Peterson exacts revenge for Dehlin hit piece humiliation

[_Joe Geisner]

Marlin K. Jensen?

He is being put out to pasture in a few months so he'd be a safe target. Seriously, I think his target was John towards whom he must feel a healthy dose of righteous indignation (hatred).

Jensen is being given emeritus status. That appears odd to me because he seems to be in good health and still has all his faculties. Haven't heard anything to suggest he is ailing.

Simon,

I believe it is written in stone, maybe on gold plates, that if you are not one of the fifteen, then at 70 y.o. you are retired. No matter what. Many people, including myself, hoped that Elder Jensen would be made an Apostle. Sad that this will never happen. As Hugh B. Brown said, they will never put another person like him in the fifteen. Way to dangerous!

[_Kishkumen]

Simon,

I believe it is written in stone, maybe on gold plates, that if you are not one of the fifteen, then at 70 y.o. you are retired. No matter what. Many people, including myself, hoped that Elder Jensen would be made an Apostle. Sad that this will never happen. As Hugh B. Brown said, they will never put another person like him in the fifteen. Way to dangerous!

Thanks for that insight, Joe!

[_RayAgostini]

Simon,

I believe it is written in stone, maybe on gold plates, that if you are not one of the fifteen, then at 70 y.o. you are retired. No matter what. Many people, including myself, hoped that Elder Jensen would be made an Apostle. Sad that this will never happen. As Hugh B. Brown said, they will never put another person like him in the fifteen. Way to dangerous!

I think I'm up to date now with most of the threads here on this subject, so here's my question:

If the position of the 15 is so strict and literal that they'd never want another Hugh B. Brown, or any "liberal" like Jensen in the 15, what are they afraid of? That they might undermine the faith of the Saints?

[_Joe Geisner]

Thanks for that insight, Joe!

Kish,

Thank you very much for posting all the interesting comments from the News.

It would appear that John and his research is correct. People are leaving because of serious issues, not what the apologist claim; that people want to sin or were offended at Church. The serious problems are the Book of Abr, DNA, multiple FV accounts, polygamy/polyandry and gay rights. The FARMERS have no idea how to deal these issues, but shoot the faithful member who asks questions.

[_Carton]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765581231/We-can-learn-from-sins-of-Nephites.html

Against the backdrop of the Book of Mormon story of Alma and the sons of Mosiah, Peterson tells those who can't think for themselves how to recognize (cough, John) modern day (cough, Delin, cough ) Korihors.

"Unwilling hearts do not, cannot, fully understand the divine."

"The real problem with these dissenters, however, wasn't merely that they disbelieved. It was that they sought to lead others into disbelief, as well, and into lifestyles contrary to the commandments of God."

"One of the recurring themes of the Book of Mormon in depicting prominent opponents of the prophets is their eloquence, their ability to influence and even manipulate others by the power of their language."

"Among this new generation of enemies of the church, unfortunately, were some of the best and the brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged"

"Beneficiaries, presumably, of the best education available — it would have been, in the nature of Nephite society, a religious education based, to some extent at least, on the scriptures — and the sons of prophets and seers, these men were entirely clear about what they were doing: "They were going about rebelling against God"

"This wasn't just a falling or a drifting away. It was a knowing, conscious revolt. But it was also clandestine, surreptitious, sneaky. It's very doubtful, though, that they would have openly admitted that their goal was "to destroy the church." Perhaps they wouldn't even have admitted it to themselves."

"No doubt they felt that what they were doing was right. They may have rationalized the fact that their "flattering words" opened the door to "iniquities" forbidden by the faith of their fathers as merely a coincidental, liberating side benefit."

"Do we know, though, how to recognize their modern counterparts? And, please, don't doubt that they exist. "

Just coincidence? Not a chance.

What's puzzling to all of us is that William Schryver claims it was all his idea, and that he and DCP are the wolf-slaying team: "… He Did Go About Secretly … Seeking To Destroy The Church …"

[_Joe Geisner]

I think I'm up to date now with most of the threads here on this subject, so here's my question:

If the position of the 15 is so strict and literal that they'd never want another Hugh B. Brown, or any "liberal" like Jensen in the 15, what are they afraid of? That they might undermine the faith of the Saints?

Ray, I really hoped this book was online, but it is not. If you can afford this book, I would suggest you get it immediately. It is a fun read; I read it in one sitting. I could not put it down.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Abundant-Life- ... 410&sr=1-1

Here is the intro, this will give you a little taste:

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excer ... dant-life/

Brown was a liberal Democrat for starters, and with that his world view was completely different than the fourteen. Even his nephew N. Eldon Tanner was to the right of him and Tanner had been a Social Credit Party in Canada. Brown as also brutally honest when he saw a problem, such as the Churches racial discrimination policies. Brown is my hero, him and B. H. Roberts.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, I really hoped this book was online, but it is not. If you can afford this book, I would suggest you get it immediately. It is a fun read; I read it in one sitting. I could not put it down.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Abundant-Life- ... 410&sr=1-1

Here is the intro, this will give you a little taste:

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excer ... dant-life/

Brown was a liberal Democrat for starters, and with that his world view was completely different than the fourteen. Even his nephew N. Eldon Tanner was to the right of him and Tanner had been a Social Credit Party in Canada. Brown as also brutally honest when he saw a problem, such as the Churches racial discrimination policies. Brown is my hero, him and B. H. Roberts.

I've probably read more than you think, Joe, including An Abundant Life, which was originally published, If I recall correctly, by Bookcraft, which was at one time owned and managed by a former mission president of mine. I'm not positive about the owning part, but he definitely managed it for many years. I've been "at this type of thing" for 37 years now, though I have to admit that most of my "Mormon-related reading" these days is online.

[_Joe Geisner]

I've probably read more than you think, Joe, including An Abundant Life, which was originally published, If I recall correctly, by Bookcraft, which was at one time owned and managed by a former mission president of mine. I'm not positive about the owning part, but he definitely managed it for many years. I've been "at this type of thing" for 37 years now, though I have to admit that most of my "Mormon-related reading" these days is online.

Completely different book.

Not sure if you are interested in this, but Gary Bergera's article is the best work on this particular subject:

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhis ... 33/iss1/1/

And it is free.

[_Milesius]

"No doubt they felt that what they were doing was right. They may have rationalized the fact that their "flattering words" opened the door to "iniquities" forbidden by the faith of their fathers as merely a coincidental, liberating side benefit."

Yes, they leave because they are obsessed with hot booty shaking.

[_RayAgostini]

Completely different book.

Not sure if you are interested in this, but Gary Bergera's article is the best work on this particular subject:

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhis ... 33/iss1/1/

And it is free.

Yes, you're right, the one I read was by Poll and Campbell. I have read Bergera's article on Brown, but not the book. I'm not sure how one is supposed to enlighten me more than the other. Any thought on that?