Doctor Scratch wrote:Another example that comes to mind is jskains, who actually tried to volunteer with FAIR, but was shunned and kicked to the curb by them.
Personally, I'd like to see FAIR become more exclusive in determining who represents it online, not less so.
Who among the current participants should be excluded, in your opinion?
"[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
Nevo wrote: I freely concede that some LDS message board participants can be mean-spirited in their dealings with critics—and with their fellow Mormons. But it doesn't follow from this that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, as organizations, routinely abuse and otherwise "harm" struggling members. They don't.
Yes they do, as the evidence shows. You're ignoring the evidence and attacking Dehlin based on your own ignorance and need to believe as a loyalist to a certain tribe of rabid apologists. You have yet to justify Maxwell having ANYTHING to say in print about Dehlin. I'm still waiting for someone to do it, in light of their mission statement. He is just a guy who runs a site dedicated to helping folks with Church issues. What an evil threat this guy must be!
You automatically assume that means he is trying to get people out of the Church, but from what I have read from his site the opposite is true. You indulge the same kinds of paranoid fantasies that decorate the rants of Schryver and Pahoran.
It helps to actually know what you're talking about.
Nevo wrote:I freely concede that some LDS message board participants can be mean-spirited in their dealings with critics—and with their fellow Mormons. But it doesn't follow from this that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, as organizations, routinely abuse and otherwise "harm" struggling members. They don't.
The organizations, in this case, are just the aggregate effect of the individuals who make it up. I'm not sure what you are getting at with "harm" but people absolutely have been offput by content published by those organizations because they found it 1) unconvincing and 2) unnecessarily mean. One of the the first things that stoodout about the now edited stone in hat bit outside of the bizarre assertion that critics are afraid of this information getting out was how nasty it was to the very idea of being challenged by that fact. You know, questioning members might be challenged by that fact. Hitpieces, which is what this threat is about I gather, qualify as well. This has pushed some people away. I know because I've talked to some of those people. I don't see that as a bad thing, but your mileage may vary. As far as the targets of such behavior, I suppose that is harm in a more direct sense.
Scratch wrote:Also: I can think of at least a couple of instances off the top of my head where Dr. Peterson has been dismissive or rude to people asking sincere questions. One was here on this board, up in the Celestial Forum, when Liz asked him about blood atonement. He basically just blew her off, as I recall.
Actually, Dan didn't blow me off. He simply answered my question via email.
Kevin Graham wrote:He is just a guy who runs a site dedicated to helping folks with Church issues.
Yes, and Grant Palmer was just a retired CES employee trying to help Church members gain a better understanding of LDS origins. Why would the Maxwell Institute ever take an interest in him?
Nevo wrote:I freely concede that some LDS message board participants can be mean-spirited in their dealings with critics—and with their fellow Mormons. But it doesn't follow from this that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, as organizations, routinely abuse and otherwise "harm" struggling members. They don't.
Critic: someone who likes people, does not like the construct that the institution imposes.
Defender: someone who will dump on 'some' unnamed individuals, but defend the institution (here, FAIR and NAMIRS). Here, Nevo demonstrates his defender cred. He's making bc-"the Church"-space proud.
by the way, Nevo, give us by name some examples of those at NAMIRS are mean-spirited, and by name those at NAMIRS you think are not mean-spirited and thus 'redeem' NAMIRS.
Nevo wrote:I don't dislike John Dehlin. I've never met him but I think he comes across as a likable enough fellow. But I disagree with his stated aim of "help[ing] struggling Mormons find peace during tough transitions," which effectively means—in nearly all cases—facilitating doubting Mormons' exit from the Church. I don't think Dehlin is a competent guide in such matters. And, ultimately, I think he has probably done more to enlarge the ranks of the disaffected than Palmer or Brodie ever managed.
What is my ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Personally, I would prefer to see John Dehlin to stay in the Church and work through his faith crisis privately, rather than exporting his confusion to the masses and in the process becoming the self-appointed leader/advocate/spokesman of a constituency of disaffected/marginalized Mormons.
So on other words members with questions, worries and that may be headed towards disaffection should put up and shut up. Don't publicly air your concerns anywhere. Don't seek someone who may have gone through it for support. No groups to support you at all. I won't say what such an approach lends to my mind as far as group think and other bad words. But I think this is just a foolish approach and has not worked for most thinking people.
John has filled the void. You think he has ushered more person out of church than into the church. I am not sure how you can prove this. Not can I prove he has helped more stay. But I can tell you that I have attended a Mormon Stories conference. And out of the about 100 people there is was pretty even between those who are staying and finding a way to make it work.
Also I think your last comment about Dehlin's confusion condescending. Is he confused because he has reached differing conclusions than you? Are you deluded or following with blind faith because you are devoted to an organization that clearly has problems? Why is your choice any more valid and less confusing than his? You see this is the problem with certainty in a one true way. It creates such and arrogant approach to anyone who disagrees.
Nevo wrote:Yes, and Grant Palmer was just a retired CES employee trying to help Church members gain a better understanding of LDS origins. Why would the Maxwell Institute ever take an interest in him?
Uh, because he wrote a book purporting to be a work of history? I mean, that is the purpose for having a review of books, right? To review books? Like Grant Palmer's book?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
sock puppet wrote:Defender: someone who will dump on 'some' unnamed individuals, but defend the institution (here, FAIR and NAMIRS). Here, Nevo demonstrates his defender cred. He's making bc-"the Church"-space proud.
by the way, Nevo, give us by name some examples of those at NAMIRS are mean-spirited, and by name those at NAMIRS you think are not mean-spirited and thus 'redeem' NAMIRS.
I wasn't really referring to the Maxwell Institute in my post. By "LDS message board participants" I was thinking primarily of the denizens of MDD. As you may know, there are a handful of posters there that don't always play by Marquess of Queensberry rules in their online interactions with critics. But since I am accused of "dumping" on these gentle souls, I won't name names.
But here is a partial list of regular contributors to Maxwell Institute publications (with 10 articles or more) that are not particularly mean-spirited:
Nevo wrote:But here is a partial list of regular contributors to Maxwell Institute publications (with 10 articles or more) that are not particularly mean-spirited:
Kevin L. Barney
Susan Easton Black
M. Gerald Bradford
S. Kent Brown
Kevin Christensen
John E. Clark
Alison V. P Coutts
James Faulconer
Grant R. Hardy
Brian M. Hauglid
Paul Y. Hoskisson
John M. Lundquist
David L. Paulsen
Dana M. Pike
Noel B. Reynolds
Stephen D. Ricks
Richard Dilworth Rust
David R. Seely
Jo Ann H. Seely
Royal Skousen
Robert F. Smith
John L. Sorenson
M. Catherine Thomas
Gordon C. Thomasson
Might want to rethink a couple of those... they've been closely associated with William, a more "mean-spirited" individual would be difficult to find. (and I'm pretty sure I can say that, since I'm one of his favorite targets)
(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.