Kishkumen wrote:I think my solution is a fair and intriguing suggestion. Both sides are fighting for their continuing existence. They view each other as enemies and see harm in the other's actions. I think having two organizations with different aims addressing the problems they are best equipped to handle would be optimal. Neither aim is invalid. I have no desire to see the excommunication of John Dehlin or the shaming and firing of some professor at BYU who likes to engage in apologetics. I think they are all fine.
And, I should add that I am not saying that Dehlin should be institutionalized as part of the Church, or that what is important here is this particular set of formal or informal organizations. What makes sense for the Church and the well being of its members is the existence of two separate organizations that bring to their different charges an appropriate set of tools exercised with care and professionalism.
I very much agree again.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:All you need to do is look at how Hamblin and Peterson and Schryver responded. You've chosen the dark side of the force. Forever will it dominate your destiny.
You're blind as a bat, which has already been shown when you claimed Daniel used the word "essay", if you think their responses represent the loan attacks in all of this. Both sides, your side and their side, have attacked, personally so. I have chosen the middle road. You've chosen your side. Have fun with that, complaining about them doing that which you and your side does.
Oh, the hatred. This guy.
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.
stemelbow wrote:So were these emails to Daniel Peterson or to the GA, with Daniel receiving as carbon copy? Daniel has claimed you had sought far more than just contacting him. It seems instead of first contacting him, you contacted a GA to put a stop it to.
This isn't full disclosure. I think I understand more where his comments in that email come from, if this is the case.
This whole affair is quite shameful.
Here is DCP's attempt to offer some disclosure, which it appears sheds some pretty good light on John's claim of full disclosure. I know posters here won't see this dishonest claim of his, because his other dishonest claim was twisted to suggest DCP used a word he did not use.
Sadly, no one has a full story save for a few and we're all eating it up and sharing our biased views. Go here, and everyone think MI and DCP are bad. Go there, and everyone is questioning John's morals and honesty. Gotta say, they have some good points over there.
I contacted DP and the GA at exactly the same time. I think that ad hominem attacks are shameful.
stemelbow wrote:Go there, and everyone is questioning John's morals and honesty.
No Stem, not everyone.
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
Wow, the Midgley thing is really awful. Sickening, really. But then again, there are multiple accounts of him doing aggressive things like this: verbally assaulting Sandra Tanner at her place of work; flinging profanities at the vigil for Lynne Whitesides, and so on. My question is this: did they put this business about the deceased missionary into the article? I.e., did both Greg Smith and DCP sign off on the notion of including this? Or was this just Louis "Woody" Midgley off on a rant?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
mormonstories wrote: I contacted DP and the GA at exactly the same time. I think that ad hominem attacks are shameful.
Good to hear. it seems, in part, this is a classic case of misunderstanding each other and lack of communication. It seems DCP is under the impression the emails you initially sent weren't primarily to him. They were sent primarily to another. When I read his comments I had in mind the idea that when I send an email out for something I often will cc someone who may or may not be interested in the conversation or information in the email, often thinking, by cc'ing them they are welcome to the information but it is directed at another. I wonder if that's what he had in mind in all of this.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Wow, the Midgley thing is really awful. Sickening, really. But then again, there are multiple accounts of him doing aggressive things like this: verbally assaulting Sandra Tanner at her place of work; flinging profanities at the vigil for Lynne Whitesides, and so on. My question is this: did they put this business about the deceased missionary into the article? I.e., did both Greg Smith and DCP sign off on the notion of including this? Or was this just Louis "Woody" Midgley off on a rant?
Don't know...but it's all part of what made me feel sick and concerned enough to cause a ruckus. No one had the courtesy to send me the article, so I had to respond on the information I had available. If stuff like that was going to be printed....I was not going to take that lying down.
mormonstories wrote:Good to hear. it seems, in part, this is a classic case of misunderstanding each other and lack of communication. It seems DCP is under the impression the emails you initially sent weren't primarily to him. They were sent primarily to another. When I read his comments I had in mind the idea that when I send an email out for something I often will cc someone who may or may not be interested in the conversation or information in the email, often thinking, by cc'ing them they are welcome to the information but it is directed at another. I wonder if that's what he had in mind in all of this.
Maybe - I sent the original email to the GA and DP (along with others) because DP stopped answering my emails to him a long, long time ago, and so I felt like it was the only way to get his attention. If he would have engaged me directly in the past, I would never have felt the need to go over his head...but he ignored me enough that I didn't see any other way to get his attention.
I can definitely understand and agree with John's desire to protect himself from a negative article aimed at him personally. If, as in the case of Brant Gardner, there were a book to review, one might be more blase about it all naturally, but the very nature of the enterprise here would result in ad hominem. I can't say that I would have taken it lying down either. You mobilize the resources you have. I don't see anything wrong with contacting people you know who might be disposed to listen to your side of the story.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
