Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Buffalo]

Now you're making stuff up. Typical of an anti-Mormon like you.

I think that Liz has confirmed my statement.

No, she hasn't. I can see that as an anti-Mormon your commitment to deception runs deep.

[_Fence Sitter]

So we now have confirmation that someone did intervene for John with DCP. We can expect those critical of John for his efforts to stop the publication to also criticize the Church authority(ies) involved correct?

*Watches to see if the temperature in Hell starts to drop at all.*

[_Buffalo]

So we now have confirmation that someone did intervene for John with DCP. We can expect those critical of John for his efforts to stop the publication to also criticize the Church authority(ies) involved correct?

*Watches to see if the temperature in Hell starts to drop at all.*

Exactly. The underlying thread in all these attacks against John is an implicit attack against the apostle and the seventies who took his side against the MI. But the apostate apologists don't have the cohones to say it openly. So they take out their anger on John.

[_why me]

Thanks for all you have done.

Was running to a GA the right thing to do? First, he had no idea what the article contained. Second, running to a GA seems a little ninnyish. Much better to let the piece run and respond to it. And certainly if there were something libelous in the piece, have a nice lawsuit. But...to call for censorship is never the way to go.

[_why me]

Exactly. The underlying thread in all these attacks against John is an implicit attack against the apostle and the seventies who took his side against the MI. But the apostate apologists don't have the cohones to say it openly. So they take out their anger on John.

I think that the GA was a personal friend of John. Someone who helped him in the past when he was doing his first podcasts. I remember what happened back in the day. And Dan being a good member of the church, decided to go with the GA as a personal favor. But the whole episode stinks to high heaven.

Censorship should not be encouraged.

[_why me]

If I were Dan, I would have taken the piece to a lawyer to have it checked for libel and if there weren't anything libelous, I would have published it. No foul. Then, john could respond like a man and defend himself and critics on this board could watch John's back and support him. It would have been a marvelous moment to see the gladiator games begin.

[_Buffalo]

If I were Dan, I would have taken the piece to a lawyer to have it checked for libel and if there weren't anything libelous, I would have published it. No foul. Then, john could respond like a man and defend himself and critics on this board could watch John's back and support him. It would have been a marvelous moment to see the gladiator games begin.

You tell him! Screw that apostle! Publish it anyway!

I like how you guys are embracing your anti-Mormonism. It's inspiring!

[_LDS truthseeker]

If I were Dan, I would have taken the piece to a lawyer to have it checked for libel and if there weren't anything libelous, I would have published it. No foul. Then, john could respond like a man and defend himself and critics on this board could watch John's back and support him. It would have been a marvelous moment to see the gladiator games begin.

I bet you that the Church's lawyers and virtually unlimited funds would pick up the tab for DCP and totally overwhelm John and whatever lawyer he could afford on a student's salary. Suing the church or those backed by the church is foolhardy unless you have a lot of money because the church has more. And it sounds like John would rather solve this peacefully which is best for all rather than have to resort to legal tactics after the damage has been done.

Hopefully the 'hit piece' will get lost and remembered no more - kinda like the lost 116 pages.

[_Kishkumen]

Second, we have no idea if apologetics were responsible for them leaving or if they read from critic sites just how FAIR or the Maxwell Institute hurts the LDS church. My guess is that these people have been so engrossed in critic sites that no answer that apologetics could have given would have saved these people from leaving.

All of them? How do you know, why me? You can't imagine a scenario in which some of these folks may have been adversely affected by apologetics?

I mean, come on, man! I am not saying they were necessarily right, but to conclude that "these people" were steeped in anti-Mormon literature and beyond hope is incredibly uncharitable of you. You don't even know them!

Also, your post seems to show that you wanted to save your own skin. I don't believe in censorship. Would you like to close down the exmo site or the postmo site because of their attacks on the LDS church? Have you read those sites? You should have allowed the piece and responded like a man.

Here's a thought, why me. Maybe he wants to remain a member of the Church for some reason. Maybe he doesn't want a negative article about him printed in a journal published through BYU. I'm having a difficult time seeing how either of those desires is a bad thing.

And, to be clear here, in contacting these folks, he knew that he was potentially placing himself under their scrutiny. They very well might have said to MI, "OK, let's read this article," thus giving them access to this persuasive rhetoric of Greg Smith. It is interesting that he did not fear those potential consequences. He didn't because he feels fairly confident that, in the eyes of a number of people in the leadership of the Church, he has done nothing that would merit discipline.

Unfortunately, the way that discipline often starts is at the bottom. And what a seasoned GA would not see as a problem, a bishop might. Why should John want to roll the dice with this bishop or stake president, or the next bishop or stake president?

The involvement of an apostle has even been mentioned. Whether an apostle actually did get involved, John had to know that this was a potential outcome. Yet he did not fear that outcome. Why do you suppose that is? Because he is a coward? Or because he is pretty confident that he has not done anything that these fellows would take drastic action against?

I fail to see what is wrong with what he did. I see no evidence of cowardice here.

[_schreech]

You tell him! Screw that apostle! Publish it anyway!

I like how you guys are embracing your anti-Mormonism. It's inspiring!

Buffalo, I implore you not to quote why me's idiocy. Some of us have him on ignore so, please, for the love of light-cotton wearing elohim, stop quoting him...

That said, John, keep fighting the good fight...The fact that you have triggered such a negative reaction among LDS apologists means that you are doing something right. Just fyi, your original "testimony" that was posted years ago on your old site gave me a lot of hope during a time that I really needed it.

Any idea what actually prompted this "critique"? Did MI pay for it? Did they do it voluntarily?