Top Ten Enemies of LDS church

[_Themis]

[I told you I did my best and you responded with "baloney". Apparently you don't think I tried my best. Oh well.

This is one of the problems I see, and I can be guilty of it as well. On your thread you accuse many of attacking you and calling you a liar, and certainly some have, but many I think are misinterpretations of what people are actually trying to say.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Sandra Tanner is a good example. A long-time critic of the Church who does a reasonably good job of getting her message out, yet the Church does or says little about her. It doesn't really care.

It cared when she linked to the CHI.

Well, I represent organizations like the Church in intellectual property cases. Case authority says that if you don't pursue your intellectual property rights in litigation, you lose your rights. So, the Church had to do it, as to many other churches, universities and organizations that have copyrighted material.

In the latest go-round, the Church decided apparently to avoid all that baloney and just permitted it to be posted.

The Church's pursuit of the Tanners had nothing to do with the fact that she was a critic.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well if this is what you're talking about with "clipping service" then, assuming your wiki link is accurate it tells you how they start such a file. Why are you asking? Are you saying that people who publish things critical of leaders or whathaveyou are on this list? Or is this the Church's list of enemies?

This is a mandate contained in the D&C. The D&C provides that critical publications be archived to be kept as a witness in the last days.

Leonard Arrington talks about this archive in his bio; it has been years since I read his account but I recall he said that when he went to do research in the file it was little used and out of the way and difficult to use.

[_beastie]

Other than the list I provided I don't think the Church would even think of such a list. Sorry, I did my best for ya.

Oh, baloney. How do you think they decide for whom to start a "clipping service" file?

Stem,

I bumped this up to show I was responding "baloney" to your assertion that:

I don't think the Church would even think of such a list.

My next statement made it clear that's what I was calling baloney.

I have no idea if you tried your best or not, and would not care enough to respond "baloney" to that. I think you're a bit eager to be a victim here.

[_beastie]

Well if this is what you're talking about with "clipping service" then, assuming your wiki link is accurate it tells you how they start such a file. Why are you asking? Are you saying that people who publish things critical of leaders or whathaveyou are on this list? Or is this the Church's list of enemies?

I'm not asking "how" they start the file or the list. I'm asking who might be on it. Obviously.

And certainly some people on that list could be on a list of the enemies of the church.

But the main reason I brought up the STMC is to show that the church IS interested in compiling information on folks that have been identified as problematic. Given this willingness, the assertion that the church would never make a list of enemies is, as I said, baloney.

[_Jason Bourne]

I see a few of you think John Dehlin is in the top ten.

Really?

Wow

Well it looks like his stake leadership is looking into talking to him about his Mormon Stories and other activities.

Guess we will see how really accepting an umbrella the LDS Church is.

And we will find out if they view him as an enemy.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I see a few of you think John Dehlin is in the top ten.

Really?

Wow

Well it looks like his stake leadership is looking into talking to him about his Mormon Stories and other activities.

Guess we will see how really accepting an umbrella the LDS Church is.

And we will find out if they view him as an enemy.

In a way John took what was once vile and made it approachable, perhaps even palatable.

I have read many stories of faithful LDS leaving the church because of the barriers that John helped break down with them personally.

[_DrW]

I see a few of you think John Dehlin is in the top ten.

Really?

Wow

Well it looks like his stake leadership is looking into talking to him about his Mormon Stories and other activities.

Guess we will see how really accepting an umbrella the LDS Church is.

And we will find out if they view him as an enemy.

In a way John took what was once vile and made it approachable, perhaps even palatable.

I have read many stories of faithful LDS leaving the church because of the barriers that John helped break down with them personally.

I see John as the ultimate 5th columnist. His subversive approach to the craziness of Mormonism is to acknowledge it for what it is and then claim that, no matter how ridiculous, the unfounded and clearly false beliefs of the Church somehow do not diminish the "truthfulness" of the gospel (or at least the value of Church fellowship to its active members).

His approach must really frustrate the leadership. It is difficult for the leadership claim that he is doing anything "wrong", or working against the best interests of the Church, by simply telling the truth about the Church teachings and then stating that members can stay active in spite of it all.

John has put himself in a very unstable situation and I hope that things work out for the best for him.

[_stemelbow]

My next statement made it clear that's what I was calling baloney.

I have no idea if you tried your best or not, and would not care enough to respond "baloney" to that. I think you're a bit eager to be a victim here.

So your baloney was in reference to what I think, instead of whether I tried my best? Oh brother. Either way, I get your point. I never thought you were accusing me of lying. I thought you intended to put it differently. Either way, your response wasn't all the responsive to me. "Eager to be a victim" oh brother...

[_stemelbow]

I'm not asking "how" they start the file or the list. I'm asking who might be on it. Obviously.

Then you weren't being vrey clear. Here's what you asked, " How do you think they decide for whom to start a "clipping service" file?"

Your link described how they start it. And you definitely weren't all that clear that this is the list the church would create if it was to create such a list. Now I see your implication. "Enemies on this list" would be people, in your mind, who don't really believe, go to Church or describe themselves as LDS and then go on to publish critical things about the Church. Kind of a mouthfull but I get it.

And certainly some people on that list could be on a list of the enemies of the church.

And I plain disagree. I am most confident in the list I provided in my attempt to speak for the church. Can't we just agree to disagree with all this silliness? Make it a lot easier huh?

But the main reason I brought up the STMC is to show that the church IS interested in compiling information on folks that have been identified as problematic. Given this willingness, the assertion that the church would never make a list of enemies is, as I said, baloney.

Fine you think based on this the church would make a list of enemies. Well, I'm all eyes. Produce one. I don't think the Church would. The church would probably say, at such a proposition, "enemies schmemenies. We don't see them as enemies".