for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Then he would be correct.

Ah well...i think you're saying you are unlearned, which is not true, but not an apostate.

If you look closely, you'll see that only "unlearned" (not "apostate") was in your statement to which I responded.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think it silly he thinks anyone is going to buy into his theory that it was an elaborate plan of his--meaning to complain about the essay would surely spark change at MI and BYU. It just seems a little convenient he's running around claiming that was his intent all along.

But, no doubt some will buy it.

Whatever John's intent, I think the Smith essay played a significant role in the eventual purge at MI. I don't think anyone (including John) foresaw this consequence, but the whole controversy seemed to take on a life of its own and went from there.

[_Mayan Elephant]

So again, of course I don't love being slandered, but I made a very conscious calculation based on the motives and information. listed above, and I believe that I made the right calculation, based on the subsequent actions of the GA's, BYU, and the Maxwell Institute. I also think that I have been very, very consistent in opposing Mormon apologetic ad hominem. Maybe for 6-8 years?

John, on that you have been very consistent. other things not so much, but certainly on that you have been clear since you started this project.

I think you will find that the same people that think Smith's Review is NOT a hit piece, that it is warranted, that its ends justify its means, and that the cast at the Interpreter were treated unfairly also believe that YOU censored this piece through nefarious actions.

I think you will also find that the same people that believe Smith's Review is poorly written, misleading, lacking any scholarship and that it was meant to be a piece that would judge you based on the author's selected quotes or research, would not call this censorship at all. These voices would, rather, applaud the wisdom of any employer, church, school or institution for spiking (as much as possible) a publication that was unfit, unwise and potentially harmful to the the university and others.

[Guest]

On page 38 of his main essay, Smith writes: "[T]he only Church contributions to Proposition 8 were in-kind donations for travel."

I note that Smith's cited source states that "the Church’s donations were all in-kind and included travel expenses, compensated staff time and audiovisual production services."

Lol, classic mopologist, smoke and mirrors.

Does DCP et al want us to believe Smith piece was peer reviewed?

[_mormonstories]

Whatever John's intent, I think the Smith essay played a significant role in the eventual purge at MI. I don't think anyone (including John) foresaw thise consequence, but the whole controversy seemed to take on a life of its own and went from there.

I definitely foresaw the possibility of a serious internal church review on official BYU/Church-related apologetic tactics....but I never envisioned DCP's dismissal. That exceeded my expectations, and I think had more to do with his reaction to the affair than my actions.

[_why me]

]
Well, Rollo I am surprise at your level of naïveté.
John is a masterful chameleon When he talks to anti's; he agrees with them, when he talks with pro's he agrees with them. Sorry, but not many of us conduct our business affairs like that.
Bottom line is; (perhaps you missed it); John flooded the Podcast waves with incalculable damaging information. How can you say he is not damaged the cause of Church? Any publicity like Johns is a huge negative, especially Church's Missionary program....

So true. And this is the reason why he is now defended on this forum. The work that he did in leading people out of the church as served this board well. Even ceeboo the catholic thinks that john has done a wonderful job. Of course, if john (if he were catholic) was doing this to the catholic church, he may be of a different opinion.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I definitely foresaw the possibility of a serious internal church review on official BYU/Church-related apologetic tactics....but I never envisioned DCP's dismissal. That exceeded my expectations, and I think had more to do with his reaction to the affair than my actions.

I tend to agree. I always thought that if the classic-FARMS guys had just let Smith's essay die a quiet death, the purge wouldn't have happened. But, for a reason that is beyond my comprehension (i.e., they were fighting for a paper that was truly awful), they couldn't let it go, and it came back to bite them in their collective arse.

[_cinepro]

Hey Rollo, I posted it over at MAD. If you don't want it over there, just let me know.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So true. And this is the reason why he is now defended on this forum.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but also places other than this forum ... such as GA's, BYU's president, and Gerald Bradford. By approving (tacit or otherwise) the purge of classic-FARMS from the MI, it is obvious whose side they are on.

[_why me]

Whatever John's intent, I think the Smith essay played a significant role in the eventual purge at MI. I don't think anyone (including John) foresaw this consequence, but the whole controversy seemed to take on a life of its own and went from there.

I don't know if they even saw it or read it. I think that it was all done on hearsay. But I can't be sure about this. We need remember that MI had a mole that would report to scratch, if I am not mistaken. I think that the damage was done in that respect. It sort of went like this: the mole reports to scratch. Scratch puts up a stink on this board. This board activates itself and bombards MI with emails or even the church office building. Even Bill has said that his department has received hostile emails about Bill. The free thinking critics are not so free thinking.