You seem to think that you have caught mormonstories making inconsistent statements about the document. You are either disingenuously pretending to misunderstand, or you really don't grasp the point of using the second description, rather than the first, in a question to DCP. You seem articulate enough that I would be surprised if you weren't being disingenuous, rather than just dumb, but I suppose everybody has lapses in judgment.

Nevertheless, I'll spell it out. When asking a question of somebody with an incentive to be evasive, it is important to phrase the question as broadly as possible, so they can't use the specificity of the question to say "no," when the answer is actually "yes." In this case, the phrase "multi-page critique" is broader than the phrase "100 page hit piece," and therefore covers more possible descriptions and perceptions of the document, which makes an evasive answer more difficult to pull off.

As an illustration, if the document is actually an 87 page document that DCP wouldn't personally characterize as a "hit piece", then asking him if he wrote, specifically, a "100 page hit piece" would result in a "no" from DCP, even though the document attacking Dehlin really does exist, in virtually the form the questioner suspects. Asking him, however, if there is a "multi-page critique" would more accurately describe this document, and force DCP to answer with a "yes." This all assumes that DCP is telling the truth. The phrasing of the question is irrelevant if the answerer is willing to lie.

(I would even say that the second phrase isn't broad enough to avoid an evasive answer.)

There isn't a conflict between those two phrases in the context in which mormonstories has used them, and you haven't scored a rhetorical point. Does that make sense to you now?

-JV

The cowardice is remarkable. There was once upon a time when he would have at least posted this to the Mormon Dialogue Board, but now he's too chicken to even do that. This is how terrified he is of open discussion.

And it doesn't surprise me that he's unwilling to give a straightforward denial: he's frightened at the prospect of getting caught in a lie.

Denial? It looks more like an implicit acknowledgment of the existence of a written critique of Dehlin. I think the only thing he contests is the characterization of it as a "smear" or "hit piece." Which means, as usual, that material most people would view as unfairly critical and ad hominem about Dehlin will be viewed as fair criticism with the same chin-stroking approbation many of the other slams printed in these journals is accorded by him. The truth is he simply doesn't get it, and nothing will change his mind about that.

I have known several people in my life who have Asperger syndrome or some similar cognitive issue. Obviously they are fine people on the whole, but there are certain noticeable oddities in their approach to the world and their interaction with others. I don't know that one could pinpoint Peterson's blindspot when it comes to his affection for the spirited barrage of insult and innuendo upon his ideological and religious foes often found in the journals he edits. Clearly he accepts it as great fun and will defend it to his dying day. No one will ever persuade him that it has cost the Church dearly, and impacted numerous people negatively in the way it invites and encourages further conflict and distrust of the Church.

As someone commented here: to them it is a game. If anything, they thrive on the very controversy that this thread represents. Having fully internalized the narrative of persecution, any criticism from the wrong quarter will be greeted like a multi-course banquet on a junket. When one leg of the tour has ended, another is just around the corner promising its own, unique delights. They are all roughly the same, but they are just different enough to remain savory to the palate.

The more I think about it, the more this guy sounds like the author of the critique himself.

"static" (Greg Smith?) is calling the above a lie. How credible is his accusation?

You seem to be everything John was claiming about apologists wrapped up in one hurtful, obtuse little man. And you wonder why questioning members of the church run to the critics side (like I did) when they see this type of dialogue from the church's apologists.

When John Dehlin says he has "incontrovertible proof" that is good enough for me.
I do love your idea of asking ourselves what is more likely. After being duped for 30+ years I am trying to use this approach in my life.

Then you must really hate the FARMS Review... and DCP's blog, for that matter.... And SHIELDS, and FAIR, etc., etc.

Essentially calls John a liar while at the same time calling for compassion. Splits hairs on hit piece/critique.

Got anything else of value to add, Static?

No, what you are doing is trying to deny the existence of something which Dehlin claims he has incontrovertible proof of. We know John Dehlin. We know that it is not at all likely that he fabricated the existence of this critique written by Greg Smith. On the other side, we have a cast of characters whose little white lies about numerous documents and events are fairly well known around here.

As for me, I will believe that Greg Smith wrote a long critique of John Dehlin, which might colorfully be described as a "hit piece" in its intention of tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Dehlin, that Daniel Peterson supported its publication in a BYU housed journal, and that a GA intervened to stop its publication. I have good reason to disbelieve that John Dehlin would risk his reputation for general probity by inventing these facts.

On the other hand, you are an anonymous prevaricator who has split words, has defended characters as dubious as Will Schryver, and who to my eyes reads a lot like Greg Smith. You are not so much denying the existence of a critique as questioning the characterization of it as a hit piece, in so many words. Everything you have written has been designed as a distraction. If you are Greg Smith, Will Schryver, or one of their cronies, then you have do business decrying "tearing others down" or taking anyone to task for allegedly doing so. It is either your stock and trade, or you defend your friends when they engage in it.

I have incontrovertible proof that you are a dipstick. This thread.

You apparently didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend, what I wrote. Again, I'm not sure whether you are disingenuous or dense. When you clumsily showed up on this board, you were promptly caught in an idiotic lie. So, I'm leaning toward "dense."

-JV

I have spent almost 3 years getting to know John Dehlin. There are not too many people in this world that match his honesty and integrity.
You, on the other hand, are a cowardly anonymous poster...like myself. So no, I would not take your word as proof of bigfoot or angels with flaming swords or peep stones or buried golden plates protected by zombies.

We could have a very long argument about individual reviews in BYU journals that we would call "hit pieces" and you evidently would call "critiques." I doubt we would come to an agreement on that issue. I would say that in LDS culture, any piece that calls into question the good faith and intentions of another LDS person whose membership is in good standing, which tries to paint him as a threat to the Church, or as a "wrong-thinking" person, which tries, whether insidiously or implicitly or explicitly, to frighten other people away from that person and his or her writings, or accuses that person of apostasy or being in danger of apostasy is a "hit piece." I could expatiate for a long time on this, but I would note that I have read many reviews in the FARMS Review and in other apologetic organs that qualify in my eyes. We probably would not agree on my judgment. I am not restricted by your sense of the term "hit piece" in order to be justified in using the term. For you, critique is what I would see as a euphemism for much worse things.

wow, who sent you here to begin mop-up-duty?

It is very clear you want to change the public perceptions on the text from a hit piece to a simple critique of Dehlin. Unfortunately, clever rhetorical excursions will not hide the intent of this hit piece.

I am willing to state: if this hit piece continues to rise in notoriety then DCP will finally and utterly completely fall. In the eyes of the public, DCP will never be taken seriously as he reaches the same infamy as Paul Dunn. A great deal of weight and possibly precedence will result from this mess.