Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Except the statement from Dehlin doesn't suggest, he believes God could exist, but he does not believe God does exist. He only says he first part--that he thinks God could exist. And he does say, I consider myself a believer in God, which argues against Scott's characterization of his not believing in God. IMO..no matter the level of John's belief, Scott should have been sure..and better yet..not comment on that at all. Ugh..this communication thing on both ends of the spectrum is made more difficult than it has to be. Everyone should just be honest!
Calm Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It seems like no matter whatever point that Scott was trying to put across, it could have been done without being so personal about it. Overall, I think the whole thing is kind of sad and lacks human decency. And this isn't personal labeling his comments as lacking human decency? 1
consiglieri Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: I am not really a fan of apologetics. It seems the natural reaction by TBM's like myself is to see those defending the Kingdom of God as an official extension of the Kingdom of God itself. Fortunately, any bad actions on their part are not a reflection of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel. Misrepresentations should be discouraged, especially when made in bad faith. I agree with you on this, MM. Scott Gordon wants to distance himself from the Church by saying that FAIR doesn't speak for the Church (which it obviously doesn't). But he can't seem to help himself from tacitly speaking for the Church when he strongly suggests that the apostles stand with FAIR against Rodney Meldrum when it comes to Book of Mormon geography. It is hard to know what on earth he is talking about when the current crop of apostles have said absolutely nothing to my knowledge about Book of Mormon geography. I think this would fall under your category of misrepresentations made in bad faith.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 16 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It seems like no matter whatever point that Scott was trying to put across, it could have been done without being so personal about it. Overall, I think the whole thing is kind of sad and lacks human decency. And thus we see the double-standard, where no one playing defense may do anything but be perfect in all things, and no one playing and giving offense may be criticized in or for anything. 1
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: IMO..no matter the level of John's belief, Scott should have been sure..and better yet..not comment on that at all. You take for granted that Scott's not being honest, and that Dehlin is. Why?
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, Calm said: And this isn't personal labeling his comments as lacking human decency? Ouch! But I mean human decency between both parties. I know John and respect him. It was John who tried to get me to remain a member of the church. That being said, I have had conversations where we disagree. So..it works both ways. No one in any party of any conversation should state what the other believes unless they know for sure..and even then..it is not really a good thing to do. I will also state that I don't know Scott...but all the dynamics as a whole, could have been a whole lot better without condemnations or assuming things..for which I am very guilty of 1
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Just now, USU78 said: And thus we see the double-standard, where no one playing defense may do anything but be perfect in all things, and no one playing and giving offense may be criticized in or for anything. Yeah, that was uncalled for.
Popular Post juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Does being on FAIR's elist suggest they knew each other personally? What even Dehlin describes as their interaction, I could see someone claiming to know another personally based on that description. The many conversations might a stretch. But, that could total 10, I suppose, and still feel like many to Scott. Whatever the case, I don't see Scott's description as anything more than possible exaggeration--certainly not an attack, smear, or doing harmful things to Dehlin. I didn't see any discussion about how one's hair looks. Oh for heaven's sake. I can vouch for him at being "personally" at at least one FM conference and there were probably more. I would not say that I am buddies with Brent Metcalfe but I know him personally through several FAIR, now known as FM, conferences and years of message board activity. We were are hugging terms, actually. Still would be I'm sure but I haven't seen him for years. Does that mean we are close buds? Of course not. But it sure means I know him personally and have had multiple conversations. I listened to the talk, Dehlin took all of 40 seconds of it. This is the most eye rolling thread yet. The idea that an organization that defends the church isn't supposed to talk about those who attack the church is the most ludicrous thing ever. 5
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: And thus we see the double-standard, where no one playing defense may do anything but be perfect in all things, and no one playing and giving offense may be criticized in or for anything. See my post to Cal...it really does work both ways. There is just a huge lack of understanding and honest communication. But I have to say...it was John..who tried to get me to stay in the church. So that had an affect on my response.
juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 34 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It seems like no matter whatever point that Scott was trying to put across, it could have been done without being so personal about it. Overall, I think the whole thing is kind of sad and lacks human decency. Wow. 1
Popular Post cinepro Posted July 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: What you describe would have been an important clarification, especially since Scott's presentation is all about defending the church against alleged misrepresentation. Uh, no. If, in future presentations, Scott takes my verbiage and substitutes "He has long believed there is no god" with "Dehlin rejects the LDS concept of God, and instead professes a vague hope in the possibility of a "driving force" or "power" without any specific form or behavior", it will not make a bit of difference to any audience. The point is that Dehlin is totally, completely off the LDS doctrinal reservation, and any of his efforts to counsel or rehabilitate foundering believers should take that into account. I would also point out that Dehlin spins his wheels with whining and complaining when he could simply correct Scott and set the record straight. Instead of this... You claim that I “have long believed that there is no God” – and recently used a quote from a Mormon Expressions podcast interview as your evidence. In that interview I certainly expressed doubt about God — but that interview represented a snapshot in time, and a true low point in my life in many ways. That said — and as you well know — people’s faith journeys can be complex, and faith can wax and wane over a person’s lifetime. This is a fact which you conveniently ignore when trying to smear me publicly. So….to demonstrate your “FAIR”ness….can you please take the time to gather together all of the instances where I publicly refer to myself as a believer? I know for a fact that there are at least dozens, if not more, in the public domain. Again….I know that you and your associates claim to be “fair” and balanced in your work…and I know that you have hundreds who can help you do this research….so since I feel misrepresented by you, and somewhat publicly maligned/smeared in a sneering way, can you please do me this favor? I would really appreciate it. Why not this...? You claim that I "have long believed there is not God". This is incorrect. While I may have expressed doubts in the past, I do believe in God. 6
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, USU78 said: You take for granted that Scott's not being honest, and that Dehlin is. Why? It would be the only way that I could take John's belief in God. He wanted me to stay in the church and tried to help me..this does not sound like a man who does not believe in God. I could only comment on how I see things personally...but I should have added that I don't know Scott. But no one should say something about things like this unless they are sure..and I am still learning this on this board! I must say that I know some people who used to be avid admirers of FAIR and the people there..but they don't anymore.
cinepro Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, juliann said: I listened to the talk, Dehlin took all of 40 seconds of it. This is the most eye rolling thread yet. If you really want to roll your eyes, try listening to the other 41 minutes. 3
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2016 Author Posted July 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, juliann said: Oh for heaven's sake. I can vouch for him at being "personally" at at least one FM conference and there were probably more. I would not say that I am buddies with Brent Metcalfe but I know him personally through several FAIR, now known as FM, conferences and years of message board activity. We were are hugging terms, actually. Still would be I'm sure but I haven't seen him for years. Does that mean we are close buds? Of course not. But it sure means I know him personally and have had multiple conversations. I listened to the talk, Dehlin took all of 40 seconds of it. This is the most eye rolling thread yet. The idea that an organization that defends the church isn't supposed to talk about those who attack the church is the most ludicrous thing ever. You make a good point. What does Dehlin expect? I don't think Scott treated him or his site poorly as some have said. I think it in poor taste if he misrepresented his belief in God, but I'm guessing that's unintentional. My point is starting this is to suggest, in essence, isn't it worse to claim smear/malign/doing harm to when all that was really done was a statement of his belief, or lack thereof and a statement summarizing his site. 2
cinepro Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Ouch, he's pretty rough on Meldrum too.https://youtu.be/s4ee4Cfp9sE?t=17m15s (starting around 17:25) Yeah, can you believe that Meldrum actually takes people on tours of his theorized geography. The horror!
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2016 Author Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: It should also be pointed out the context of Gordon's claim. He is a defender of the LDS faith talking to a group of LDS. In such a situation, would it be implied that he wasn't referring to the philosophical concept of a "god" (or "gods"), but that the context might imply more specifically the LDS God (the one with a body of flesh and bone, a proclivity for specific commandments and ordinances, a preference for certain groups of people and religions over another, a specific flow-charted plan for all humans to become like Him etc.)? If Gordon had been more specific and instead of saying "He has long believed there is no god" he had said "Dehlin rejects the LDS concept of God, and instead professes a vague hope in the possibility of a "driving force" or "power" without any specific form or behavior", would it really be that different to an LDS audience? I suspect the point of Gordon's comment was to let the audience know that Dehlin has broken away from the Church and its doctrines at the most basic, fundamental level. Whether he is open to some other concept of God or religion is just an interesting footnote. Ultimately, Dehlin's response seems to be "Hey, how dare you say I don't believe in god, when I just don't believe in your god!" Sure. I think some don't like others to summarize their beliefs for them. I get that. We all do it and feel obliged to sometimes. I suppose Scott could have made the statement more charitably. But he didn't. It's not a big deal, certainly nothing near a smear. 1
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, juliann said: Wow. Yeah. This entire thread is designed to advance the notion that apologists and especially Mormon apologists are mean, personal, dishonest, and lack human decency. Scott just happens to be this week's target: Usually it's Herr Professor Doktor Peterson. Yet they're the ones playing defense against a plethora of pinata-thumping aggressors. Double standards.
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2016 Author Posted July 13, 2016 Just now, USU78 said: Yeah. This entire thread is designed to advance the notion that apologists and especially Mormon apologists are mean, personal, dishonest, and lack human decency. Scott just happens to be this week's target: Usually it's Herr Professor Doktor Peterson. Yet they're the ones playing defense against a plethora of pinata-thumping aggressors. Double standards. The thread was designed with nearly the opposite intention--sure there may be some bad behavior by apologists but it seems to pale in comparison--take this issue with Dehlin for example. Someone a minute of mentioning his site, and offering a summary of it, saying he doesn't believe in God is said to be a smear, said to malign him personally and has done him harm. This thread is to suggest even if Scott got his belief in God wrong, even if Scott gave the impression he's known Dehlin more than he has, it hardly ammounts to smear. If, so, isn't a big contributing factor to the problems we have the over-reaction that Dehlin had? I say yes. 1
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: Yeah. This entire thread is designed to advance the notion that apologists and especially Mormon apologists are mean, personal, dishonest, and lack human decency. Scott just happens to be this week's target: Usually it's Herr Professor Doktor Peterson. Yet they're the ones playing defense against a plethora of pinata-thumping aggressors. Double standards. That is not what I meant..! It would also be human decency for John not to generalize everything..we all assume. Like you did with me just now. It is NOT a good thing to tell others who believes in God and who doesn't..when you don't know..and that would work both ways
Glenn101 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 To get back to the OP a bit, some of the contributors to the original F.A.R.M.S. and before them, Hugh Nibley (No Maam, That's not History" for one), were wont to include some humorous criticism of some of the "anti-Mormon" scholarship. A good example is Tom Nibley's review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon." Some of the contributors' remarks could be rather sharp and biting. Dan Peterson is one example. This did not sit well with some, LDS and otherwise. However, I never really thought that their criticism devolved into ad hominem attacks. However, some of the LDS detractors are not so subtle. John Dehlin, the subject of some debate here has expressed the opinion that "Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy." I cannot link to the discussion because it is on another board, but a Google search will take one there. I have not found a counter example of an LDS apologist making such a statement about an anti-Mormon. Glenn 1
rockpond Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, cinepro said: Uh, no. If, in future presentations, Scott takes my verbiage and substitutes "He has long believed there is no god" with "Dehlin rejects the LDS concept of God, and instead professes a vague hope in the possibility of a "driving force" or "power" without any specific form or behavior", it will not make a bit of difference to any audience. The point is that Dehlin is totally, completely off the LDS doctrinal reservation, and any of his efforts to counsel or rehabilitate foundering believers should take that into account. I would also point out that Dehlin spins his wheels with whining and complaining when he could simply correct Scott and set the record straight. Instead of this... Why not this...? Why not? Because you and others would say that he was just saying that to be able to claim that Scott was wrong. Instead, he provide multiple past published statements to show what his beliefs have been and that they were known. I don't know what "off the LDS doctrinal reservation" means, exactly, but it sounds more accurate than what Scott said.
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2016 Author Posted July 13, 2016 Just now, Glenn101 said: To get back to the OP a bit, some of the contributors to the original F.A.R.M.S. and before them, Hugh Nibley (No Maam, That's not History" for one), were wont to include some humorous criticism of some of the "anti-Mormon" scholarship. A good example is Tom Nibley's review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon." Some of the contributors' remarks could be rather sharp and biting. Dan Peterson is one example. This did not sit well with some, LDS and otherwise. However, I never really thought that their criticism devolved into ad hominem attacks. However, some of the LDS detractors are not so subtle. John Dehlin, the subject of some debate here has expressed the opinion that "Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy." I cannot link to the discussion because it is on another board, but a Google search will take one there. I have not found a counter example of an LDS apologist making such a statement about an anti-Mormon. Glenn I agree. I remember the pathological deceiver stuff. I've always enjoyed Dan and continue to think he's received far more negativity than anyone can twist out of all of his writings combined. I think it's cute, though, that one of the fine contributions on Mormonstories is Dan's episode. It's ironic that Dehlin has spoke so illy of him. http://www.mormonstories.org/?s=dan+peterson
consiglieri Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, juliann said: Oh for heaven's sake. I can vouch for him at being "personally" at at least one FM conference and there were probably more. I would not say that I am buddies with Brent Metcalfe but I know him personally through several FAIR, now known as FM, conferences and years of message board activity. We were are hugging terms, actually. Still would be I'm sure but I haven't seen him for years. Does that mean we are close buds? Of course not. But it sure means I know him personally and have had multiple conversations. I listened to the talk, Dehlin took all of 40 seconds of it. This is the most eye rolling thread yet. The idea that an organization that defends the church isn't supposed to talk about those who attack the church is the most ludicrous thing ever. I think you got honorary mention.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: That is not what I meant..! It would also be human decency for John not to generalize everything..we all assume. Like you did with me just now. It is NOT a good thing to tell others who believes in God and who doesn't..when you don't know..and that would work both ways I'm thinking you lack context for why/how/who on these kinds of discussions. The antimormons have had as their cant for years and years now that apologists can't be trusted because they're mean and get personal and are dishonest. This is just another in a long line of such accusations. And they're hard to take seriously because of the hyperbole that accompanies them. You are disadvantaged, I'm guessing, because you talked to a guy who was nice to you. And now you have people who think extraordinarily poorly about the guy who was nice to you. You come to his defense. That's fine. Nobody wants to take that good that you experienced away from you ... but ... please understand that those who've arrived at a poor opinion about the same guy have good and adequate reasons for doing so.
consiglieri Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Why not? Because you and others would say that he was just saying that to be able to claim that Scott was wrong. Instead, he provide multiple past published statements to show what his beliefs have been and that they were known. I don't know what "off the LDS doctrinal reservation" means, exactly, but it sounds more accurate than what Scott said. I think I got Scott's message loud and clear. Don't listen to Dehlin because he is an excommunicated atheist. No need to deal with the issues. Don't listen to Denver Snuffer because he is an excommunicated theist who acts like a crank in high priest group. No need to deal with the issues. Don't listen to Rodney Meldrum because . . . well . . . he's not excommunicated . . . but he disagrees with FAIR, almost all BYU professors and even the apostles on the pivotal issue of BOM geography. Anyway, still no need to deal with the issues. All Scott did was a trifecta ad hominem in order to avoid dealing with the issues.
Recommended Posts