Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Drifting]

Guys, I was joking in reference to that incident.

Just thought you should know, and sorry for causing confusion.

[_Tator]

If 1I 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.

why me you seem to piss me off more than any other poster anywhere. Your continual use of the statement I bolded above galls me to my root so I am going to say something John would never say....but I am not as good a man as John and neither are you.

John responded like a man. A thinking, intelligent man. I don't think you are an intelligent or thinking man. I don't doubt your maleness because I know you have your foreskin pulled up to your ears and past your eyes. I wish you would roll it down sometimes and let your ears listen and your eyes read and see and that might give your brain a small chance to try to think before you post.

Now have a nice day!

[_stemelbow]

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.

Fine. Its weird that one of the popular criticisms here of Daniel Peterson and many of his peers is they are paranoid. That doesn't seem fair to me.

The only attack you've mentioned by anyone on the apologists side is contested here: http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/10/our- ... m-attacks/

I know Allen asked questions that were offensive to Scratch, but he makes some good points.

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.

K. I won't worry about it then.

If you were in my shoes (oh person who only writes behind a pseudonym) I believe that you might have done likewise.

Maybe...don't' know.

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.

I seem to be doing what? Sure I support gay marriage and a few other things I'm a bit on the fence on, but I have no idea what you are accusing me of now.

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?

That is completely reasonable. To be sure, this is getting way overplayed here. I have said time and again, if it was a hit piece, if it was something of personal attacks on you, then I'm glad it was stopped. I"m not for that at all. But no one here, including you, knows what the piece contains exactly. Strictly legitimate critiques often come off harsh and do not rely on things like ad hominem attacks.

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.

I really don't' mind losing credibility with anyone here. As you can see, if you've paid attention, the game here is to demonize faithful LDS like me in hopes no one takes any of us seriously. I would not excuse any abuse. I think you've clearly bought into something about me, you simply don't know. The whiners here have sold you a bill of goods.

[_Nomomo]

Isn't she the Senior Executive Secretary for The First Presidency? Does DCP expect us to believe she took it entirely upon her own self to advise DCP against publishing the piece? And that he has no idea if any of the brethren were involved? Yeah right! Imma buyin' me a summa that. LOL!

Guys, I was joking in reference to that incident.

Just thought you should know, and sorry for causing confusion.

Doh! That reference sailed right over my head. It is prettty funny now that I get it.
Oh well, at least DCP might appreciate me looking stupid and giving him some good material to work with
-_~

[_stemelbow]

Seems like typical DCP dissembling and distracting.

1) I don't believe that I've ever claimed that any GA has read anything. I am not privy to that information. It could be that they have, and it could be that they trusted others. What I did claim is that GAs intervened, and the publication was halted.

He didn't say you claimed anything of the sort. But its clear many have surmised as much here. He's clarifying his experience here. That's not dissembling and distracting.

2) My understanding is that they communicated directly with Bradford or whomever the head of the MI is. And even if a GA communicated with a secretary who communicated with Bradford who communicated with DCP...it's all the same thing.

He's clearly saying his piece. You have your second hand understanding. he has his first hand. Let's not get all caught up in a "he said...she said..." affair. He was not contacted by any GA. He was not rebuked.

Please....somebody ask DP if he was planning on publishing the piece, and what stopped him from publishing it.

Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.

This is sheer hypocrisy. you want to complain that DCP has attacked people personally, and you come back with this? This is sad stuff, if you ask me.

[_Buffalo]

I really don't' mind losing credibility with anyone here. As you can see, if you've paid attention, the game here is to demonize faithful LDS like me in hopes no one takes any of us seriously. I would not excuse any abuse. I think you've clearly bought into something about me, you simply don't know. The whiners here have sold you a bill of goods.

Stem, you know that isn't true. Is anyone demonizing Brant Gardner? David Bokovoy?

Typically we just go after the bullies and those who defend bullies.

[_Drifting]

He was not rebuked.

That's not what he said.
{Your Lord and Master} only stated that he had not been rebuked directly by a General Authority.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you know that isn't true. Is anyone demonizing Brant Gardner? David Bokovoy?

Typically we just go after the bullies and those who defend bullies.

Nice try, trickster.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, you know that isn't true. Is anyone demonizing Brant Gardner? David Bokovoy?

Typically we just go after the bullies and those who defend bullies.

Nice try, trickster.

I noticed you evaded my question. :)

[_stemelbow]

I noticed you evaded my question. :)

Neither of those two post here, and for good reason, Buffalo. I am speaking about demonizing participants here.