They are/were both great men.
Yep
But they would take offense to being held up as the poster children for the disaffected, mean-spirited anonymous vendor of hate and bile against the Church.
I do not view myself as any of those. In fact I am happy that I had the views of these two men to keep me more in line and participating. My stake president turned me to their writings when I have discussed my concerns with him.
The fact you use your first name as your screen name is rather meaningless. I for one, as well as Tal Bachman, Bob McCue, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, Dr. Peterson, Bill Hamblin and others are not afraid to put our names behind our public statements.
Yes we all know you are quite brave and wonderful and that many of us, myself included are stinking rotten hypocrites and cowards. I agree.
As far as Jason's reference to the two men, my response is to him is that they were both faithful men.
I am quite aware of their greatness thank you.
They did not doubt, and are not the poster children for doubt.
I never said they did but honestly you cannot know what doubts or questions they may or may not have harbored.
That they were liberals (England, more so), does not demean or disparage their faith.
Both had questions and concerns about some aspects of their faith and on at least one major issue I have had similar questions and concerns.
I am a liberal Democrat; I oppose the war and consider it patriotic to oppose it. I oppose laws that limit freedom of choice in moral issues. But, because I am a political liberal it does not make me a doubter, which Jason implies from his post.
I made no such implication. All I said was that both men believed that behavior was more important than an orthodoxy of belief. From what I gather they felt that if one claims to have solid beliefs but it does not show up in behavior than there was something amiss. Something to consider for all of us I think.