Reelmormon wrote:yet here you have criticized you have influenced church leadership to affect change in the publishing of a critical paper you may want to adjust the list from five to three
CA Steve wrote:So if it was wrong for John to inluence church leadership to stop publication on the paper, what does that say about the church leader(s) who made such a decision?
What indeed? The elephant in the room at MDD seems to be an implicit criticism of the apostle who quashed the hit piece.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
If anyone has any cause to "show up in his own defense," it is Greg Smith!
This is now the second time in a year that we have seen this newly adopted approach of the apostate evangelists when they learn that an important piece of Mormon apologia is about to go to print: pull out all the stops, unloose the dogs of a full-fledged propaganda war, and do everything in their power to CENSOR the voice that they themselves cannot otherwise silence.
- responding to Senator, who said: "So JD didn't bring it here. He did show up in his own defense."
Good hell William. You dug your own grave. You repeatedly said nasty things. You have noone to blame but yourself.
I'd like to see the apostates at the Maxwell Institute defend against this one:
Peppermint Patty wrote:The only thing that matters to me is that someone in a Church Leadership role (GA or an Apostle) made the decision that this article was inappropriate to be published. For me, this is all that really matters. This decision was made by our Leaders and we should not be questioning the wisdom of such a decision.
It would be interesting to see an email or other corresponce from this GA or Apostle and the reasons they felt this article was inappropriate, though.
Also, I don't think the personal attacks by both sides are justified.
Rather than directly acknowledge their rebellion against an apostle, they'll probably just respond with the deceptive "You don't know the full story" and leave it at that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Mentalgymnist wrote:It's been a little over twenty-five minutes and Rufus has been dog piled on. His story has been discounted at face value. If you take some of the comments at the beginning of this thread by Schryver, Crockett and Storm Rider and then look at the response that Rufus has received thus far, it becomes apparent that there may be some merit to what he has to say. Look in the mirror people...Regards,MG Regards,MG
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I'd like to see the apostates at the Maxwell Institute defend against this one:
Peppermint Patty wrote:The only thing that matters to me is that someone in a Church Leadership role (GA or an Apostle) made the decision that this article was inappropriate to be published. For me, this is all that really matters. This decision was made by our Leaders and we should not be questioning the wisdom of such a decision.
It would be interesting to see an email or other corresponce from this GA or Apostle and the reasons they felt this article was inappropriate, though.
Also, I don't think the personal attacks by both sides are justified.
Rather than directly acknowledge their rebellion against an apostle, they'll probably just respond with the deceptive "You don't know the full story" and leave it at that.
On cue, here come the apostate apologists:
Scott Lloyd wrote:From what I can tell, all we have to go on regarding that point point so far is second-hand rumor reported by John Dehlin himself. Which General Authority made that determination, what was his reasoning and specific response, and, presuming the information is correct, had he actually seen the article in question?
Bluebell wrote:No offense meant in the least, but the decision was made by a leader, and i'm not sure it was made by him acting in his capacity of leadership or just as a friend of JD.
Unless and until the decision is publically endorsed as being made for a specific reason, then i don't see how we can't judge this as the leader's (who's name we don't even know) opinion on the matter and nothing more. In this instance, i honestly don't feel that any leader's anonymous and behind the scenes wrangling should be at all binding on anyone.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Mark 'Quiet Humility' Beesley wrote:When I read something like this, I begin to wonder if there really isn't more to the Calvinistic TULIP model of salvation than I have conceded in the past. I've been in some of the same callings as Rufus (and then some), read the same book, as well as some other decidedly less-faith promoting, and been disappointed with interactions with some in the Church (including a apostle). I have had my own personal struggles and demons to overcome, some of which are quite despicable. Yet through it all I have managed to maintain a quiet faith born of a a witness of Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration, and an expression from the Lord of His love to me. The only sense I can make of it -- why I remain (what I consider to be) a faithful Latter-day Saint while others will lose faith -- is akin to Calvin's concept of Perservence of the Saints. I have certainly done nothing in mortality to warrant the faith with which I have been blessed, but it is there nonetheless. Was it because I was more valiant in the preexitence than I have managed to be in mortality? Perhaps. Or am I simply the recipient of blessings because of the good works of my forebearers? Likely. Whatever the reason, the challenge I now face is being more charitable with those who have not been so endowed. We all ought to do so.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Mentalgymnist wrote:It's been a little over twenty-five minutes and Rufus has been dog piled on. His story has been discounted at face value. If you take some of the comments at the beginning of this thread by Schryver, Crockett and Storm Rider and then look at the response that Rufus has received thus far, it becomes apparent that there may be some merit to what he has to say. Look in the mirror people...Regards,MG Regards,MG
Mentalgymnastics must have never logged in over here. He calls a few challenges and questions, with a couple of comments that are less than noble, as being dog-piled on. Most of the responses to Rufus were fair and some were quite charitable, i'd say.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Mentalgymnist wrote:It's been a little over twenty-five minutes and Rufus has been dog piled on. His story has been discounted at face value. If you take some of the comments at the beginning of this thread by Schryver, Crockett and Storm Rider and then look at the response that Rufus has received thus far, it becomes apparent that there may be some merit to what he has to say. Look in the mirror people...Regards,MG Regards,MG
Mentalgymnastics must have never logged in over here. He calls a few challenges and questions, with a couple of comments that are less than noble, as being dog-piled on. Most of the responses to Rufus were fair and some were quite charitable, i'd say.
You should go tell him that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
MD&D has a real double standard. They would never allow that thread to continue if these type of things were being said about a church leader or one of their own.