John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Calm]

Link please.

[William Schryver]

Direct, and also confident. Intellectually confident, rhetorically confident, etc. Somehow much of the culture of questioning internet Mormonism has got a bee in its bonnet about any pro-church assertion put forth without a gauze of hems and haws swathing it. It's taken as a personal affront to say to questioners that "Joseph Smith had reasonable and natural reasons for emphasizing different aspects of the First Vision in different accounts" instead of, say, "it's definitely puzzling that the accounts are so different and the church has been very foolish and wrong to emphasize only the one it likes."

Amen, sister. Your comment strikes a blow to the very heart of the matter: the construction of a mythical narrative concerning the nature and effects of the writing served up in the FARMS Review, ultimately employed to deprive those writers of their privilege to publish under the imprimatur of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

Edited February 16, 2013 by William Schryver

[Wiki Wonka]

Link please.

http://www.facebook....l.peterson.3701

The thread on "Commercial Apologetics."

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Bob Oliverio]

Didn't  see this was not posted in the proper thread

I thought from statements here and research that President Hinckley was instrumental in merging  this FARMS into the Church vision of the MI.  And it seemed to have been touted before that this was Prophetic inspiration and guidance.  I thought those involved at the time seemed to revel in this spiritual significance and guidance.  Never seemed it was ever thought as, promoted or described as "small potatoes" when it originated.  Has this prophetic vision and spiritual guidance now been damaged, lost or withdrawn from the MI?

Has the past several days here resulted in collateral damage to the Prophet's vision for either the Maxwell Institute or the new group that is apparently forming from some the MI's old guard?  My observation is that many bonds of friendship, character, trust, MATURITY, and perhaps even perceived integrity have been, if not broken, put into doubt by those on each side of the aisle and left a much damaged image as perceived by those at BYU/The Church or their supporters.

One might conclude that the recent demonstration of name calling and testimony challenges out of personal emotions and hard feelings reflects that the MI has really always just been about personal egos and never guided by the Prophet's vision as originally touted.  And that seems unfortunate for many. Is it just NOW small potatoes for those who once touted such vision but no longer have the control or influence they once enjoyed?

Given the recent demonstration of complete lack of maturity and reciprocal respect between the comers and goers of the "new" and "old" organizations, who would want to be associated with either?

If this was, as has been portrayed, an important part of BYU and the Church as those originally promoting the vision  and significance of President Hinckley's vision, including the powers to be at BYU/The Church, will the display of this past few days change the minds of the powers to be at either level?

Who would invest money, interest or respect the credibility of either group given what has been displayed by those supposedly declaring themselves founders or leaders of either organization over the past few days here?  And perhaps even more important to those involved: "Who now wants to be  associated with them going forward"?  While this Bradford guy never showed on this board (?) seems his reputation and character has been trampled.  And for those who want to start this new thing - what will be their calling card for respect, maturity and investment outside of the small circle that left with them?  I don't know for sure. But I think by recent actions  here there is real need of an image makeover expert!  Maybe for both groups.

And it's too bad really.  The "small potatoes" image of both organizations could have grown to be something of significance I suppose.  But it's looking more and  more like small potatoes may be reduce to hash browns.

But a couple of questions in summary:

Why do those touting President Hinckley's involvement at the beginning now seem so agitated by those assuming the Bretheren and The Church were involved or consulted in the recent change is such an unreasonable posit?  If the formation involved the Bretheren, why is it not a reasonable conclusion to assume they were also involved in what some here claim to be a monumental change of direction?

Worse yet, what should be said of President Hinckley's vision and significance of spiritual guidance originally celebrated for FARMS/MI?  Has the Prophet's vision now been lost?

[Wiki Wonka]

Amen, brother. Your comment strikes a blow to the very heart of the matter: the construction of a mythical narrative concerning the nature and effects of the writing served up in the FARMS Review, ultimately employed to deprive those writers of their privilege to publish under the imprimatur of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

Actually, BFUB...uh.....Ms. O'Brien is a sister.

[Daniel Peterson]

Bob Oliverio, I'll skip your rhetoric (which seems to me, for what it's worth, quite disingenuous) and go directly to your questions:

Why do those touting President Hinckley's involvement at the beginning now seem so agitated by those assuming the Bretheren and The Church were involved or consulted in the recent change is such an unreasonable posit?

I'm not "agitated," though I'm not particularly happy when others ignorantly and sometimes malevolently suggest, in public, that I've been condemned by the leadership of my church.

I simply know for a fact that the claim is untrue.

And I think you've overdone your depiction of our supposed "touting" a bit.

If the formation involved the Bretheren, why is it not a reasonable conclusion to assume they were also involved in what some here claim to be a monumental change of direction?

My knowledge that the Brethren were not involved in the purge is direct and certain. It's not a conclusion reached on the basis of inferences, likelihoods, and suppositions.

Worse yet, what should be said of President Hinckley's vision and significance of spiritual guidance originally celebrated for FARMS/MI? Has the Prophet's vision now been lost?

Perhaps. Which is deeply saddening, if so.

[Calm]

http://www.facebook....l.peterson.3701

The thread on "Commercial Apologetics."

Nothing new has been said that I could see, have I missed something?

And no examples from anyone where FAIR could improve their website unfortunately.

[William Schryver]

Actually, BFUB...uh.....Ms. O'Brien is a sister.

Silly me. I actually should have known that. My apologies, and I'll correct the error.

[Libs]

Has anyone from the group that believes certain apologists' writings have been harmful, to those struggling, ever put up some examples of what they are talking about? I've never seen it and, if there are examples, I'd be interested in seeing them....?

[Wiki Wonka]

Nothing new has been said that I could see, have I missed something?

And no examples from anyone where FAIR could improve their website unfortunately.

The conversion is a repeat of Dehlin claiming that Dr. Peterson "commissioned" an essay. Everyone keeps responding to tell him that is wasn't commissioned, and that Greg Smith wrote it on his own initiative. The claim that an essay was commissioned is a false statement. I'm not sure how many different ways one can say that. There never seems to be progress beyond that point.

I don't think that providing examples where FAIR could improve is anyone's priority. Quite frankly, I get the most useful input on how to improve the FAIR Wiki from critical message boards. The truth is, we've removed much of what anyone might consider objectionable over the past few years. It's kind of hard to fight to get examples of something that isn't there.

WW

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

Has anyone from the group that believes certain apologists' writings have been harmful, to those struggling, ever put up some examples of what they are talking about? I've never seen it and, if there are examples, I'd be interested in seeing them....?

I would be very anxious to see such examples. A lot of things have been written over the years. If some of those materials are dated, or might cause harm, then FAIR would certainly want to do something about it.

WW

[BFUBFBEO'Brien]

Silly me. I actually should have known that. My apologies, and I'll correct the error.

No worries. If I cared about confusing people, I wouldn't have chosen such a ridiculous name. : )

[Calm]

Has anyone from the group that believes certain apologists' writings have been harmful, to those struggling, ever put up some examples of what they are talking about? I've never seen it and, if there are examples, I'd be interested in seeing them....?

There have been a few in the past of FAIR, they are gone now because of course they were changed when pointed out.

There was a thread in the past where some MI material was put up that was supposed to have crossed the line into too much negativity. Some of it was a big stretch. I will see if I can find it.

add: here it is...

Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Wiki Wonka]

There have been a few in the past of FAIR, they are gone now because of course they were changed when pointed out.

There was a thread in the past where some MI material was put up that was supposed to have crossed the line into too much negativity. Some of it was a big stretch. I will see if I can find it.

add: here it is...

http://www.mormondia...ms-if-you-want/

And there I am on post #8 of that thread, saying the same thing that I always say:

I'll make a further commitment. If anyone can point to a specific example of a personal attack made against a critic's person rather than against his or her argument on the FAIR Wiki, then I will correct or remove it.

(BTW, simply quoting someone does not constitute a personal attack...or "ad hominem" if you wish... I didn't suddenly pick up a Latin vocabulary just because I became an apologist).

WW

[Calm]

You might point out on the Facebook thread as evidence that the change at the Institute had not involved church leadership the fact that Dan and Bill haven't been dismissed from their Mormon Times column, which at times carries apologetic material.

[Wiki Wonka]

You might point out on the Facebook thread as evidence that the change at the Institute had not involved church leadership the fact that Dan and Bill haven't been dismissed from their Mormon Times column, which at times carries apologetic material.

Or, I could just post some family pictures instead and probably be a lot happier.

WW

[Calm]

I am not sure I want to get into Facebook stuff...spend way too much time on the computer as it is right now...

[Daniel Peterson]

You might point out on the Facebook thread as evidence that the change at the Institute had not involved church leadership the fact that Dan and Bill haven't been dismissed from their Mormon Times column, which at times carries apologetic material.

That's quite true. I publish a column in the Deseret News every Thursday, and Bill and I publish one together every other Saturday. As Joe Cannon, the former editor of the Deseret News, said to me when he had heard some of the allegations that the Brethren ordered my dismissal because they were displeased with me, "If the Brethren were unhappy with you, you wouldn't have a regular column in the Church's newspaper." (But, as I've said over and over again, my personal knowledge that the Brethren didn't order the purge rests on a far more secure foundation than that.)

[Calm]

I just don't understand why individuals who say that 2 + 2 (or maybe it's more like 10-6...I don't know the complete numbers so that is a guess) = involvement of the Brethren somehow manage to avoid adding in that rather large factor of tolerance, if not acceptance in having you two publish in Deseret News which reaches a much larger audience than Maxwell Institute material ever did.

Generally you hear the refrain of "nothing happens at BYU without the Brethren approving it" from the same individuals that say "nothing happens at Deseret News without the Brethren approving it".

PS: I am one of your 941 Friends now, I feel very special.

Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

I can say with absolute confidence that the Brethren haven't the faintest idea who I am. I'm sure if they did they would purge me.

[Libs]

There have been a few in the past of FAIR, they are gone now because of course they were changed when pointed out.

There was a thread in the past where some MI material was put up that was supposed to have crossed the line into too much negativity. Some of it was a big stretch. I will see if I can find it.

add: here it is...

http://www.mormondia...ms-if-you-want/

Ah, thanks, Calmoriah. I just read through that entire thread. I remember it....I even commented at the end. There was not much "there" there, was there? A few little items, but not really much of substance, considering all the fuss.

[Daniel Peterson]

I can say with absolute confidence that the Brethren haven't the faintest idea who I am. I'm sure if they did they would purge me.

LOL. You think they don't know who you are. And they are about to purge you.

Three years ought to be long enough for you to learn your way around Pyongyang, don't you think?

[Darren10]

Perhaps. Which is deeply saddening, if so.

Yup. The new MI leaders do seem to sport a certain pair of glasses which obscure Hinkley's vision of FARMS.

[Calm]

A few little items, but not really much of substance, considering all the fuss.

Well, since you are the one saying it, not me...yes, I completely agree with you.

[Wiki Wonka]

Ah, thanks, Calmoriah. I just read through that entire thread. I remember it....I even commented at the end. There was not much "there" there, was there? A few little items, but not really much of substance, considering all the fuss.

Well, like I just said over on MDB, most of the complaints about FAIR's tone actually seem to be related to message board postings rather than to things that FAIR has written or said to individuals. The problem with that is that FAIR hasn't sponsored a message board for about six years now, but everyone still thinks that we do. I've always been of the opinion that message boards and apologetics don't really mix. There is too much tendency to react emotionally on a message board, and too much tendency to assign motives to new posters on the assumption that they might be trolls. Nobody is skilled enough to figure out a person's true motives on the internet. We can't even adequately express humor on the internet without the aid of smileys. That's why with "Ask the Apologist," we are required to assume that the questioner is sincere, even if they may appear not to be. Sometimes we are surprised to find that someone who appeared insincere, actually was sincere.

I prefer writing things and posting them on the Wiki, because you have a chance to remove the emotional element. An article or essay need not make assumptions about the person reading it.

WW

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wiki Wonka