stroll over to the anti-Mormon boards and you should be able to see the difference.

[yootaw]

Take a stroll over to the anti-Mormon boards and you should be able to see the difference.

I agree that in general there is more vehemence on the other board. I see a degree of difference though, not a complete difference. Do you feel otherwise? If so, I wonder if it is because you identify more with the opinions on this board?

[Senator]

This emotionally laden accusation is made all the more rich in irony with the call for public disclosure by someone posting anonymously. Hilarious!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you disagreeing with me that emotion is playing a role in peoples speech and reactions.

Are you also saying that a private, anonymous individual has no right to request public disclosure of a public entities request for a public response to a private affair?

Was Bill's public call for response only for IRL individuals. Would he turn down anonymous supporters to his cause? If this is the case, perhaps he should have clarified.

Regardless, your response to mine is a classic example of killing the messenger, without addressing the message!

Edited July 14, 2012 by Senator

[ERayR]

I agree that in general there is more vehemence on the other board. I see a degree of difference though, not a complete difference. Do you feel otherwise? If so, I wonder if it is because you identify more with the opinions on this board?

No it not that I agree more with the opinions on this board although I am sure that plays into it to a small degree. I spent a large portion of my past in agriculture, in animal husbandry. Part of animal husbandry is keeping pens and barns clean, which requires cleanup of animal waste. I have only been to some of those other sites less than half a dozen times but when I do it leaves me feeling like I am walking through an uncleaned animal enclosure.

There is some posting on this board that is uncalled for and I on occasion have been guilty myself, but continue to repent when I catch myself. However, though I have seen Bill Hamblin, Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson defend points with vigor and sharpness I do not believe they were beyond the limits of decorum.

Hope this answers your questions.

[Robert F. Smith]

Bill, I've thought for years the tone from you and others in your camp have been unnecessarily aggressive. On the flip side, the Mormon Stories movement doesn't appeal to me much, and I find most of their complaining to be annoying.

I have a few comments.

1. You and your friends seem to create a lot of enemies. I think you are proud of that, and equate it to some sort of evil vs righteousness thing. I think it would be good for you to challenge that assumption and look internally at the possibility that it is a negative thing not a positive thing.

2. I'm not sure you have a good perception of your enemies. It could be a guy sitting next to you in Gospel Doctrine, attending church, paying his tithing, doing his home teaching, struggling with his testimony, reaching out to an online anonymous community where he can get emotional support from other people in similar situation. The range of people who are involved with online communities or who are sympathetic to the individuals you attack is very wide. A lot of them are the same people that would be in a trench with you if it came down to truly choosing sides the church vs its true enemies.

3. When you start a fight with someone, you should be prepared for your nose to get bloodied. You can't always control everything in a fight. Your opponent might do things you think are ethically and morally wrong. Chances are they think you're doing things ethically and morally wrong, also. That's why it's a fight. It appears you're losing this fight, so I recommend thinking through a new strategy.

As an old karate-ka, I understand your suggestion that if you play a man's game you should be prepared to pay a man's price. That rule applies on the larger organizational scale as well as at the individual level, and the Church seems able to deal fairly well with the hits it has to take. We are playing for high stakes and on a world stage.

You recommend a new strategy. What would that consist of? Do you like the shift at NAMIRS? Are you comfortable with the approach of FAIR? Do you think that LDS public relations and the various websites operated by the Church are acceptable? Would you recommend changes?

I see no evidence at all that Bill Hamblin and his close friends are "losing this fight," but perhaps you could specify how you see them as losing, and what they are losing.

Do you think that the Church has no real enemies? Or do you think that the Church or Bill actually create whatever enemies are out there? Are enemies created by the Church PR system and missionary work? Why do evangelicals have such loathing for Mormons? Why do evangelical bookstores feature inaccurate, hate-filled books about Mormons, while Mormon bookstores never feature hate books?

Is it because the Jews were at fault that they have been hated, reviled, and persecuted for centuries? Did the Jews create their own enemies? Were Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler correct in their desire to harm Jews and burn their synagogues? Is the Anti-Defamation League too aggressive? Maybe if Jews would stop being Jewish they would be left in peace?

Edited July 14, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[yootaw]

No it not that I agree more with the opinions on this board although I am sure that plays into it to a small degree. I spent a large portion of my past in agriculture, in animal husbandry. Part of animal husbandry is keeping pens and barns clean, which requires cleanup of animal waste. I have only been to some of those other sites less than half a dozen times but when I do it leaves me feeling like I am walking through an uncleaned animal enclosure.

There is some posting on this board that is uncalled for and I on occasion have been guilty myself, but continue to repent when I catch myself. However, though I have seen Bill Hamblin, Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson defend points with vigor and sharpness I do not believe they were beyond the limits of decorum.

Hope this answers your questions.

It does. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan writes:

Bill, I've thought for years the tone from you and others in your camp have been unnecessarily aggressive. On the flip side, the Mormon Stories movement doesn't appeal to me much, and I find most of their complaining to be annoying.

I have nearly always found that this is a rather hyperbolic statement. After all, I doubt very much that you have read a lot of what Bill Hamblin has written. Generally, this focuses on a very narrow selection aimed at making this point, on not on the sum total or value of his contributions.

The challenge with polemics in religious discourse is that it is pervasive. The New Testament (and even the Old Testament) has lots of it. Our early religious leaders used it regularly. We even find it in our canon - after all, our articles of faith talk about the primitive church - but the primitive church, at least conceptually, is aimed at critiquing both Catholicism and the various Protestant movements who claimed to represent historic Christianity (what preceded that historic Christianity is the primitive church). Yet, we don't find vocal criticism of church leaders over their language and their approach, we don't find vocal criticism over the polemics in scripture. We do hear a great deal of vocal criticism from the critics that are being challenged in some of the apologetic literature that is being produced. As you note, Robuchan:

The range of people who are involved with online communities or who are sympathetic to the individuals you attack is very wide. A lot of them are the same people that would be in a trench with you if it came down to truly choosing sides the church vs its true enemies.

Perhaps you understand the flaw here. In being sympathetic with those who are "attacked", we wouldn't expect any other response than a negative response. But this avoids the real issue. Is it appropriate to expose heresy? Is it appropriate to examine and be critical of those who are attacking the church in a way that is at times aggressive?

I believe that it is quite appropriate. And my experience seems to be quite different from yours.

When you start a fight with someone, you should be prepared for your nose to get bloodied. You can't always control everything in a fight.

Perhaps you might recognize how this gets turned around right? Does an apologist start the fight when they respond to an attack on faith? And yet, those critics, who are often the loudest in this fight, are the ones crying foul because they are getting their nose bloodied. Here I see a not so subtle attempt to try and make the agressor into a victim. To label the apologists as the agressor when the very word apologist means "a defense".

It appears you're losing this fight, so I recommend thinking through a new strategy.

I don't think so. I wonder if, perhaps, it is the success that the apologists have had - evident both in terms of funding and in the wide range of published work that has been produced (of which only a fraction is the sort of aggressive literature you seem to be complaining about) that has tended to increase the level of rhetoric from the critics. Why is it that the critics, instead of responding are reduced to crying foul, to claiming that the apologist is being too aggressive? Why is it that a John Dehlin feels the need to try and have those that are responding to him silenced through an emotional appeal?

Perhaps you need to reconsider your own biases in this discussion, no?

Ben

[why me]

Only an incompetent church would listen to the apostates and punish these good men for it.

I don't think that these guys have been punished by the church at all. Most likely, they were punished by MI or other organizations. I think that at that time the common viewpoint was that these men represent the church in some way and because of this their behavior was less than satisfactory. However, it was not the church but a group of people able to suppress publication of their written work. Lets call it a board of their peers.

[why me]

Do you think that the Church has no real enemies? Or do you think that the Church or Bill actually create whatever enemies are out there? Why do evangelicals have such loathing for Mormons? Why do evangelical bookstores feature inaccurate, hate-filled books about Mormons, while Mormon bookstores never feature hate books?

Robert please stop making sense. Don't you see that you are talking to the wind? These people are not interested in common sense. They are interested in criticizing the lds church. Imagine the outcry if lds bookstores would have hit pieces on the catholic and protestant churches? The outcry from both groups would be harsh as it would be from the critics.

[ERayR]

Robert please stop making sense. Don't you see that you are talking to the wind? These people are not interested in common sense. They are interested in criticizing the lds church. Imagine the outcry if lds bookstores would have hit pieces on the catholic and protestant churches? The outcry from both groups would be harsh as it would be from the critics.

And deserved.

[rpn]

I'm thinking that if the statements were actually defamatory, you should ask that they be sent to a lab for fingerprints and other clues to the identity. And then you should write them and ask them to cease and desist, as it is defamation. The reason this continues is that no one is held accountable. At the point that someone IS, the rest will likely think twice. (Of course there are issues about whether you are a public figure and therefore whether you have to prove the falsity, rather than the perp.)

[Darren10]

What I find interesting about this brief encounter is that it represents what seems to have become a new standard operating procedure of apostates and anti-Mormons. If anyone dares to criticize them, publish a negative review, respond to their claims, or stand up to their attacks against the church and its members, the new standard apostate tactic is to relentlessly defame that person on their message boards, and to send defamatory letters to general authorities, work supervisors, editors, journalists–anyone who might listen to them. Their clear goal in this matter is to silence their critics by whatever means possible.

These letters are always anonymous and/or secret. Their victim rarely knows what is said about him by the apostates. The victim likewise has no chance to respond to the defamation. The apostates and anti-Mormons don’t, in fact want to engage the issues and ideas of their critics; their goal is to suppress and censor the publication of ideas they dislike, while defaming the authors. Indeed, the last thing they want is for the issues discussed openly and publicly in the marketplace of ideas. They rarely respond to the actual arguments; instead they claim their critics are nothing more than ad hominem bullies and liars.

They continue to do this because they believe these tactics have been successful in the past year. They have done it to Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, and are now trying it on me. Undoubtedly anyone else who dares criticize them will be subjected to similar tactics in the future, because the apostates believe their tactics work. And perhaps they do.

Yes, and the best thing you can do in response to their attempts to silence you is for you to keep talking. If they want you to quiet down, get a bit louder. You yourself do not need to degegrate your character to do so but be resolute and determined to carry on what you do.

On the other hand, I have obviously been critical of Jerry Bradford’s activities at the Maxwell Institute. However, I published my criticisms under my own name in a public forum, to which Bradford has had a full opportunity to respond if he’d like. I sent no letters to Bradford’s superiors at work, nor to any general authorities. I would never think of doing so. This simply represents a serious difference of opinion regarding the policies of the Maxwell Institute, playing out as an extended open public rational discourse and argument, not secret attempts at censorship and defamation.

My concern is not about public criticism of me by apostates and anti-Mormons. That is an integral part of the academic enterprise. The problem is the secret (and often anonymous) defamation of people through poison pen letters sent to general authorities, work supervisors, or journalists designed to suppress debate and censor and silence people who disagree with and criticize the apostates. In my opinion, these practices need to be publicly exposed and vigorously opposed.

Attempting to challenge you secretly should most definitely be loked down upon by the LDS community, especially by its leaders.

Carry on, Bill.

[Darren10]

One more comment.

Once again, it appears the MI crew is angry at church leaders and taking it out on the apostates.

Bill says Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson have already been taken down by these tactics. But what are the tactics exactly? Writing anonymous letters or otherwise appealing to these men's bosses and other church leaders. Not exactly war crime material.

Only an incompetent church would listen to the apostates and punish these good men for it.

You're railing at the wrong group.

Ummm, here's what Bill said:

They continue to do this because they believe these tactics have been successful in the past year. They have done it to Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, and are now trying it on me. Undoubtedly anyone else who dares criticize them will be subjected to similar tactics in the future, because the apostates believe their tactics work. And perhaps they do.

He suggested that "these tactics" of silencing their opponents may work. Becuase of the perception that they work these secretive accusations are continued to be used. I would fully agree that the LDS leadership would be imcompetent to act upon secretive accusations, however, the only person I can think of that applies to Bill's assertion that "[pehaps" these tactics work would be Dan Peterson's firing. And that's directly on Jerry Bradford’s head, nobody elses. Now, if it turns out that Bradford has given ear to the apostates than I've no desire for him to work out of Brigham Young University. Period. Let him do his work without LDS church funds.

[Bob Crockett]

Becuase of the perception that they work these secretive accusations are continued to be used. I would fully agree that the LDS leadership would be imcompetent to act upon secretive accusations, however, the only person I can think of that applies to Bill's assertion that "[pehaps" these tactics work would be Dan Peterson's firing. And that's directly on Jerry Bradford’s head,

Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.

I'd say anonymous posters on all sides look pretty foolish in this controversy.

[tyler90az]

Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.

I'd say anonymous posters on all sides look pretty foolish in this controversy.

I think even people who are not anonymous look foolish. To be blunt, this whole thing is ridiculous and sheds bad light on the Church.

This is a general statement, not directed at you Bob, this is the first post I have read from you.

[Darren10]

Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.

I'd say anonymous posters on all sides look pretty foolish in this controversy.

Bill Hamblim is hardly an anomynous poster. His reporting on the Maxwell institute was based on his own knowledge he learned from first hand sources. And do not let it pass you that I phrased my comment conditionally. I said, "if it turns out that Bradford...". I'm quite open to the possibility that Bradford did not listen to apostates in deciding to unethically fire Dan Peterson.

As for anonymity, there beng such crazy people out there I do not blame anyone for wanting to be anomynous. Bill uses his first and last name while I only use my firts name though on my own personal blog, which I hardly ever use, I give my last name out as well. I also name my entire family. And my gravatar is indeed my own pretty face (with ear protection from the gun fire at the range). It does not bther me that someone uses another name when posting comments online. as long as that person is consistante in using that name and completely open in any other names he/she uses, in otherp laces on the web, I'm OK with that. What's important to me is that one is able to credit comments to the correct person. The danger of being anomynous is that the person can change names and deny comments he/she has made. That annoys me when discovered.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Bob;

Also, please remember that Bill Hamblin has opened a public dialogue with the Maxwell Institute to answer the charges he's laid against them. There's nothing secretive or anomynous about that.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Darren10

[cacheman]

As an apostate myself, I believe that anonymously contacting someone's employer, colleagues, ecclesiastical leader, or other associates to level complaints is generally a cowardly action.

This is not a standard operating procedure of apostates as far as I'm aware. I don't personally know of any apostates in my circle of acquaintance that would do something like that. I think it would be wrongheaded to defame apostates in general, by implying that that this is their standard operating procedure.

[why me]

Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.

The problem was with how the firing was done: by email when the person was out of the country. That was my problem with the whole business.

[why me]

As an apostate myself, I believe that anonymously contacting someone's employer, colleagues, ecclesiastical leader, or other associates to level complaints is generally a cowardly action.

.

There are alot of cowards out there. I don't understand why they would need to be anonymous about it. It would be between the person and the person getting the complaint. Why be anonymous at all?

[Bill Hamblin]

As an apostate myself, I believe that anonymously contacting someone's employer, colleagues, ecclesiastical leader, or other associates to level complaints is generally a cowardly action.

This is not a standard operating procedure of apostates as far as I'm aware. I don't personally know of any apostates in my circle of acquaintance that would do something like that. I think it would be wrongheaded to defame apostates in general, by implying that that this is their standard operating procedure.

I don't blame all apostates. I'm sure only a few are involved. On the other hand, the madness at the Bedlam Board reacting to this issue would indicate that most of the apostates there support the practice and think it not only justified, but a moral imperative. From their perspective, I am a "pathetic coward" for merely pointing out what is really going on. It is simply astonishing that they seem to believe that this behavior by apostates is somehow caused by some moral failure on my part. It is unmitigated nincompoopery.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[treehugger]

I posted the following on my blog: ...

As I was walking on my way to class today, my department chairman laughingly told me he had received letters from several people denouncing me regarding the recent scandal at the Maxwell Institute–”the blogosphere is afire” he chuckled, adding he had ignored the letters. I suspect the same, or similar letters have also been written to my dean and the university president, and perhaps even a general authority.

What I find interesting about this brief encounter is that it represents what seems to have become a new standard operating procedure of apostates and anti-Mormons. ...

IIRC, many people vowed to pen letters or contacted the powers that be, to state that they will now withhold monies from MI because of DCP removal and the nature of the removal. And many here called into question Bradfords character.

Did your Department Chair state whether the letters chuckled at where letters were in favor of the decision or letters claiming that the faithful member who penned the letter will now be withholding funds from MI.

Edited July 14, 2012 by treehugger