Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. There you go..that is what I should have said..it is poor taste. And that...is just human nature.
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Just now, consiglieri 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. Pretty much spot on. An LDS friend who listened to the whole address said it was the worst FAIR presentation he had ever attended for precisely that reason. 3
juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think you got honorary mention. Then you need to think less. I'm not the only one with this name, assuming it was mentioned. 1
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 39 minutes ago, USU78 said: 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. Okay. I am not the usual anti-mormon. I do admit that I jump to conclusions way too fast. But I do try to be fair;
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Just now, Jeanne said: Okay. I am not the usual anti-mormon. I do admit that I jump to conclusions way too fast. But I do try to be fair; Leave the anti-Mormonism to us professionals. 1
Popular Post juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Pretty much spot on. An LDS friend who listened to the whole address said it was the worst FAIR presentation he had ever attended for precisely that reason. Twenty some years and this is the worst? Too funny. I would never argue any talk couldn't have been done better, does that even need to be said? But the sobbing over this one is beyond the pale. I just listened again. He begins saying the talk isn't for every member. He asks, with a power point, where people are going with their questions. That is the topic. Now that may not interest you, but it does matter to those who, like in his example, have family members who leave. He makes the point that not all critics are like those hanging out on temple square. Now, if I'm asking where people are going for questions....from listening to the howling here, I should never mention a professional exit counselor, or the letter that is claimed to be the most powerful weapon against the church ever, or some guy who started up his own church. In fact, apparently, no excommunicated ex member. He says the reason he is bringing this up is because of the emails and questions FM gets. But no fair that anyone should talk about what they do...unless they are excommunicated critics. Or something. Consig sets up the rules for believers: Quote 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. Really? I'm listening to it as I type. He is explaining the problems with the methodology in the CES letter. For what seems like several minutes. You are dead wrong on that one. If you are a believer, it is ad hominem to inform believers that excommunicated members might not be the best source for their purposes? Seriously? The high priest crank one-liner, I'll concede. But he did follow it with why his beliefs are problematic. Rodney Meldrum....he is quite specific that the problem is he claims the BOM geography is revealed....and it's not. So as I listen, it is sooooo clear that a few people haven't really listened to this or are <gasp> misrepresenting it! What Scott seems to be doing is giving multiple examples of bad methodology. But don't listen to anything he says because it is all ad hominem! All of it! 6
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, juliann said: Twenty some years and this is the worst? Too funny. I would never argue any talk couldn't have been done better, does that even need to be said? But the sobbing over this one is beyond the pale. I just listened again. He begins saying the talk isn't for every member. He asks, with a power point, where people are going with their questions. That is the topic. Now that may not interest you, but it does matter to those who, like in his example, have family members who leave. He makes the point that not all critics are like those hanging out on temple square. Now, if I'm asking where people are going for questions....from listening to the howling here, I should never mention a professional exit counselor, or the letter that is claimed to be the most powerful weapon against the church ever, or some guy who started up his own church. In fact, apparently, no excommunicated ex member. He says the reason he is bringing this up is because of the emails and questions FM gets. But no fair that anyone should talk about what they do...unless they are excommunicated critics. Or something. Consig sets up the rules for believers: Really? I'm listening to it as I type. He is explaining the problems with the methodology in the CES letter. For what seems like several minutes. You are dead wrong on that one. If you are a believer, it is ad hominem to inform believers that excommunicated members might not be the best source for their purposes? Seriously? The high priest crank one-liner, I'll concede. But he did follow it with why his beliefs are problematic. Rodney Meldrum....he is quite specific that the problem is he claims the BOM geography is revealed....and it's not. So as I listen, it is sooooo clear that a few people haven't really listened to this or are <gasp> misrepresenting it! What Scott seems to be doing is giving multiple examples of bad methodology. But don't listen to anything he says because it is all ad hominem! All of it! I haven't listened to the whole thing and don't plan on doing so. I'm just reporting on my friend's reaction. And no, I don't know how many other FAIR conferences my friend has attended. He was just turned off by what he considered an overly personal and negative presentation.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Pretty much spot on. An LDS friend who listened to the whole address said it was the worst FAIR presentation he had ever attended for precisely that reason. I listened to the whole address, too -- I was there in the audience -- and I think your friend's comment, if accurately reported, is silly. I thought the address was pretty good, myself. And I've now posted a blog comment on this tempest: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/john-dehlin-vs-scott-gordon.html Edited July 13, 2016 by Daniel Peterson 2
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said: I listened to the whole address, too -- I was there in the audience -- and I think your friend's comment, if accurately reported, is silly. I thought the address was pretty good, myself. And I've now posted a blog comment on this tempest: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/john-dehlin-vs-scott-gordon.html It goes without saying that my friends are silly. ETA: It's nice to see you, Dan. It's been a while. I hope life is treating you well. Edited July 13, 2016 by jkwilliams
juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I haven't listened to the whole thing and don't plan on doing so. I'm just reporting on my friend's reaction. And no, I don't know how many other FAIR conferences my friend has attended. He was just turned off by what he considered an overly personal and negative presentation. Hey, I have friends who didn't think that! Should we now present their credentials and see who has the greatest appeal to authority so everyone can go home without listening to what they are carrying on about? 3
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, juliann said: Hey, I have friends who didn't think that! Should we now present their credentials and see who has the greatest appeal to authority so everyone can go home without listening to what they are carrying on about? Your sarcasm might carry more weight had anyone suggested my friend's reaction was universal among conference attenders.
Jeanne Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, juliann said: Hey, I have friends who didn't think that! Should we now present their credentials and see who has the greatest appeal to authority so everyone can go home without listening to what they are carrying on about? Wow
consiglieri Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, juliann said: Then you need to think less. I'm not the only one with this name, assuming it was mentioned. He didn't mention your name exactly, just somebody who was a certain relationship to John who works for FAIR. If that's not you, I apologize. Somewhere I must have gotten that impression though I am not certain where.
jkwilliams Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: Wow I've seen worse. 1
consiglieri Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, juliann said: Really? I'm listening to it as I type. He is explaining the problems with the methodology in the CES letter. For what seems like several minutes. You are dead wrong on that one. If you are a believer, it is ad hominem to inform believers that excommunicated members might not be the best source for their purposes? Seriously? The high priest crank one-liner, I'll concede. But he did follow it with why his beliefs are problematic. Rodney Meldrum....he is quite specific that the problem is he claims the BOM geography is revealed....and it's not. So as I listen, it is sooooo clear that a few people haven't really listened to this or are <gasp> misrepresenting it! What Scott seems to be doing is giving multiple examples of bad methodology. But don't listen to anything he says because it is all ad hominem! All of it! Actually, I didn't mention Runnells or the CES letter. I just mentioned Dehlin, Snuffer and Meldrum. And whether a member is an excommunicant says nothing as to the substance of the issues they raise. I will add that I think Dehlin is overreacting on this. But if I were John Dehlin, I would simply have said that Scott Gordon is attempting to sweep a mountain of somewhat impressive work under the rug by a 40-second painting of John as an excommunicated atheist. And I would have added, were I John Dehlin, that Scott Gordon appears to not be interested in discussing the issues, as demonstrated by the fact Scott Gordon turned down multiple requests to present his case on Mormon Stories.
Thinking Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 I've never met a respectful apologist. I've never met a disrespectful critic. 2
juliann Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And I would have added, were I John Dehlin, that Scott Gordon appears to not be interested in discussing the issues, as demonstrated by the fact Scott Gordon turned down multiple requests to present his case on Mormon Stories. False dilemma much? 3
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Apparently Mormonstories is the only reputable avenue of responding. Or perhaps consig believes only face to face matters? But then does that mean Dehlin's responses can be ignored because he isn't face to face? Edited July 14, 2016 by Calm 1
Glenn101 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: It goes without saying that my friends are silly. ETA: It's nice to see you, Dan. It's been a while. I hope life is treating you well. Okay John, lets freak out with semantics here. Dan did not say that your friend was silly. Here merely said that your friend's comments, if accurately reported, are silly. Could this be considered a mischaracterization??? Glenn 1
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Okay John, lets freak out with semantics here. Dan did not say that your friend was silly. Here merely said that your friend's comments, if accurately reported, are silly. Could this be considered a mischaracterization??? Glenn Silly people make silly comments.
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Like I said, I can't imagine getting riled up over any of this. But clearly, disliking Scott Gordon's tone is akin to character assassination.
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) If saying silly comments is akin to calling someone silly, than disliking someone's tone is akin to disliking the person it would seem to me. (I would disagree with both conclusions, btw) Everyone makes silly comments at sometime in their lives no matter how nonsilly they are. Edited July 14, 2016 by Calm 1
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: If saying silly comments is akin to calling someone silly, than disliking someone's tone is akin to dislinking the person it would seem to me. Everyone makes silly comments at sometime in their lives no matter how nonsilly they are. Of course. I didn't like Scott's tone. Not worth getting into an argument over, especially since I'm not the target audience.
Glenn101 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Of course. I didn't like Scott's tone. Not worth getting into an argument over, especially since I'm not the target audience. I think that maybe you are one of those old time western types who will jump into the middle of a fight just because they enjoy a good brawl. Glenn
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Just now, Glenn101 said: I think that maybe you are one of those old time western types who will jump into the middle of a fight just because they enjoy a good brawl. Glenn Nah, just shared my opinion. Other people seem a lot more upset about this than I am. If nothing else, I don't believe I knew what Scott Gordon looked like until now.
Recommended Posts