DiscussMormonism.com

There is currently a thread on MD&D concerning John Dehlin.

I think another good measure of the church is the ability to take criticism. Personally I think John Dehlin overall is very mild and reasonable with his critiques. To refer to him as 'vegetarian wolves in sheep's clothing' is absurd. John's main focus seems to be letting people tell their stories, and getting the information out there. He doesn't seem set on persuading anyone to take a certain point of view.
For some it seems there is no degree of allowable criticism for the church.

Stormy Waters wrote:To refer to him as 'vegetarian wolves in sheep's clothing' is absurd.

This does come from our very own Yahoo Bot, so I'm not surprised at all. And kudos to John -- he clearly has struck a chord with the Morgbots, and they are freakin' out.

Thank you Southwest for alerting us to Bob's despicable thread. If there ever was/is a "wolf in sheep's clothing," Bob should top the list.

I am convinced that Bob has no morals or ethics. Bob has a true personality disorder. He only wants to hurt others and cause chaos. How he can call himself a good Mormon and faithful to its teachings is beyond me.

my goodness what a delightful read, particularly in comparison to any threads here about individual LDS like DCP. In the thread here, John comes off as particularly hostile and unhappy. There he comes off as a nice guy--Will's comment notwithstanding.

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

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.

Joe Geisner wrote:Thank you Southwest for alerting us to Bob's despicable thread. If there ever was/is a "wolf in sheep's clothing," Bob should top the list.

I am convinced that Bob has no morals or ethics. Bob has a true personality disorder. He only wants to hurt others and cause chaos. How he can call himself a good Mormon and faithful to its teachings is beyond me.

Well, the words Rollo attributes to me are not mine.

CFR on where I call myself a good Mormon and faithful to its [who is "it?"] teachings.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

mormonstories wrote: ....

Ah, the devil incarnate himself!






Godspeed John

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?

Stormy Waters wrote: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?

See, therein lies the assumption that all apologists stick together in a committee to assault the good names of anti-Mormons. It isn't like that. Anybody with a ponytail can be an apologist.

If I'm not mistaken they've banned the likes of Droopy, LdsFaqs, and others. So why not William?