DiscussMormonism.com

mms wrote:http://www.johnadamscenter.com/2012/06/did-john-dehlin-bring-down-the-mormon-studies-review-hint-the-answer-has-two-letters/

As I have noted on a couple of occasions, this is as much a fight waged by ideologues who insist that their narrow interpretation of Mormonism is the only correct one as anything. I am increasingly convinced that this was a coordinated offensive against liberals. Ralph Hancock was one of the principles in this offensive, as his attack on Joanna Brooks demonstrates.

Here's a question. It has basically become Doctrine that Bradford and the Dehlin-friendly GA "haven't read the Greg Smith 'hit piece.'" Where is the evidence that this is the case? How do we know for certain that neither of them read it?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Here's a question. It has basically become Doctrine that Bradford and the Dehlin-friendly GA "haven't read the Greg Smith 'hit piece.'" Where is the evidence that this is the case? How do we know for certain that neither of them read it?

Hey, since the MI has sprung a significant leak, they shouldn't be so confident that Bradford and the GA haven't read it.

This is actually quite humorous. What does Dehlin have to do with this? It was Bradford (with help from DCP himself), that booted DCP from being editor because Bradford wanted to go in a different direction and DCP wasn't on-board (nor was he getting the job done). Clearly the Brethren were on-board with this change too. These guys are really off their nut when they accuse Dehlin of doing this.

Hancock says the piece may come to light in due time. Of course, we should all recognize that when it eventually does come out, none of us will have any way of knowing if it was the original piece or not. They could soften the tone, then publish it and say "see, it wasn't a 'hit piece' after all."

"But of course the way one cares for another person is inevitably shaped by what one believes is good for that person, and therefore by what one believes is good. Since I believe in the truth of the Restored Gospel, and believe that the best way to care for people is to help them to obey the commandments and accept the authority of scriptures and prophets as they (as we) come to a fuller understanding of the Truth, I am skeptical of John Dehlin’s approach to supporting people in their “transitions.”

This isn't my definition of helping someone. If asked for help, I try to assist with whatever that person wants. Adults are capable of making their own religious/spiritual/philosophical decisions for themselves. It certainly isn't my place to tell them what to do or believe.

I empathize with Mormons who see a loss of faith as calamitous. I do. But I don't think it's appropriate to dictate the particulars of what a belief system should be to other adults.

I really haven't listened to MS enough to know John's approach, but from what I've read, he doesn't seem to engage in similar dictatorial behavior.

Equality wrote:Hancock says the piece may come to light in due time. Of course, we should all recognize that when it eventually does come out, none of us will have any way of knowing if it was the original piece or not. They could soften the tone, then publish it and say "see, it wasn't a 'hit piece' after all."

I was thinking this exact thought.

Fionn wrote:This isn't my definition of helping someone. If asked for help, I try to assist with whatever that person wants. Adults are capable of making their own religious/spiritual/philosophical decisions for themselves. It certainly isn't my place to tell them what to do or believe.

I empathize with Mormons who see a loss of faith as calamitous. I do. But I don't think it's appropriate to dictate the particulars of what a belief system should be to other adults.

I really haven't listened to MS enough to know John's approach, but from what I've read, he doesn't seem to engage in similar dictatorial behavior.

Yes. I agree with you. I can't think of anything positive to say about an approach to dealing with other adults that thinks nothing of them as individuals and merely orders them what to think and do with the understanding that if they fail to satisfy the requirements of this person, he will cut them loose and shrug his shoulders because they just didn't listen to his wisdom and follow his formula.

Personally, I don't think that works. Paul spoke of being all things to all men. He didn't march in and say, "Do what I tell you or to heck with you!"

Kishkumen wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Here's a question. It has basically become Doctrine that Bradford and the Dehlin-friendly GA "haven't read the Greg Smith 'hit piece.'" Where is the evidence that this is the case? How do we know for certain that neither of them read it?

Hey, since the MI has sprung a significant leak, they shouldn't be so confident that Bradford and the GA haven't read it.

I believe the origin of the rumor that Bradford "never read it" is Dan Peterson. Do I need to remind readers about Dan Peterson's record of truth-telling when it comes to behind-the-scenes happenings at the Maxwell Institute? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that he's telling the truth.