Everybody Wang Chung wrote:... I think most people can see who is really harming the Church.
Carry on.............
And, with reference to the OP, it does rather look as though the Church has a pretty accurate idea of that too.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I don't think that sitting in judgment on Dr. Peterson for months at a time is really conducive to anything good.
I don't think that talking about your employment problems in public for months at a time is really conducive to anything good.
But if Daniel Peterson chooses to do that on a blog open to comments, I think we can reasonably surmise that he wishes his contentions to be discussed.
Which is what people are doing.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I don't think that sitting in judgment on Dr. Peterson for months at a time is really conducive to anything good.
I agree with you. And, had Dan decided to take the MI changes in stride, stepping down quietly and launching the new MI, I don't think there would be much to judge or criticize.
However, Dan has incessantly thrown Gerald Bradford and BYU under the bus ever since his departure. As long as Dan comes down on BYU/Bradford -- he deserves any and all criticism for his actions, in my opinion.
Markk wrote:Seeing that you monitor these posts, think about how silly you look from those on the outside looking in. You are/were a leader and expected to be a professional, not a loose canon waging a war of personal insults to ex-members questioning how they were raised...could you imagine Monson or other GA's running around the net calling their critics names...I understand you are not a GA, but the folks look up to you as a example, and your example led to an embarrassment to the real leadership.
I love it when anti-Mormons and atheists tell us how to live our religion.
Hi YB,
I would never tell you how to live your religion, nor was I telling DCP that, but I will tell you the problems, lies, and deceptions the LDS faith had "given" to me, and tell you about some scars I still have, as many here do.
As a LDS member do you believe a LDS leader should engage in petty Internet squabbles and belittle people?
Thanks MG
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote:As a LDS member do you believe a LDS leader should engage in petty Internet squabbles and belittle people?
Thanks MG
Your descriptor of DCP as a LDS leader is probably the most problematic phrase in that sentence. If he was a GA, you'd have a complaint. As of last conference, he wasn't. Thus... he's not a LDS leader. LDS member, yes.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.