It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:55 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 447 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 22  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:59 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:51 am
Posts: 228
static wrote:
mormonstories wrote:
Classic, classic apologetic dissembling.


Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:01 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6512
Location: Cassius University
mormonstories wrote:
Does anyone else note how sad it is that Daniel Peterson now communicates from a solo blog where he doesn't even allow comments.....that he no longer even has the ability or credibility to directly engage in the difficult conversations? This is LDS apologetics in the 20th and 21st centuries...retreat only to places where you are surrounded by supporters...because if you engage critics directly in a neutral forum....you come off looking so silly...as if you are trying to prove the location of Santa's workshop.


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.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:07 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Drifting wrote:
D to the C to the P wrote:
On the message board where my Malevolent Stalker holds forth, he and several of his acolytes have been hyperventilating for seven outraged pages now -- and the thread may actually be picking up steam -- about an alleged "smear" or "hit piece" that not a single one of them has even laid eyes on.


I'm struggling to see a denial from daniel....


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 Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:10 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
static wrote:
Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.


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

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:14 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
mormonstories wrote:
It's so classic...and condemning. I have incontrovertible proof of 1) the existence of the essay/hit piece....2) his knowledge about it....3) the GA condemnation of the whole enterprise....and 4) his direct censure (as it relates to all this).....so his use of the word "alleged" stands as a classic, yet condemning example of his continued disingenuous-ness as an apologist. The only thing that keeps me from releasing the evidence is my respect for those (including the GA's) who have supported me -- but you can count on him and his followers to take advantage of me in this regard (plausible deniability -- another classic LDS apologetic tactic...it's their whole foundation...really...when you get right down to it).


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

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:53 pm
Posts: 1589
static wrote:

Pardon me. I thought we were talking about a "hit piece" that was supposed to be "100 pages," not a "multi-page, footnoted critique." My god, man! If someone can't write a critique then what can they do?

And no, I will not ask them. As I said, I believe your wacky theories - all of them.


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.

_________________
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:50 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
Juggler Vain wrote:
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.


Forgive me if one is not supposed to read the opening post of a thread in order to determine what might be discussed in said thread.

From the original post


Quote:
I cannot help but wonder how the cancellation of this "hit piece"....


mormonstories also referred to it as a "hit piece" in the second post

Quote:
The primary author on the hit piece was....


The phrase "hit piece" appears seven times on the first page of this thread. What is the purpose of using emotionally charged terms like "hit piece?" The answer is simple: conspiracy theorists and nut jobs eat it up, and I am no exception. This all must be true, because we have no evidence, but it seems plausible, right?

When asked whether mormonstories had seen the alleged hit piece, he replied

Quote:
no



So, mormonstories definitely made inconsistent statements about a document he has no knowledge of.

And that is evidence enough for me. It has to be true.

But back to hating DCP. How dare he write a multi-page critique! LOL.

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:54 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
Willy Law wrote:
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.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:53 pm
Posts: 1589
static wrote:
Willy Law wrote:
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.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.


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.

_________________
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:04 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6512
Location: Cassius University
static wrote:
I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.[/color]


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

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 4654
Location: What does the fox say?
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?

_________________
The ultimate action of a warrior, is to put down his sword.


Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:34 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
Willy Law wrote:
When John Dehlin says he has "incontrovertible proof" that is good enough for me.


And it is for me, too. That's why I've said multiple times that I believe this wacky conspiracy theory must be 100% true. After all, John Dehlin said so, right?

I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?


Quote:
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.


As well you should. I don't know what you mean by "being duped for 30+ years" were you the original Manchurian Candidate?

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:38 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
static wrote:
All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.[/color]


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.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Last edited by Kishkumen on Tue May 08, 2012 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:39 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
SteelHead wrote:
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?


For the record, I don't think John is a liar. I don't even know him. I do think there is a lot of wacky conspiracy theory "shock therapy" going on in this thread, and I think it wise to use our reason and compassion to figure out what is really going on rather than succumb to tabloidery (yes, I made that word up).

Saying "hit piece" and "critique" are two very, very different things. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't differentiate between the two terms? Are all movie reviews "hit pieces?"

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:40 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
static wrote:
I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?[/color]


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

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:42 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:51 am
Posts: 228
static wrote:
Juggler Vain wrote:
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.


Forgive me if one is not supposed to read the opening post of a thread in order to determine what might be discussed in said 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:43 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
Kishkumen, have you seen all the hit pieces written about The Avengers?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:53 pm
Posts: 1589
static wrote:

I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?



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.

_________________
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:45 am 
Star B
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:34 pm
Posts: 102
Juggler Vain wrote:
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'm glad you think it proper to equate hit piece with critique. I shall immediately inform Roger Ebert.

_________________
- Stan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:46 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13719
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
static wrote:
Saying "hit piece" and "critique" are two very, very different things. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't differentiate between the two terms? Are all movie reviews "hit pieces?"[/color]


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.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehli
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 1484
static wrote:
Willy Law wrote:
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.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 447 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 22  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craig Paxton, DrW, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], Jaybear, neworder, No_Hidden_Agenda and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group