Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Buffalo]

Unfortunately, that has always been Will's attitude. Believe me, I have tried reasoning with Will, but to no avail.

He really is an embarrassment to the serious LDS apologists. It has always mystified me why DCP and some of the others there put up with his tactics.

Obviously because they like what he does.

[_Yoda]

I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

Well said, liz. But regret only gets us so far. And that ain't very far.

The real questions all of us should be thinking about are why we are here and what we can do to make the situation better.

I think those questions will bring a lot more clarity that stewing in regret will.

I am not accusing you of stewing in regret. I am only trying to keep everyone from getting lost in the negative emotion and division.

I think that, in some ways, there is a real opportunity here. I am stating my position on it, and I hope that everyone who reads me can see that my position is not one of punishment, exclusion, shaming, or anger, but one of seeking reconciliation, a positive solution, the best outcome for all, and a better future for others.

I will continue to say that I am not interested in hurting "enemies." I am interested in seeing how all people involved here can improve our situation, and improve the prospects for the Church dealing with struggling and disaffected members more productively.

Apologetics has a clear and established place in the LDS community. I am saying that it does not have the right tools for handling a number of aspects of the struggles of members. They are, for example, completely unequipped by their lack of training to deal with the emotional and psychological side of the issue. They have do direct spiritual stewardship over the members they counsel, which I believe is another often overlooked issue.

I think the conversation needs to shift into a more constructive mode, because where it is at now will only harden differences and squander whatever opportunity this situation may present.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Maybe we should start another thread separate from all of the specific Dehlin stuff?

I think this may be an excellent way to get everyone on the same page, and possibly turn this whole incident into a positive rather than a negative.

[_stemelbow]

Bokovoy used to post here, and still occasionally does. What now?

Yeah, I think I saw him come here once over the past year and make every determination not to address any issues at all, or do anything but essentially throw out a hello and clarify his feud with Schryver (which I know he wouldn't want to think of it as a feud, so whatever).

[_Kishkumen]

OK, stem. I am not going to continue to argue over who did what. We are each biased in our own way, and I commend you for conceding what you have. You seem to be a pretty fair person.

What John has done recently is calling Daniel a deceiver and so forth is not the way to go. I can see that. I don't see how it is helping him or anyone.

So what do we do? Eh? Is making John out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing the way to go here? Should NMI or FAIR direct its efforts at calling into question the intentions and actions of fellow members of the LDS Church?

Should those who want to help struggling members spend their time bagging on apologists, calling them deceivers, bad scholars, etc.? I ask this honestly.

I don't think seeking victory for one side will help anything. I am happy to lay down my arms, as paltry though oft-used as they are, in order to seek a solution. I would have preferred to have been listened to with sympathy many years ago. I have seen many subsequent members go the same route I did, and it has been painful to watch.

One of the biggest problems I see is that when people reach the point where all of this is just about factual claims, and how they can be defended or contested, then I think the battle has already been decided against both the defender of the faith and the struggling member. Both lose.

I think apologetics are great for driving home the point that Mormonism is a legitimate religious tradition that does not deserve to be slammed. I am totally cool with that and I agree wholeheartedly. I really dislike Christian anti-Mormonism and atheist anti-Mormonism in my heart of hearts.

But religious community is also about spiritual relatedness to others. This is often clumsily referred to as "being offended." I think it is much broader, deeper, and more powerful than that. Those who feel shunned, whether others intended it or not, will drift away from the community of saints.

Bickering over what it means to have multiple versions of the FV story is not going to solve that problem.

[_stemelbow]

Unfortunately, that has always been Will's attitude. Believe me, I have tried reasoning with Will, but to no avail.

He really is an embarrassment to the serious LDS apologists. It has always mystified me why DCP and some of the others there put up with his tactics.

Overall he's been very nice to me. He's been very helpful and supportive when I contact him in private.

[_Equality]

If 1I were Dan, I would have taken the piece to a lawyer to have it checked for libel and if there weren't anything libelous, I would have published it. No foul. Then, john could respond like a man and defend himself and critics on this board could watch John's back and support him. It would have been a marvelous moment to see the gladiator games begin.

why me you seem to piss me off more than any other poster anywhere. Your continual use of the statement I bolded above galls me to my root so I am going to say something John would never say....but I am not as good a man as John and neither are you.

John responded like a man. A thinking, intelligent man. I don't think you are an intelligent or thinking man. I don't doubt your maleness because I know you have your foreskin pulled up to your ears and past your eyes. I wish you would roll it down sometimes and let your ears listen and your eyes read and see and that might give your brain a small chance to try to think before you post.

Now have a nice day!

I nominate this for post of the month. +1000.

[_Buffalo]

Bokovoy used to post here, and still occasionally does. What now?

Yeah, I think I saw him come here once over the past year and make every determination not to address any issues at all, or do anything but essentially throw out a hello and clarify his feud with Schryver (which I know he wouldn't want to think of it as a feud, so whatever).

Like I said, he used to post here. No attacks.

[Guest]

-

[_stemelbow]

OK, stem. I am not going to continue to argue over who did what. We are each biased in our own way, and I commend you for conceding what you have. You seem to be a pretty fair person.

What John has done recently is calling Daniel a deceiver and so forth is not the way to go. I can see that. I don't see how it is helping him or anyone.

So what do we do? Eh? Is making John out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing the way to go here? Should NMI or FAIR direct its efforts at calling into question the intentions and actions of fellow members of the LDS Church?

Should those who want to help struggling members spend their time bagging on apologists, calling them deceivers, bad scholars, etc.? I ask this honestly.

I don't think seeking victory for one side will help anything. I am happy to lay down my arms, as paltry though oft-used as they are, in order to seek a solution. I would have preferred to have been listened to with sympathy many years ago. I have seen many subsequent members go the same route I did, and it has been painful to watch.

One of the biggest problems I see is that when people reach the point where all of this is just about factual claims, and how they can be defended or contested, then I think the battle has already been decided against both the defender of the faith and the struggling member. Both lose.

I think apologetics are great for driving home the point that Mormonism is a legitimate religious tradition that does not deserve to be slammed. I am totally cool with that and I agree wholeheartedly. I really dislike Christian anti-Mormonism and atheist anti-Mormonism in my heart of hearts.

But religious community is also about spiritual relatedness to others. This is often clumsily referred to as "being offended." I think it is much broader, deeper, and more powerful than that. Those who feel shunned, whether others intended it or not, will drift away from the community of saints.

Bickering over what it means to have multiple versions of the FV story is not going to solve that problem.

Every once in a while I get the feeling that I"m much closer in my views to others than I normally realize. This was a very good post. Thanks.

[_DrW]

Was reading the analogous thread over on the MADBoard when the site went down. This is not a normal event for MDD on a Friday late morning mid-afternoon in Utah.

Last time I looked the subject thread had in excess of 14,000 views over there. There seems to be some interest in all of this. The notice that came up when the board went down indicates that excessive traffic could be a reason.

Having just now caught up on the fallout from John's post on both boards, I am amazed at how folks don't seem to realize how much the "attack dog" apologetics being further confirmed and discussed here damages the Church.

I have wondered for a long time why top Church leadership puts up with DCP and his ilk. Can you imagine Dan's style applied to defending any organization other than the LDS Church? Any decent corporate PR firm would have had him gone long ago.

Folks who behave as he does should not be allowed to represent, in any capacity, any large organization (with the possible exception of the Russian mob). The fact that he is allowed to continue on, and on, and on indicates to me a startling lack of leadership at the top in the LDS Church.