Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_RayAgostini]

Still, it is easy for you to sit back and sound off on having Greg Smith publish his attack piece on Dehlin, but what does it feel like to have 100 pages of paper publication attacking you out there? It has to be an awful experience. This is the most immediate impact it has, and it is the very kind of bullying effect that these apologetic publications thrive on.

I've had far, far, far more than 100 measly pages of personal criticism against me, examining every aspect of even my personal life (before stronger rules were in place), on this very board, going right back to the beginning. I don't think you were even here for the first year of it, Kish.

Time for some shut eye. Probably not a good idea to post after 14 hours on the road.

[_Mary]

What on earth would he be excommunicated for?

Open, public rebellion against and active criticism of the Church, its core teachings, and its leaders, with the intent of influencing further dissent, rebellion, and apostasy among other members.

That's more than enough grounds for the separation of anyone from his membership in the Church.

You have to be kidding Droopy. I would NEVER categorise John in this way, in fact if anything, it is John's kind of approach that would encourage me to return, not to leave.

I also watched the last of Dan Wotherspoon's interviews with Daniel Peterson and Daniel (in the 4th podcast in particular) showed the same kind of reasonableness and understanding that John shows with regards to troubling aspects of church history and the 'one true church' claims.

Does that make Daniel Peterson an apostate too, because he understands how some might have trouble coming to terms with Joseph's polyandry for instance?

He doesn't have a problem with the troubling aspects of church history. He still believes, but he understands, or at least appeared to, why some people can't come to terms with the information.

John is no more an apostate than is Daniel Peterson.

[_Droopy]

A wolf among the sheep, even if less of the "ravening wolf" variety and more of the Larry Talbot kind, is still of canine predilection, no?

[_Droopy]

I also watched the last of Dan Wotherspoon's interviews with Daniel Peterson and Daniel (in the 4th podcast in particular) showed the same kind of reasonableness and understanding that John shows with regards to troubling aspects of church history and the 'one true church' claims.

So you are here, for the record, claiming that Daniel Peterson does not accept the Church's claim that it is the "only true and living church" on earth?

Do you think he has a problem with that claim?

CFR.

[_RockSlider]

A wolf among the sheep, even if less of the "ravening wolf" variety and more of the Larry Talbot kind, is still of canine predilection, no?

By their fruits you shall know them.

If the fruits were based on those who ended up leaving the church based on the individuals words/persona/involvement DCP might well be the more “ravening wolf” of the two.

[_Carton]

I also watched the last of Dan Wotherspoon's interviews with Daniel Peterson and Daniel (in the 4th podcast in particular) showed the same kind of reasonableness and understanding that John shows with regards to troubling aspects of church history and the 'one true church' claims.

So you are here, for the record, claiming that Daniel Peterson does not accept the Church's claim that it is the "only true and living church" on earth?

Do you think he has a problem with that claim?

CFR.

I sometimes wonder if Daniel Peterson secretly knows the church is not the "only true and living" one on earth. That he secretly knows that things like the first vision and gold plates are just made-up fantasies of Joseph Smith. But his life is too invested in the church to change now. I guess that's how I am too, since my beliefs are still kept private (except to my wife). I still go to church and say all the right things, etc.

[_Droopy]

If the fruits were based on those who ended up leaving the church based on the individuals words/persona/involvement DCP might well be the more “ravening wolf” of the two.

People leave the church for a variety of reasons, all of which, in the end, revolve around an unwillingness and personal resistance to accepting and living its standards and principles, not around anything Daniel Peterson has ever said.

[_RockSlider]

People leave the church for a variety of reasons, all of which, in the end, revolve around an unwillingness and personal resistance to accepting and living its standards and principles, not around anything Daniel Peterson has ever said.

So, the same applies to John correct? i.e. neither are wolfs, its the individuals choice, maybe even after sampling the works of both of these men.

[_stemelbow]

I sometimes wonder if Daniel Peterson secretly knows the church is not the "only true and living" one on earth. That he secretly knows that things like the first vision and gold plates are just made-up fantasies of Joseph Smith. But his life is too invested in the church to change now. I guess that's how I am too, since my beliefs are still kept private (except to my wife). I still go to church and say all the right things, etc.

Why do you say the right things? Might as well just not talk or something.

Daniel seems to genuinely believe to me.

[_Buffalo]

I also watched the last of Dan Wotherspoon's interviews with Daniel Peterson and Daniel (in the 4th podcast in particular) showed the same kind of reasonableness and understanding that John shows with regards to troubling aspects of church history and the 'one true church' claims.

So you are here, for the record, claiming that Daniel Peterson does not accept the Church's claim that it is the "only true and living church" on earth?

Do you think he has a problem with that claim?

CFR.

Yes, he does. Like I said, he's a quasi universalist.

http://mormonstories.org/271-274-lds-ch ... -peterson/