Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Fence Sitter]

This entire fiasco does have a silver lining. In view of the principled stance that many of the apologist have now taken against censorship and letting the "truth" out so that readers may judge for themselves we can expect this same approach to Church history.

*Glances at the thermometer again*

[_CaliforniaKid]

What would you call going to a GA to tattle on someone?

I would call it seeking intervention from a higher authority. Since you're opposed to this, I assume you're also opposed to prayer.

If someone threatened to try to falsely tie me to the deaths of two missionaries, I am certain that I would seek help from anyone and everyone I could to prevent that piece from being published. For a public figure like John Dehlin, his impact and possibly even his economic well-being depends upon his reputation. It's no small thing to have one's reputation dragged through the mud in such a blatant manner.

[_mormonstories]

I just think it's funny to hear believers criticizing me for going to a church leader when I feared that someone was going to do harm to the church (which is sincerely part of what I feared). That seems like the perfectly LDS thing to do.

Once more, it's pretty clear that they agreed (for whatever reason) that the piece should be scuttled....so for believers to complain about the acts of GA's and apostles...well...that's just even more bizarre.

In my mind, this wasn't about censorship. It was about using the church's own levers of power to try to keep DCP, Midgley, etc. from harming the church, LDS apologetics, BYU and many others more than they already have. It was confronting a bully. So sad that a few of you want to protect the abusers -- even when the brethren have spoken on the matter. So odd -- but consistent with why I deplore LDS apologetics so much. Sleep well, I guess.

[_MrStakhanovite]

If someone threatened to try to falsely tie me to the deaths of two missionaries, I am certain that I would seek help from anyone and everyone I could to prevent that piece from being published. For a public figure like John Dehlin, his impact and possibly even his economic well-being depends upon his reputation. It's no small thing to have one's reputation dragged through the mud in such a blatant manner.

I don’t think John was worried about his own reputation, but that of the Church’s.

[_RayAgostini]

I think one of the best merits of my position is that it does not demonize the apologists. It says, "hey, you guys do this stuff, you have good intentions, you do good work, and you have your place." I say this because I think that Mormons deserve to defend themselves and their beliefs just as much as Jews, Catholics, or any other religious group does. Why should I say, "I will not be satisfied until every one of these "old school apologists" is drummed out of the Church in shame"? I don't feel that way. It is not what I want. So, I'm not going there.

Well said, and ditto.

[_stemelbow]

I just think it's funny to hear believers criticizing me for going to a church leader when I feared that someone was going to do harm to the church (which is sincerely part of what I feared). That seems like the perfectly LDS thing to do.

Once more, it's pretty clear that they agreed (for whatever reason) that the piece should be scuttled....so for believers to complain about the acts of GA's and apostles...well...that's just even more bizarre.

In my mind, this wasn't about censorship. It was about using the church's own levers of power to try to keep DCP, Midgley, etc. from harming the church, LDS apologetics, BYU and many others more than they already have. It was confronting a bully. So sad that a few of you want to protect the abusers -- even when the brethren have spoken on the matter. So odd -- but consistent with why I deplore LDS apologetics so much. Sleep well, I guess.

John, to be fair we don't know if they were going to harm the Church. It'd probably be fair for you to dispense with that language. I think DCP took issue with it because he felt it to be an ultimatum. It seems reasonable for you to talk to MI first and if nothing came of it go with your connections.

[_mormonstories]

John, to be fair we don't know if they were going to harm the Church. It'd probably be fair for you to dispense with that language. I think DCP took issue with it because he felt it to be an ultimatum. It seems reasonable for you to talk to MI first and if nothing came of it go with your connections.

stemelbow - I am talking about my own motives and rationale. I believe very strongly that the ad hominem hit pieces that have historically made by FARMS/FAIR/Maxwell Institute have harmed the church and others. In this instance, I was informed of the "hit piece" as THEY called it...not me....by people favorable to the M.I. . THEY told me that this was another one of those types of pieces. THEY were concerned and were fighting its publication. FROM THE INSIDE.

The approach I took with DCP and the GA's was due to what I perceive to be DCP's history of generally ignoring of my emails to him. I was told that time was of the essence (that publication was imminent), and so I felt like the stakes were high.

If you were in my shoes (oh person who only writes behind a pseudonym) I believe that you might have done likewise. Maybe. I don't know. But I totally stand behind what I did...and I still think it's odd that you seem to be arguing with decisions made by church leaders. Why don't you explain to me why they scuttled the piece? I can tell you. They told me that they felt like ad hominem attacks hurt everyone involved. Got it?

I feel like you are inclined to excuse the abusers in this situation...so you are losing credibility with me. Sorry to speak so harshly, but that's how I feel. Take care. Sleep well.

[_consiglieri]

I feel like you are inclined to excuse the abusers in this situation...so you are losing credibility with me. Sorry to speak so harshly, but that's how I feel. Take care. Sleep well.

You are not the first to recognize stemelbow as the queen of the board nannies, John.

On a personal note, I absolutely love listening to your podcasts, and look forward to new ones every week, either by your or Dan.

It is encouraging to me that people out there are willing to look at the multi-dimensional and (to me) fascinating world of Mormonism in an intelligent, open and honest manner.

We don't all have to agree to learn from each other. In fact, one could say that everybody agreeing is the path to learning nothing at all.

I have often heard the Mormon definition of damnation as having one's progression stopped.

It is ironic, then, that LDS church meetings qualify as the LDS definition of damnation.

Thank God for Mormon Stories.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_RayAgostini]

In my mind, this wasn't about censorship. It was about using the church's own levers of power to try to keep DCP, Midgley, etc. from harming the church, LDS apologetics, BYU and many others more than they already have. It was confronting a bully. So sad that a few of you want to protect the abusers -- even when the brethren have spoken on the matter. So odd -- but consistent with why I deplore LDS apologetics so much. Sleep well, I guess.

While I have come to believe that some of FARMS apologetics was definitely overboard (I stated this as far back as 2003, on ZLMB), a view echoed by Eugene England as well, I would certainly not lump them all as "abusers". That's a bit rich. I rejoined the Church in 1995 largely as a result of Professor Peterson's writings. It's true that my membership did not last (out the last time in 2001), and in subsequent years I leaned much more towards the information provided in books like Metcalfe's New Approaches, which I came to feel were more plausible, and I didn't feel I could remain a "Liahona Mormon". I don't think it's fair to say that they are "abusers". Many members still think very highly of Dr. Peterson, and feel that FARMS gives them the "booster" they need to stay faithful. It didn't work for me, but it still works of many within the Church.

[_mormonstories]

While I have come to believe that some of FARMS apologetics was definitely overboard (I stated this as far back as 2003, on ZLMB), a view echoed by Eugene England as well, I would certainly not lump them all as "abusers". That's a bit rich. I rejoined the Church in 1995 largely as a result of Professor Peterson's writings. It's true that my membership did not last (out the last time in 2001), and in subsequent years I leaned much more towards the information provided in books like Metcalfe's New Approaches, which I came to feel were more plausible, and I didn't feel I could remain a "Liahona Mormon". I don't think it's fair to say that they are "abusers". Many members still think very highly of Dr. Peterson, and feel that FARMS gives them the "booster" they need to stay faithful. It didn't work for me, but it still works of many within the Church.

I respect you, Ray. And I don't doubt that Daniel Peterson is capable of doing many good things.

I just believe that he, along with Louis Midgley and others, sometimes act like abusive and occasionally deceptive thugs in their role as apologists. And I have seen no reason to believe otherwise. Their arguments don't stand on their own, so they attempt to shoot the messenger. And I (for one) am not going to take it lying down.