Apologetic attacks

[stemelbow]

I recall some years ago there was a pretty good effort to say LDS apologists attack the person, often, and fail to address the issues.  I think there were some cases wherein apologists in officially sanctioned sounding apologetics venues went way overboard.  But I also came away wondering what the big complaint was, for the most part.  As most attacks listed were not really attacks, or were pretty benign.  I believe I found a couple of offending cases, but it was tough to make an issue of because those seemingly most loudly proclaiming LDS apologists were bad were lobbing attacks that made any apologetic attacks look playful and friendly.  In my estimation the attacks coming at apologists were far more egregious.  That was frustrating to me because it was a sustained effort to make it universally accepted that apologists attack, rather than address the issue.  I will say there have been plenty of behaviors coming from apologists which have been less than reputable. 

With that said, I opened Mormonstories today to see Dehlin complain Scott Gordon "smear/maligned" him.  And the he did "harmful things".  It appears Scott presumed to speak for Dehlin in that Scott said Dehlin did not believe in God.  Scott also says the he knows Dehlin "personally, and to have had many conversations with me [Dehlin]".  Dehlin denies this, saying they've had some conversations but nothing that constitutes knowing him personally, nor anything that suggests that they had any personal interactions, much at all. 

I'm not a fan of Scott saying Dehlin doesn't believe in God when that's not been Dehlin's position.  I'm not a fan of Scott claiming to know him personally and that they've had many personal conversations.  not at all.  But I also think there is no effort so smear, malign nor do harmful things. 

[Storm Rider]

One of the many things for which I can be grateful is that I don't have to hear that sanctimonious whine of Dehlin's.  He is desperate to remain in the public light long after his five minutes of fame has expired.  

I wonder what would have been the result if Dehlin had just shared his thought on god rather than whining about another person saying he did not believe in God.  Just a simple answer would have handled the whole concern or error of Scott Gordon's.  Me thinks Mr. Dehlin protests too much.  

Edited July 13, 2016 by Storm Rider

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I recall some years ago there was a pretty good effort to say LDS apologists attack the person, often, and fail to address the issues.  I think there were some cases wherein apologists in officially sanctioned sounding apologetics venues went way overboard.  But I also came away wondering what the big complaint was, for the most part.  As most attacks listed were not really attacks, or were pretty benign.  I believe I found a couple of offending cases, but it was tough to make an issue of because those seemingly most loudly proclaiming LDS apologists were bad were lobbing attacks that made any apologetic attacks look playful and friendly.  In my estimation the attacks coming at apologists were far more egregious.  That was frustrating to me because it was a sustained effort to make it universally accepted that apologists attack, rather than address the issue.  I will say there have been plenty of behaviors coming from apologists which have been less than reputable. 

With that said, I opened Mormonstories today to see Dehlin complain Scott Gordon "smear/maligned" him.  And the he did "harmful things".  It appears Scott presumed to speak for Dehlin in that Scott said Dehlin did not believe in God.  Scott also says the he knows Dehlin "personally, and to have had many conversations with me [Dehlin]".  Dehlin denies this, saying they've had some conversations but nothing that constitutes knowing him personally, nor anything that suggests that they had any personal interactions, much at all. 

I'm not a fan of Scott saying Dehlin doesn't believe in God when that's not been Dehlin's position.  I'm not a fan of Scott claiming to know him personally and that they've had many personal conversations.  not at all.  But I also think there is no effort so smear, malign nor do harmful things. 

I happen to know Scott very well.  I find him highly credible.  Dehlin I find mendacious and tendentious in everything I've seen of his in print and what's been reported concerning him in media.

If Scott says "X" about Dehlin, he does so with considerable care and after reflection.

[consiglieri]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I happen to know Scott very well.  I find him highly credible.  Dehlin I find mendacious and tendentious in everything I've seen of his in print and what's been reported concerning him in media.

If Scott says "X" about Dehlin, he does so with considerable care and after reflection.

I don't know Scott at all.  But from what I've seen of his presentations, he is a mendacious apologetic hack.

But I say that with considerable care and after reflection. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

Ouch, he's pretty rough on Meldrum too.

https://youtu.be/s4ee4Cfp9sE?t=17m15s (starting around 17:25)

 

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Ouch, he's pretty rough on Meldrum too.

https://youtu.be/s4ee4Cfp9sE?t=17m15s (starting around 17:25)

 

 

Is he being inaccurate about Meldrum too?  I dont' know enough about Meldrum and his position to know. 

[HappyJackWagon]

It generally seems to be a good practice to let people speak for themselves. But I don't necessarily see Scott's statement that Dehlin doesn't believe in God as a malicious attack. He may be wrong, or not properly nuanced in representing John's position, but is it really a "smear?"

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I happen to know Scott very well.  I find him highly credible.  Dehlin I find mendacious and tendentious in everything I've seen of his in print and what's been reported concerning him in media.

If Scott says "X" about Dehlin, he does so with considerable care and after reflection.

I don't get what you're saying.  Scott claimed Dehlin doesn't believe in God.  Dehlin says he does and Scott spoke presumptuously.  I don't know how we argue that Scott was right about it.  He might have felt justified in it, but obviously he was wrong.  If that be the case it's hard to see it as anything other than Scott speaking presumptuously in describing another's beliefs.  Not a big deal, if you ask me.  But it seems clear that's what happened. 

[Kenngo1969]

Well, there's always that old saying: 

Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is he being inaccurate about Meldrum too?  I dont' know enough about Meldrum and his position to know. 

He gives four examples of published materials that are potentially damaging to testimonies. Three of those authors have been excommunicated. The fourth is Meldrum.

I don't want to put words in Meldrum's mouth but pretty sure he won't appreciate being included in that list.



 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not a fan of Scott saying Dehlin doesn't believe in God when that's not been Dehlin's position.  I'm not a fan of Scott claiming to know him personally and that they've had many personal conversations.  not at all.  But I also think there is no effort so smear, malign nor do harmful things. 

I read the post and watched the video that Dehlin linked too of Scott giving a talk.  In the talk Scott gives his perspective on how to stay faithful in the church and he has his bad guys that he points the finger at, Dehlin, Jeremy Runnels (CES letter), Denver Snuffer, and oddly enough the BoM heartland model guy (can't remember his name) but he's still a member of the church which Scott points out.  

Overall, I think Scott misrepresents all of the people that he spoke about in his talk.  In fairness, he's not trying to represent them accurately or evenhandedly.  Scott's thesis and the point of his talk is to stick with the mainstream and stick with the Brethren, so of course anyone that deviates from Scott's POV will be cast as the bad guy.  

I have to say that I hate these kinds of talks, but I understand what he's trying to do, and these kinds of talks can be effective boundary maintenance talks.   

As for Dehlin's post, he does sound pretty upset about it, and if I were to try and read between the lines, I would say that Dehlin is a little overly sensitive on this particular issue, likely informed by his past history dealing with apologists, and some of the battles they've had.  So I can't blame him, but I think it was somewhat of an overreaction.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

He gives four examples of published materials that are potentially damaging to testimonies. Three of those authors have been excommunicated. The fourth is Meldrum.

I don't want to put words in Meldrum's mouth but pretty sure he won't appreciate being included in that list.



 

Oh, no doubt.  I don't think you need to put words into his mouth to think that.  Is that rough?  I struggle to see that as rough.  I see vehement disagreement, sure. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I read the post and watched the video that Dehlin linked too of Scott giving a talk.  In the talk Scott gives his perspective on how to stay faithful in the church and he has his bad guys that he points the finger at, Dehlin, Jeremy Runnels (CES letter), Denver Snuffer, and oddly enough the BoM heartland model guy (can't remember his name) but he's still a member of the church which Scott points out.  

Overall, I think Scott misrepresents all of the people that he spoke about in his talk.  In fairness, he's not trying to represent them accurately or evenhandedly.  Scott's thesis and the point of his talk is to stick with the mainstream and stick with the Brethren, so of course anyone that deviates from Scott's POV will be cast as the bad guy.  

I have to say that I hate these kinds of talks, but I understand what he's trying to do, and these kinds of talks can be effective boundary maintenance talks.   

As for Dehlin's post, he does sound pretty upset about it, and if I were to try and read between the lines, I would say that Dehlin is a little overly sensitive on this particular issue, likely informed by his past history dealing with apologists, and some of the battles they've had.  So I can't blame him, but I think it was somewhat of an overreaction.  

I think I agree, but it seems more problematic to me to call it a smear, call it maligning, and doing harmful things than for Scott to misrepresent Dehlin and their interactions with each other.  Neither are useful activities. 

So when you say "somewhat of an overreaction" I say, well, that's putting it extremely soft.  But whatever...it's the way we put things. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It generally seems to be a good practice to let people speak for themselves. But I don't necessarily see Scott's statement that Dehlin doesn't believe in God as a malicious attack. He may be wrong, or not properly nuanced in representing John's position, but is it really a "smear?"

I do consider it a smear.  Scott takes time in his presentation to go after Runnels, Dehlin, and Denver Snuffer... personally, not their positions.  He also gives an incorrect description of Mormon Stories, presumably in an attempt to keep people away from it.  Given that the theme of his presentation seems to be to discredit criticisms of the church, his criticisms of these men could be justified, in context.  But that doesn't excuse Scott's misrepresentations and, for me, it discredits what he tries to communicate in the rest of his presentation.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

If Scott says "X" about Dehlin, he does so with considerable care and after reflection.

And yet he was still wrong.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh, no doubt.  I don't think you need to put words into his mouth to think that.  Is that rough?  I struggle to see that as rough.  I see vehement disagreement, sure. 

vehement 
Synonyms and related words:
abandoned, acid, acidulous, acrid, acrimonious, acute, afire, ardent, assiduous, astringent, biting, bitter, burning, caustic, committed, concentrated, cutting, dedicated, delirious, desperate, devoted, devout, diligent, double-edged ... rabid, red-hot, relentless, resolute, rigorous, rough, scathing, sedulous, serious, severe, sharp, simmering, sincere, sleepless, spirited, splitting, stabbing, stimulating, stinging, stirring, stormy, strenuous, strident, stringent, tart, tempestuous, terrible, tireless, trenchant, unconscionable, unflagging, unremitting, unsleeping, unsparing, unwearied, urgent, venomous, vicious, violent, virulent, vitriolic, volcanic, warm, white-hot, wild, zealous

But you're right, rough wasn't the best word choice. But still surprised Meldrum was on that list.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I do consider it a smear.  Scott takes time in his presentation to go after Runnels, Dehlin, and Denver Snuffer... personally, not their positions.

What did he say about them?  Is saying, for instance, Dehlin doesn't believe in God, going after Dehlin personally?  or was it a possible mistake regarding Dehlin's position?  I'm curious, because, I didn't listen to the whole thing and found Dehlin's reaction way overblown, as it pertained to him.  How is getting Dehlin's position wrong about God a smear, for istnance?

 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 He also gives an incorrect description of Mormon Stories, presumably in an attempt to keep people away from it.

I missed that.  I just relistened.  He said "this website mostly focuses on social issue, like gay marriage and women in the Church">  Is that an incorrect description?  It sounds pretty accurate.  I don't see this description as a way to keep people away from it. 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 Given that the theme of his presentation seems to be to discredit criticisms of the church, his criticisms of these men could be justified, in context.  But that doesn't excuse Scott's misrepresentations and, for me, it discredits what he tries to communicate in the rest of his presentation.

 

Yeah, from what I've seen, I'm not fond of the presentation.  But I can't really see reason to call it a smear.  That seems more problematic then some of what he said. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What did he say about them?  Is saying, for instance, Dehlin doesn't believe in God, going after Dehlin personally?  or was it a possible mistake regarding Dehlin's position?  I'm curious, because, I didn't listen to the whole thing and found Dehlin's reaction way overblown, as it pertained to him.  How is getting Dehlin's position wrong about God a smear, for istnance?

 

I missed that.  I just relistened.  He said "this website mostly focuses on social issue, like gay marriage and women in the Church">  Is that an incorrect description?  It sounds pretty accurate.  I don't see this description as a way to keep people away from it. 

Yeah, from what I've seen, I'm not fond of the presentation.  But I can't really see reason to call it a smear.  That seems more problematic then some of what he said. 

Let me first be clear that Dehlin is also not without error/misrepresentation of apologists in his 10 year career of presentations, interviews, and publications.  And, I agree, that Dehlin's reaction is a little overblown, IMO.

I point out Scott's misrepresentations because, in the same presentation, he goes on to explain how these men have misrepresented the church.  Isn't it ironic?  Don't ya think?  A little too ironic...  I digress.

Dehlin does believe in God.  So that statement is incorrect.  And that incorrect statement seemed to be most upsetting to Dehlin.

If you just scan through the years of podcasts on MormonStories.org, you'll see that it deals with FAR MORE than mostly focusing on gay marriage and women in the church.  I imagine that Scott does not want people to realize that MS podcasts take deep dives into historical and doctrinal issues.  But, yes, that is an incorrect description of MS.

[jkwilliams]

I'm not a huge Dehlin fan, and I don't know Scott Gordon (though an exmo friend of mine knows him and likes him a lot) so let's get that out of the way. I guess I just don't like the polemical tone of presentations like this. A good friend of mine recently wrote out a reply to the CES letter that, despite his stated intention to be respectful and just deal with the issues, he ended up with 800 pages drenched in sarcasm. Yeah, I know I have indulged in such behavior in the past, but I just don't find it helpful in the least, and frankly, it lessens my opinion of folks like Scott Gordon. Maybe it's just impossible to not personalize these "debates." I don't know.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think I agree, but it seems more problematic to me to call it a smear, call it maligning, and doing harmful things than for Scott to misrepresent Dehlin and their interactions with each other.  Neither are useful activities. 

So when you say "somewhat of an overreaction" I say, well, that's putting it extremely soft.  But whatever...it's the way we put things. 

I don't have a problem with his use of the word smear.  Personally, I don't like the tactic that Scott used with characterizing individuals and their positions as straw-man arguments, and I think he was out of line.  I also think Dehlin overreacted, but I can't say that I blame him, and I think his overreaction was less egregious than Scott's.  That being said I think I can understand the perspectives of both of them, and that's what I was trying to express.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let me first be clear that Dehlin is also not without error/misrepresentation of apologists in his 10 year career of presentations, interviews, and publications.  And, I agree, that Dehlin's reaction is a little overblown, IMO.

I point out Scott's misrepresentations because, in the same presentation, he goes on to explain how these men have misrepresented the church.  Isn't it ironic?  Don't ya think?  A little too ironic...  I digress.

Dehlin does believe in God.  So that statement is incorrect.  And that incorrect statement seemed to be most upsetting to Dehlin.

If you just scan through the years of podcasts on MormonStories.org, you'll see that it deals with FAR MORE than mostly focusing on gay marriage and women in the church.  I imagine that Scott does not want people to realize that MS podcasts take deep dives into historical and doctrinal issues.  But, yes, that is an incorrect description of MS.

Well thanks for responding.  I didn't want to seem like I was being harsh on you for your opinion.  Hopefully I don't get harsh. 

Yes, let me be clear about Scott's presentation--from what I saw, I was not impressed.  It was pretty weak overall and the purpose amounted to pointlessness to me. 

I agree, Dehlin believes in God and Scott spoke presumptuously--which is problematic.  But really the only response need on that is Dehlin to say, I do believe in God.  I can't see any reason to think that there is smear involved in that.

I'll disagree about characterizing Mormonstories--the issues mostly are social in nature.  I saw his reference to gay marriage and women as examples of what he meant by social--not suggesting that the site focuses on those two topics.  But that leaves room for plenty of historic and doctrinal issues, as well. 

What is telling from this, for me is, generally speaking, we aren't being very fair to each other.  Scott did not smear John, not in the least, at least in my view.  Scott did not give John enough notice to even get his belief in God right--which itself is a slap in the face.  I just find the state of our communication pretty poor.  On this site we seem to do better as we discuss controversial topics, even if we get dramatic and over-react as well. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not a huge Dehlin fan, and I don't know Scott Gordon (though an exmo friend of mine knows him and likes him a lot) so let's get that out of the way. I guess I just don't like the polemical tone of presentations like this. A good friend of mine recently wrote out a reply to the CES letter that, despite his stated intention to be respectful and just deal with the issues, he ended up with 800 pages drenched in sarcasm. Yeah, I know I have indulged in such behavior in the past, but I just don't find it helpful in the least, and frankly, it lessens my opinion of folks like Scott Gordon. Maybe it's just impossible to not personalize these "debates." I don't know.

Well it should be possible.  While I found Scott's presentation less helpful, I can't really see it in a class of 800 pages of sarcasm either.  To call getting someone's position wrong as it pertains to God a smear, and maligning him, or as doing harm to him, is perhaps worse than Scott's original presentation, at least when it comes to being able to discuss issues. 

eh oh well.  Maybe you're right, though.  maybe it's impossible to mend some of this hurt. 

 

[hope_for_things]

Another comment on this.  I think Scott's overall approach while in the short term might keep some people from exploring issues, is strategically unproductive in the long term.  With easy access to information, poor apologetic arguments are a losing strategy over time.  His defense of the BoM anachronisms was especially week.  His mischaracterizations of Dehlin and others, fail on so many levels.  It boils down to a stay in the old ship Zion type approach which for the younger generations or for anyone trained to critically think about things is going to be less effective.  

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well it should be possible.  While I found Scott's presentation less helpful, I can't really see it in a class of 800 pages of sarcasm either.  To call getting someone's position wrong as it pertains to God a smear, and maligning him, or as doing harm to him, is perhaps worse than Scott's original presentation, at least when it comes to being able to discuss issues. 

eh oh well.  Maybe you're right, though.  maybe it's impossible to mend some of this hurt. 

I know from personal experience that we get into a habit of putting our guard up with some people, and it's impossible to have a reasonable and friendly discussion from a defensive position. I'm always a little shocked when I realize that someone I know considers me utterly incapable of reasonable discussion. It's not that I or they are bad people, just that we've built up so much baggage from prior interactions that everything we say is going to be viewed with suspicion.

Real communication comes from listening, giving fair consideration to the other side, and opening one's self up to a little vulnerability. That's difficult in most conversations, but especially when we are talking about deeply held beliefs that form part of our identities. But going on offense, as Scott did, IMO, pretty much kills any chances of communication. Of course, I don't think his presentation was designed to foster communication with his "opponents." I guess that kind of red meat goes over well at a FAIR conference, but I don't like it on either side (that's one of the reasons I've never been even slightly interested in going to the exmormon conference).

Edited July 13, 2016 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not a fan...  I'm not a fan...

So you're not a fan for fanfare?