The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If any member of my family had a faith crisis would I want them to turn to John Dehlin and his resources? Absolutely and emphatically not. I would hope that they would allow me to help them. I would have no hesitation in using the NAMI and FAIR and would encourage them to use those resources along with Michael Ash's Shaken Faith Syndrome. However sincere John Dehlin might be, I would not view what he offers as helpful in restoring faith.

And you would be smart if your goal is to keep them in the church. Having listened to John Dehlin for a long time, I can't ever remember him saying that his goal was to keep people in the church or to help people restore their faith. John is interesting in sharing people's stories, validating people's faith journeys in and out of the church. I believe that if John expressed his desires it would be to help people find peace and happiness whether they stay in the church or leave the church. I don't think John has hidden his motives at all, and that he has been very open and honest about his own faith journey. But to the extent that people are unfamiliar with John and what he does, I'm sure that Greg's article is helpful in that regard (not as a balanced piece, but basically showing that John's motivation is not to restore people to the faith).

Edited March 5, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Libs]

Calling someone a thug is not only attacking one's method but also one's character. Could he at least muster up the courage to say that adultery is immoral and not at all tolerated at Mormon Stories events?

I believe he said "thuggish behavior" (and I haven't claimed that John has not attacked). What would you call insinuating that someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

[Verum]

Early in my faith crises, FAIR was a big help, it truly was. I think a lot the resources on the FAIR page as well as the wiki are useful and help a lot of people. Even if I find a lot of the work unsatisfying from an intellectual standpoint, I don't necessarily find fault in the authors because I think they are difficult issues. I don't think anyone leaves over apologists themselves--maybe justs not finding satisfying answers to their questions. I have heard of some people becoming very disheartened by some of the tactics used FAIR/FARMS in some of the scholarly responses, but I doubt it lead to their leaving the church. It may have turned them off though to taking other FAIR publications seriously. Below are some small examples of the kind of things disappointing to me where you can see the focus on vilifying and discrediting the author as opposed to addressing their work.

Duane Boyce On Michael Quinn

“A person has to work hard to think this poorly; it is the sheerest kind of sophistry.”

“To some degree a determined and willful blindness must be at work to produce this much distortion.”

I wish Quinn would not speak as casually as he does of sacred things. He writes of these matters in the same tone he might use to describe dinner appointments or baseball scores. I have no hesitation in saying that this is just wrong and that only a peculiar and deep kind of blindness could fail to see that it is wrong.”

Nibley on Fawn Brodie, where you can see the polemic style to completely discredit Brodie as a credible source…

Nothing could more clearly reveal its own sad lack of resources or its pathetic eagerness to find some sort of explanation for Joseph Smith than this acclaim of such a poor effort to make seminar rhetoric sound like history.

I think less of these snide kind of remarks would really help dialogue be more constructive.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Verum

[cinepro]

To follow up on my previous analogy about the marraige counseling, another experience came to mind.

When I was on my mission (in the eastern US), I hit a particularly rough spot with serious depression. At a certain point, my mission president scheduled an appointment with a local psychiatrist. While this psychiatrist had talked with a lot of missionaries over the years, she wasn't actually LDS.

I've often thought about why my mission president would send the missionaries to a non-LDS psychiatrist. I think, in the end, it was best because she was able to be extremely objective; I suspect that an LDS doctor, no matter how professional, would always harbor some desire to help the missionaries stay in the field even if it were best for them to go home. And in sharing my experiences with her, I didn't feel any pressure to live up to an expectation; I could just be totally honest.

So I could see the value for someone who is struggling with the Church to have someone to talk to that is more "neutral" than a Church leader or apologist. I'm not arguing against the value of Mormon Stories or a counselor in theory. I'm only arguing that someone who would assume a position of such trust needs to be totally upfront and honest about where they're coming from.

Edited March 5, 2013 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

Early in my faith crises, FAIR was a big help, it truly was. I think a lot the resources on the FAIR page as well as the wiki are useful and help a lot of people. Even if I find a lot of the work unsatisfying from an intellectual standpoint, I don't necessarily find fault in the authors because I think they are difficult issues. I don't think anyone leaves over apologists themselves--maybe justs not finding satisfying answers to their questions. I have heard of some people becoming very disheartened by some of the tactics used FAIR/FARMS in some of the scholarly responses, but I doubt it lead to their leaving the church. It may have turned them off though on taking other FAIR publications seriously though. Below are some small examples of the kind of things disappointing to me where you see focus on vilifying and discrediting the author as opposed to addressing their work.

Duane Boyce On Michael Quinn

Nibley on Fawn Brodie, where you can see the polemic style to completely discredit Brodie as a credible source…

I think less of these snide kind of remarks would really help dialogue be more constructive.

I wasn't particularly impressed with Boyce's review, though, of course, Quinn has had several other reviewers.

For the record, I think there are rather less of these snide kinds of remarks than the critics of FARMS and FAIR popularly suppose. I've read all forty volumes of the review, 240 plus authors) and the complete Hugh Nibley. I've got a very clear picture of what is typical (Boyce has only four articles at the Maxwell Institute site, including one taking issue with Hugh Nibley's views), and what is exceptional, what is supported, and what is not. And it would be very challenging indeed to find anything as mean spirited and simultaneously unsupported as we regularly get coming the other way, John Dehlin's diagnosis of Daniel Peterson for instance, went way beyond snide. Even the concept of "hit piece", suggesting thuggish character assassination, is, way beyond snide, and worse, not at all accurate.

I personally prefer writing in which I can feel, to borrow a phrase from J. G. Ballard, the writer's "hot breath in my face." (He was describing his reaction to Ray Bradbury.) I prefer writing that admits to coming from a person, not an imitation of an unfeeling, dispassionate machine, or for another unhelpful mode, a walking talking breathing embodiment of socially mediated correctness that feels deeply but does not think. Through the writing in the FARMS Review, and through FAIR, I feel like I've met a great many individuals. And if I were to decide to represent Hugh Nibley's character and quality with a few representative quotes, it would be quite easy to come up with something far more telling that that.

I think that if people obtained broader, and more personal perspectives, much constructive understanding could occur.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Darren10]

I believe he said "thuggish behavior" (and I haven't claimed that John has not attacked). What would you call insinuating that someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

A wolf in sheeps clothing is simply describing someone who is using a tactic of appearing angelic / harmless but whose real / inner intent is that of not caring to help those he / she claims to be helping. In the end, a wolf in sheeps clothing does more harm than good. 'Thuggish behavior' connotates oppression by force. It denotes intimidation on the part of one who is an aggressor. A "thug" hurts people intentionally in order to make a point. There is no such inherent connotation in describing someone as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

While on Dan Peterson's facebook I called out John Dehlin in his baring alse witness against Dan Peterson and apologusts. He replied that he had never lied about anyone intentionally. My response was to say that his "auto hagiographic" depiction can only go so far and the frequent attacks he made upon appologists can hardly be considered accidental. I stand by those words as I find them accurate and based directly on his own words which I read with my own eyes.

[Verum]

For the record, I think there are rather less of these snide kinds of remarks than the critics of FARMS and FAIR popularly suppose.

I agree.

And it would be very challenging indeed to find anything as mean spirited and simultaneously unsupported as we regularly get coming the other way, John Dehlin's diagnosis of Daniel Peterson for instance, went way beyond snide. Even the concept of "hit piece", suggesting thuggish character assassination, is, way beyond snide, and worse, not at all accurate.

Perhaps your perception is right, but the key difference though is that John is not attempting to produce official scholarly work directed at any one specific apologist or group. He hosts a podcast, a forum to discuss the issues, and for a time, allowed for support communities. The purpose of my previous posts was to show examples of where FAIR/FARMS publications often overstep boundaries in their scholarly work.

Maybe the term "hit piece" is over the top, but I can't think of anything more insulting of ones character within a Mormon context then to compares ones actions similar to other anti-mormons and characterize you as a wolf in sheeps clothing. That's pretty tough. I mean, is there really anything else that would be more evil then that from a Mormon perspective?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Verum

[Darren10]

I agree.

Perhaps your perception is right, but the key difference though is that John is not attempting to produce official scholarly work directed at any one specific apologist or group. He hosts a podcast, a forum to discuss the issues, and for a time, allowed for support communities. The purpose of my previous posts was to show examples of where FAIR/FARMS publications often overstep boundaries in their scholarly work.

Maybe the term "hit piece" is over the top, but I can't think of anything more insulting of ones character within a Mormon context then to compares ones actions similar to other anti-mormons and characterize you as a wolf in sheeps clothing. That's pretty tough. I mean, is there really anything else that would be more evil then that from a Mormon perspective?

Here's the review you cited from: http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=2&id=271

One thing I'd like to note, if I can, is that John Dehlin criticizes LDS appologists without ever reading their works. I have not read through the above linked review, nor am I familiar with the original book in question: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. But one thing seems clear is that Duane Boyce did read and analyse Michael Quinn's book before reviewing it. I think this alone creates a stark difference between Mormon Stories and the Maxwell Institute's reviews; despte how you may regard MI's reviewers being snide.

Ditto for FAIR.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Darren10

[pmccombs1]

So I could see the value for someone who is struggling with the Church to have someone to talk to that is more "neutral" than a Church leader or apologist. I'm not arguing against the value of Mormon Stories or a counselor in theory. I'm only arguing that someone who would assume a position of such trust needs to be totally upfront and honest about where they're coming from.

I think that SeekingUnderstanding's earlier post seems to match with what I have been reading about brother Dehlin. He isn't trying to heal the particular faith that belongs to the faithful, believing Mormon. I think he's trying to work out how one can essentially be an unbeliever (of some degree or other) and still participate actively in the Church, or even to leave it without having one's world come crashing down. What if one's conscience is at odds with the Church or the gospel? Must one leave? Or should one leave? And I think even brother Dehlin is perhaps conflicted on that score.

This is a difficult position to articulate, especially in a culture where things are seen as, "either you are or you aren't." It's all this third-way thinking (which I am rather fond of myself). It's confusing to people who see things as one-or-the-other, all-or-nothing. So even in trying to be honest, it is easy to come across as ambiguous or ambivalent or confusing. Perhaps a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Naturally, there will be conflict and I think both sides are going to say things that are uncharitable and judge each other poorly.

[Scott Gordon]

I'm trying not to derail the thread here. This is meant to stay on topic about this "uncivil" war. If it derails the thread, I give permission for the mods to move it.

I think there is a misunderstanding of FAIR and what we do. I have been disheartened by the personal and mean-spirited attacks against FAIR and the MI as well as the people who are involved. John has, unfortunately, been a cheerleader in this effort. It is difficult to read about how much he cares when you are directly in his cross hairs. I'm sure he does care. But, in some of his postings, he has been less than careful in his kindness. It is a human thing to do when you disagree with someone.

So where does this come from?

I sometimes get the feeling that if a member of the church says something on a message board, that it is the claimed it represents the opinion of FAIR, even when that person is not a FAIR volunteer. The noun “FAIR” seems to be sometimes interchangeable with “any believing member on the Internet who expresses an opinion.”

If it is a BYU person expressing their opinion, it seems to be thought that it must be the opinion of the MI.

Neither position would be true.

FAIR is a collection of volunteers. The volunteers don't get paid. BYU doesn't pay us. The Church doesn't pay us. We don't get salaries. The volunteers are there to try to help people through their faith struggles. People email us and ask questions. The volunteers email back. The various volunteers give a variety of responses. Because we have a diverse group of volunteers, there is a diverse set of answers. We have conservative members, we have liberal members, we have intellectuals, we have scholars, we have non-intellectuals, we have non-scholars (I know there are some who would like to put me with those last two adjectives.) We have a variety of political beliefs. We don't agree in many areas. We have members who are very tactful, and some who are less tactful. But all of them try their best to be kind with their responses.

Some of those members also post on message boards. The fact that someone may post on a message board, who also spends time volunteering with FAIR, does not mean that FAIR endorses their opinion or tactics on that message board. Think of volunteers on a suicide help line. (No, I am not comparing struggling people to suicide victims. It is simply an analogy.) Those people who volunteer time on that hotline also have a life outside of working on the hotline. But, most of the complaints I have seen on this message board relate to non-FAIR type people.

As we run into issues, we try to collaborate and write responses on the FAIR Wiki.

We invite people to speak at our conference every August. The talks are not previewed or screened, or even read in advance. We simply invite the people who we think might be interesting. FAIR volunteers do not always agree with every talk.

We have a blog that is open to our volunteers. Blog posts represent the individual volunteers. Not everyone always agrees.

I am president. I sometimes say things representing FAIR. I am not perfect (as my mistakes have been discussed on this board.) But, I try to be accurate and never purposefully misrepresent things. As I am a big believer in people finding their own peace, I would never want to attack anyone for a loss of belief. I try to stick with the "what you see is what you get" rule. It was recently pointed out that one of my comments in an email was cryptic. My response was to interpret my words in the least complicated way possible. I don't do intrigue well.

I see claims that FAIR is mean. I see claims that FAIR attacks the person and doesn't deal with the issue. In one of John's recent videos he seems to talk at length on this. I have been told that FAIR would be ok if we would just stop attacking people. I have yet to see an example given that substantiates that anyone does that.

If there is anything I can do to clear this up, I would be happy to discuss it.

[ERayR]

Ray, if individuals are completely responsible for their own behavior, then how can anyone blame John Dehlin for anything other than his own decisions, regarding the church?

I have not blamed Dehlin for anything other than his own bad behavior. I do not think, as others may, that he is responsible for anyone leaving the church. His responsibility is for the bad information he he disseminated. Those that relied on what he peddled are ultimately responsible for how they use it in their own lives.

On validation by others. We should never look to any, but God, for validation for how we live. I am not responsible for your behavior nor you for mine and I have no right or authority to validate what you do nor you me. Now before someone reads more into this than what I am saying: we do have an obligation to offer and provide assistance in many forms to those in need of it.

[USU78]

Ray, if individuals are completely responsible for their own behavior, then how can anyone blame John Dehlin for anything other than his own decisions, regarding the church?

The roue bears no responsibility for the deflowered virgin he disgraces. It's all her fault she permitted her seduction.

Gotcha.

[Tacenda]

I'm trying not to derail the thread here. This is meant to stay on topic about this "uncivil" war. If it derails the thread, I give permission for the mods to move it.

I think there is a misunderstanding of FAIR and what we do. I have been disheartened by the personal and mean-spirited attacks against FAIR and the MI as well as the people who are involved. John has, unfortunately, been a cheerleader in this effort. It is difficult to read about how much he cares when you are directly in his cross hairs. I'm sure he does care. But, in some of his postings, he has been less than careful in his kindness. It is a human thing to do when you disagree with someone.

So where does this come from?

I sometimes get the feeling that if a member of the church says something on a message board, that it is the claimed it represents the opinion of FAIR, even when that person is not a FAIR volunteer. The noun “FAIR” seems to be sometimes interchangeable with “any believing member on the Internet who expresses an opinion.”

If it is a BYU person expressing their opinion, it seems to be thought that it must be the opinion of the MI.

Neither position would be true.

FAIR is a collection of volunteers. The volunteers don't get paid. BYU doesn't pay us. The Church doesn't pay us. We don't get salaries. The volunteers are there to try to help people through their faith struggles. People email us and ask questions. The volunteers email back. The various volunteers give a variety of responses. Because we have a diverse group of volunteers, there is a diverse set of answers. We have conservative members, we have liberal members, we have intellectuals, we have scholars, we have non-intellectuals, we have non-scholars (I know there are some who would like to put me with those last two adjectives.) We have a variety of political beliefs. We don't agree in many areas. We have members who are very tactful, and some who are less tactful. But all of them try their best to be kind with their responses.

Some of those members also post on message boards. The fact that someone may post on a message board, who also spends time volunteering with FAIR, does not mean that FAIR endorses their opinion or tactics on that message board. Think of volunteers on a suicide help line. (No, I am not comparing struggling people to suicide victims. It is simply an analogy.) Those people who volunteer time on that hotline also have a life outside of working on the hotline. But, most of the complaints I have seen on this message board relate to non-FAIR type people.

As we run into issues, we try to collaborate and write responses on the FAIR Wiki.

We invite people to speak at our conference every August. The talks are not previewed or screened, or even read in advance. We simply invite the people who we think might be interesting. FAIR volunteers do not always agree with every talk.

We have a blog that is open to our volunteers. Blog posts represent the individual volunteers. Not everyone always agrees.

I am president. I sometimes say things representing FAIR. I am not perfect (as my mistakes have been discussed on this board.) But, I try to be accurate and never purposefully misrepresent things. As I am a big believer in people finding their own peace, I would never want to attack anyone for a loss of belief. I try to stick with the "what you see is what you get" rule. It was recently pointed out that one of my comments in an email was cryptic. My response was to interpret my words in the least complicated way possible. I don't do intrigue well.

I see claims that FAIR is mean. I see claims that FAIR attacks the person and doesn't deal with the issue. In one of John's recent videos he seems to talk at length on this. I have been told that FAIR would be ok if we would just stop attacking people. I have yet to see an example given that substantiates that anyone does that.

If there is anything I can do to clear this up, I would be happy to discuss it.

I love what FAIR does and appreciate the countless hours spent just for me and others. You know the bare bones of the issues that are in the church that might cause disbelief. Without FAIR and this board who would someone like me talk to and get a believers take? Thank you, thank you.

[Scott Gordon]

Thank you Tecenda. I appreciate your response.

[Louis Midgley]

I love what FAIR does and appreciate the countless hours spent just for me and others. You know the bare bones of the issues that are in the church that might cause disbelief. Without FAIR and this board who would someone like me talk to and get a believers take? Thank you, thank you.

I salute the FAIR volunteers as well, and I am troubled and even annoyed by constant carping about the effort of LDS scholars to defend the faith in the host of different ways that have resulted in the Maxwell Institute having published in well over two decades more that a hundred thousand pages of materials in books, and academic journals that inform and enlarge the memory of those Saints at all inclined to seek further light and knowledge by study and prayer..

Edited March 6, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Kevin Christensen]

I agree.

Perhaps your perception is right, but the key difference though is that John is not attempting to produce official scholarly work directed at any one specific apologist or group. He hosts a podcast, a forum to discuss the issues, and for a time, allowed for support communities. The purpose of my previous posts was to show examples of where FAIR/FARMS publications often overstep boundaries in their scholarly work.

My issue is whether those examples actually show that FAIR or FARMS OFTEN overstep boundaries. Generalizing from exceptional situations does not lead to greater knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. The D&C has a passage about God providing a "pattern in all things" that we might know the truth of all things. Exceptions, by definition, are not patterns that demonstrate the truth of all things. The things is, I have read enough FAIR and FARMS publications, and have provided enough to know what represents an exception and what represents general patterns. "Pure knowledge" says D&C 121:42 "shall greatly enlarge the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile." It follows that Impure knowlege leads a person in the opposite direction, a contracted soul, and hypocritical behavior, and perhaps a bit of guile." Impure knowledge creates what Greg demonstrates are "folk devils." Or what Rene Girard calls "scapegoats."

John does try at times, I realize. He did have the Daniel Peterson podcast, and when I read through the comments section, I was struck at how many people at Mormon Stories admitted how far the Daniel they heard was from their preconceptions. A purer knowledge enlarged some souls, for a little while, at least. Lou recently quoted some very sympathetic and complimentary things that John had written about Dan and Lou in 2006. I appreciate John's ideals. I'm by my INFP temperament, an Idealist. I'm all for noble ideals and working for noble causes. But my ideals aren't the only thing that matters. My actual behavior counts as well. When I fall short, I ought to be willing be measured against my own actions, and to learn a bit.

Maybe the term "hit piece" is over the top, but I can't think of anything more insulting of ones character within a Mormon context then to compares ones actions similar to other anti-mormons and characterize you as a wolf in sheeps clothing. That's pretty tough. I mean, is there really anything else that would be more evil then that from a Mormon perspective?

I can think of a lot far more evil than that. Mountain Meadows, for instance. Good intentions in that instance, left a dreadful mess. And on a lesser, personal scale, I've been called worse.

Say for less personal example, how about claiming that the most visible, productive, and dedicated shepherds should be dismissed from defending the flock, silenced, and forgotten, and blaming them for a host of ills, on the basis of rumor and opinion, rather than demonstrated evidence, for what wolves have done?

Words are just words, of course, but they can do some serious damage. But who has actually suffered the most damage? If John hadn't publically done and said some of the things he has done and said, who would be "reproving betimes with sharpness?" I did actually read Palmer's book myself. So I don't have to just take John's word for it that it is wonderful. And I have actually read the responses myself, so I don't have to take John's word for it that it's just ad hominem. And it looks to me like most (not all though) of the people at Mormon Stories commenting on John's public statement are perfectly willing to blow off any criticism in Greg's paper, ignore the quotations from John himself, ignore the socialogical models and the behavioral patterns that emerge regarding movements and the creation of folk devils, and point fingers at the nasty folk devils as though nothing had happened. John seems capable of ignoring what he doesn't want to hear. But... is that the best way to handle criticism?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[juliann]

I have heard of some people becoming very disheartened by some of the tactics used FAIR/FARMS in some of the scholarly responses, but I doubt it lead to their leaving the church. It may have turned them off though to taking other FAIR publications seriously. Below are some small examples of the kind of things disappointing to me where you can see the focus on vilifying and discrediting the author as opposed to addressing their work.

I think less of these snide kind of remarks would really help dialogue be more constructive.

But you name FAIR and then mention two examples that are not from FAIR.

[Libs]

A wolf in sheeps clothing is simply describing someone who is using a tactic of appearing angelic / harmless but whose real / inner intent is that of not caring to help those he / she claims to be helping. In the end, a wolf in sheeps clothing does more harm than good. 'Thuggish behavior' connotates oppression by force. It denotes intimidation on the part of one who is an aggressor. A "thug" hurts people intentionally in order to make a point. There is no such inherent connotation in describing someone as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

While on Dan Peterson's facebook I called out John Dehlin in his baring alse witness against Dan Peterson and apologusts. He replied that he had never lied about anyone intentionally. My response was to say that his "auto hagiographic" depiction can only go so far and the frequent attacks he made upon appologists can hardly be considered accidental. I stand by those words as I find them accurate and based directly on his own words which I read with my own eyes.

Well, this would be the crux of our disagreement, because I don't believe that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". I believe he is a very sincere individual whose only intention is to help...not harm.

I believe that is true of Dr. Peterson and the other apologists, as well.

All of these men have good intentions, and all very human and make mistakes, at times. All of them.

[why me]

Well, this would be the crux of our disagreement, because I don't believe that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". I believe he is a very sincere individual whose only intention is to help...not harm.

I believe that is true of Dr. Peterson and the other apologists, as well.

All of these men have good intentions, and all very human and make mistakes, at times. All of them.

I think that even John may disagree with you. In the past, he seems to have been too much into himself and I think that he has admitted this himself. We need to remember that he has basically lived out his church life via the Internet for the better or for the worse. And people have responded in kind. And this has been his problem. We need to take a more holistic picture of john and why certain church members have reacted the way they did toward him.

[Libs]

I think that even John may disagree with you. In the past, he seems to have been too much into himself and I think that he has admitted this himself. We need to remember that he has basically lived out his church life via the Internet for the better or for the worse. And people have responded in kind. And this has been his problem. We need to take a more holistic picture of john and why certain church members have reacted the way they did toward him.

John has never admitted to being a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Yes, he has admitted to being selfish (mainly in regards to his own family), but has never "intentionally" set out to hurt anyone. John is a sheep, just like the rest of us...lost, at times, trying to find his way home.

We hurt people, sometimes, even when we have the best of intentions.. If you think anyone here is above being self centered, at times, I think you would be wrong. At least, John was humble enough to admit it.

[Wiki Wonka]

Early in my faith crises, FAIR was a big help, it truly was. I think a lot the resources on the FAIR page as well as the wiki are useful and help a lot of people. Even if I find a lot of the work unsatisfying from an intellectual standpoint, I don't necessarily find fault in the authors because I think they are difficult issues. I don't think anyone leaves over apologists themselves--maybe justs not finding satisfying answers to their questions. I have heard of some people becoming very disheartened by some of the tactics used FAIR/FARMS in some of the scholarly responses, but I doubt it lead to their leaving the church. It may have turned them off though to taking other FAIR publications seriously. Below are some small examples of the kind of things disappointing to me where you can see the focus on vilifying and discrediting the author as opposed to addressing their work.

Duane Boyce On Michael Quinn

Nibley on Fawn Brodie, where you can see the polemic style to completely discredit Brodie as a credible source…

I think less of these snide kind of remarks would really help dialogue be more constructive.

We seem to have a problem in which the term "FAIR/FARMS" is often used as if it were a single organization. The two organizations are (or were, before the dissolution of FARMS) completely separate. The only crossover is that Daniel C. Peterson is on the board of directors of FAIR, but his participation within the organization is primarily limited to decision making and speaking at the annual FAIR conference. Similarly, the Interpreter Foundation and FAIR are two completely separate organizations, although several members of FAIR are associated with Interpreter.

The examples that you cited appear to be from the FARMS Review. That does not mean that remarks of this type have not appeared in the FAIR Wiki - they have. However, there has been a significant effort over the last five years to remove such things. I don't think that you would find such things there now. I have a standing offer to correct such things in the FAIR Wiki when they are pointed out (the wiki has thousands of pages, so things can sometimes remain unnoticed until someone points them out).

WW

[Darren10]

Well, this would be the crux of our disagreement, because I don't believe that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". I believe he is a very sincere individual whose only intention is to help...not harm.

Well, it's Dehlin's own words which declare that Dehlin believes he has lead more eople out of the Church than to stay in it. In one sense, it doesn't matter what Dehlin's intention is really. His works are destructive. In another sense, that of being a wolf in sheeps clothing, being malicious does not exclude the possibility that one may have the nobelist intent.

I believe that is true of Dr. Peterson and the other apologists, as well.

And what is consistantly true of these apologists is that they actualy read and learn of John Dehlin before offering critique on what he does. Dehlin is the one who prejudges and that, madame, is NOT noble.

ll of these men have good intentions, and all very human and make mistakes, at times. All of them.

Except for Mike R. Ash. He rocks!!!

[Darren10]

We hurt people, sometimes, even when we have the best of intentions.. If you think anyone here is above being self centered, at times, I think you would be wrong. At least, John was humble enough to admit it.

What published author whom you have not read do you go out and say what he wrote attacks others and treats them unchrist like?

[Libs]

I don't know that John has read "nothing" of the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. I know he has mentioned the treatment of Grant Palmer and Mike Quinn. Other than that, I don't know what he has read or what his specific complaints were. And, I'm not defending John. But, just because he hasn't shown up here, to defend himself, doesn't mean he doesn't have a defense.

Except for Mike R. Ash. He rocks!!!

lol...I agree, he does. I have his first edition and plan on getting the 2nd edition, as well.

Mike Ash's first book inspired me to go back into the church for awhile. It didn't work out, but at least he got me back there for a few months.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Libs

[juliann]

Libs, is there a defense for repeated name-calling? What would it be?