MD&D thread on John Dehlin

[_Equality]

For the record I'm completely convinced overall he's a nice guy. No one needs to go after him.

You're kidding, right? You know that people can read the numerous comments you made in the other thread in which you repeatedly called John a liar, accused him of being hostile, engaging in vitriol, going after DCP, and making things up, right? And now you are vouching for John as a "nice guy," eh? You're a real piece of work.

[_Kishkumen]

You're kidding, right? You know that people can read the numerous comments you made in the other thread in which you repeatedly called John a liar, accused him of being hostile, engaging in vitriol, going after DCP, and making things up, right? And now you are vouching for John as a "nice guy," eh? You're a real piece of work.

Kidding? No.

Lying? Yes.

[_stemelbow]

You're kidding, right? You know that people can read the numerous comments you made in the other thread in which you repeatedly called John a liar,

I didn't call him a liar. But to be fair, we all lie from tiem to time.

accused him of being hostile,

Likewise, we're all hostile at some point.

engaging in vitriol,

He seemed angry, what can I say? Oh he admitted he was angry and apologized. Which was real swell, if you ask me.

going after DCP,

Duh. He apologized. I ain't about to go on about this.

and making things up, right?

This relates to his one indiscretion of trying to say DCP was saying there was no essay at all. I asked him. He never responded. Suddenly Buffalo got all worked up over it as did you and others.

And now you are vouching for John as a "nice guy," eh? You're a real piece of work.

Son of a gun. So let's see, the sum of it is, a nice guy can actually be someone who misrepresented another, got angry and attacked another? Sounds like every single guy I know at some point. If such a person can't be nice, then no one can be nice.

Settle down all. Read my sig. Let it sink in. No need to get all worked up over nothing.

[_RayAgostini]

What I posted over there:

This is John. I just want to briefly clarify what we consider our goals to be.

Non-goals:
1) To be dissenters
2) To criticize
3) To influence church leadership in order to effect change in the church
4) To persuade anyone to leave the church
5) To persuade anyone to stay in or join the church

Goals:

1) To explore, and to inform as many people as possible about the historical, doctrinal, and cultural complexities of Mormonism -- so that people can navigate their lives and relationships with the church in ways that are more fully informed. Because traditional, active church membership requires so much of its members, and has such a significant impact on individuals and society, we believe that people deserve to be fully informed about the church before they make such decisions. Since the church tends to focus more on the positive and correlated portions of Mormonism, we try to explore "the rest of the story." We try to be as neutral as we can in our exploration, as evidenced by our willingness to interview both believing members (Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Terrell Givens, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Charles Harrell, etc.) and non-believing members (Grant Palmer, Margaret and Paul Toscano, the McLays, Simon Southerton, etc.).

2) To provide open forums for sharing and discussion regarding these tougher Mormon-related issues, where people will not be feel judged for their thoughts, feelings, experiences, or ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation. If people decide to stay in the church: awesome. If people decide to leave the church: that's totally their decision.

3) To provide resources and communities of support for people who are struggling with a Mormon-related transition, whether they be experiencing a faith transition, marital discord, mental health concerns, or struggling with their sexual orientation. Ultimately our goal is to reduce Mormon-related depression, anxiety, familial strife, divorce, and suicide -- and to increase Mormon joy and happiness.

That's what we're trying to do, anyway -- though we make thousands of mistakes along the way.

But just to repeat -- dissent, criticism, organizational change, and causing people to leave or stay in the church are not even really on our roadmaps.

You can read more about our goals/objectives here: http://mormonstories.org/about/

Thanks for giving me the chance to respond.

I think these are very worthy and worthwhile goals.

Thanks, John.

[_Equality]

You're kidding, right? You know that people can read the numerous comments you made in the other thread in which you repeatedly called John a liar,

I didn't call him a liar. But to be fair, we all lie from tiem to time.

All we have from him (John Dehlin) is a made up story about how DCP claimed there was an alleged essay. That wasn't true.

That's one place where you called him a liar. You said he "made up a story about how DCP claimed there was an alleged essay." Then you said that what John said "wasn't true." To normal, rational people, that's tantamount to calling someone a liar. And, of course, what you say is a complete fabrication. John never "made up a story about how DCP claimed there was an alleged essay." You are the one who lied when you said that about John. And now you have compounded it by lying about it again here. I'm not "worked up" in the slightest.

[_Buffalo]

I fear that Stem has been caught up in the doctrine that lying to protect church leaders (in this case the leader of the Church of FAIR) will be rewarded in heaven.

[_stemelbow]

That's one place where you called him a liar. You said he "made up a story about how DCP claimed there was an alleged essay." Then you said that what John said "wasn't true." To normal, rational people, that's tantamount to calling someone a liar. And, of course, what you say is a complete fabrication. John never "made up a story about how DCP claimed there was an alleged essay." You are the one who lied when you said that about John. And now you have compounded it by lying about it again here. I'm not "worked up" in the slightest.

My goodness, my man. I don't know about you, but I never think someone is a liar if they say something that is not true. Afterall every single person I've ever known has said something not true. I'd imagine every single person who has ever lived has lied. Saying something not true does not mean someone is a liar. Hope that helps.

I'm not going on about it anymore. He apologized. No need to drag it out. you don't like it, please just drop it. I will too. Deal?

[_Stormy Waters]

Honestly I don't understand why apologists don't rid themselves of William. He seems like a loose cannon and much more of a liability than an asset.

I mean haven't they already banned some of the more embarrassing supporters? So why not him?

Who have the apologists ever "banned"? What does it mean to be "banned" from FARMS/MI?

In the case of MI It would look like them not publishing your work.

[_stemelbow]

I fear that Stem has been caught up in the doctrine that lying to protect church leaders (in this case the leader of the Church of FAIR) will be rewarded in heaven.

Fear no longer. I don't live by that creed at all. I do not intend to lie for any, well most, reasons. Yeah, so what if my kid's a wimp but I don't tell him that? I can lie sometimes if I feel its best.

[_Buffalo]

I fear that Stem has been caught up in the doctrine that lying to protect church leaders (in this case the leader of the Church of FAIR) will be rewarded in heaven.

Fear no longer. I don't live by that creed at all. I do not intend to lie for any, well most, reasons. Yeah, so what if my kid's a wimp but I don't tell him that? I can lie sometimes if I feel its best.

What's your motivation, then? Have you lost your fear of god but not your slavish devotion to defending NAMIRS members at all costs?