liz3564 wrote:I honestly hope that things continue to go well for you, and for your Mormonstories project.
That is really all I have left to say on this topic.
You have my sincere thanks, liz3564.
liz3564 wrote:I honestly hope that things continue to go well for you, and for your Mormonstories project.
That is really all I have left to say on this topic.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Your problem is that today you went from being an honest broker to being an attack dog bent on change. And, as I have pointed out where I post with my own name on the other board, your brand and its value have just been flushed down the toilet with your hand on the lever. Now you're just another Sunstone. A good Mormon often won't read Sunstone just because of what it is.
mormonstories wrote:In this instance, I was informed of the "hit piece" as THEY called it...not me....by people favorable to the M.I. . THEY told me that this was another one of those types of pieces. THEY were concerned and were fighting its publication. FROM THE INSIDE.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.
Yahoo Bot wrote:
But to then put the good name of mormonstories in the public eye so that you can piss all over it, well, that's another matter isn't it. Was it Will who called it self-immolation? How true, how true. Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.
(emphasis added)Prof. P. wrote:I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.
It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.
But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.
I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.
I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.
I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.
Doctor Scratch wrote:I'm still just beside myself as to why the apologists would have wanted to target Dehlin in the first place. Why?
Prof. P. wrote:I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.
It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.
But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.
I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.
I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.
I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.
Doctor Scratch wrote:DCP seems to be saying that the GAs actually didn't intervene at all:Prof. P. wrote:
In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.liz3564 wrote:I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.
However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.
mormonstories wrote:Yahoo Bot wrote:Your problem is that today you went from being an honest broker to being an attack dog bent on change. And, as I have pointed out where I post with my own name on the other board, your brand and its value have just been flushed down the toilet with your hand on the lever. Now you're just another Sunstone. A good Mormon often won't read Sunstone just because of what it is.
I may be in the minority, but I don't give a flying fig that you went for protection from your General Authority pal. By all means, use it if you have it. You have as much a First Amendment right to do that as the evildoing apologists have to say bad things about you.
But to then put the good name of mormonstories in the public eye so that you can piss all over it, well, that's another matter isn't it. Was it Will who called it self-immolation? How true, how true. Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.
P.S. Forgive me if it's a tad bit hard to take seriously your claim of concern for Mormon Stories' good name. Hard to take you seriously.
Prof. P. wrote:In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.
liz3564 wrote:I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.
However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.