Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

+1

It's essentially a page out of the Scientology playbook.

Much like posts here. Anyone who has read a post here, by a critic, what they call critique or argument is really just an ad hominem attack.

Mr. Elbow,

What is the difference between an internet message board and the FARMS Review?

H.

I don't see how it matters. The complaint is, "they are doing something I don't like".

When someone says, "well you, or those you are associated with, are doing the same thing"

I don't see how saying, "well, they do it but they have more credibility and a larger readership then we" is an adequate defense. Or, "well they are assuming to be more professional then we".

Either way, it doesn't really work. Either stop your endless personal attacks on LDS folks, and offer your complaints about them offering personal attacks, or accept it goes both ways. That's how I see it.

I know you guys have exempted yourselves for some odd reason.

I understand. However, my point still stands. No one has read the article. I cannot comment on it because I have not read it. John has not read the article either.

And, at this point, no one will read the article.

It seems that, in any case, the article will not be published. If it was, indeed, a hit piece, as apparently some of John's friends who did manage to read the article claim, then, MI did ultimately do right by John, and did not publish it.

What more is there really to say about this? John, it seems, has been vindicated, if, he was, indeed a victim of any wrongdoing in the first place.

Liz, Hamblin suggested that it will now be published by FAIR instead of the MI.

Elbow,

FARMS Review, by it's association with the Maxwell Institute and BYU, claims to be a legitimate scholarly journal. An internet message board, on the other hand, is more akin to a pub.

H.

I think we are all just finding much delight in the spanking Peterson's great and glorious ass received and want to savour the moment a while longer.

H.

I think you meant trailer park.

Again. it doesn't matter. You don't like what some people do and want to use that against them? Then don't do that very thing. Or you can go ahead and do that and come off looking like hypocritical jackasses.

I stand corrected. FARMS Review is much more like a trailer park than a scholarly journal. My mistake.

H.

Hamblin also threatened to release it today but he is rather busy packing for Ireland.

Well that's not strictly true.
It would seem that a number of Mopologists have read it and we can assume a GA or Apostle has read it. We can also assume that it's content was deemed unbecoming of a member of the Church from the fact it was canned.
We don't need to read the article, one can sense its contents from the actions taken.

This episode shows how far out of step from the Church people like DCP et al have become.

"I'd whip your ass, but, uh, I have a dentist's appointment."

You just said Dan has read it.



To be more precise, it won't be published in FRB as presently constituted. What is to stop them from publishing it elsewhere? Or stop them from changing a few paragraphs and publishing it anyway?



Only after Salt Lake City put the kibosh on it. Makes me wonder why they couldn't be bothered to do the right thing until then? I mean, seriously... it is that hard to do the right thing?



IF? C,mon, Liz. IF? Are you saying he was lying? That there was no article? That he was not a target? That there was no wrongdoing? If there was no wrongdoing, then there would not need to be a GA administering a slap (and yes, that was definitely a slap. We even heard it out here in the mission field). Hamblin admits there was an article; Dan backs him up. There is no IF.

MDD is down. All the traffic on the thread over there must have overloaded the site. :)

Most of the responses there amounted to calling John Dehlin a tattletale. I think everyone on the Internet should be required to do some reading on the psychology of bullying before they're allowed to start posting.

I'm guessing they took it down intentionally until they can decide what to do. Those threads weren't doing FAIR/MI any favors.

It must be quite difficult to live under such fear.

If they stopped the 'hit piece' it would make sense to shut down a thread like that. My guess is that the paper itself wasn't as harsh as that thread. Most likely IMO it was probably just the amount of traffic. Moreover I think that even without releasing the paper the damage has already been done.

It's back up. Either it was just a glitch from traffic, or they figured the memory hole treatment would make things worse.

Confirmed as a hit piece.