Confirmation of Developments?

[_ludwigm]

I think you'd find that early Mormonism was very socialist actually. It kept the politburo (the brethren), but gave up on the socialism.

[_RockSlider]

ouch
reddit

[_MCB]

And then we will see the "July 50." Mass excommunication by the CoJCoLDS of their 50 most right-wing prominent figures. The only thing that will save the Romney candidacy. Massive purge.

Only dreaming.

[_Uncle Dale]

...The only thing that will save the Romney candidacy. Massive purge.
...

While I doubt very much that Dr. Peterson's current
difficulties have anything to do with national politics,
I also suppose that there will soon develop a significant
convergence of interests -- in SLC, and down at the Y.

Whether or not Romney is successful in his campaign,
there are voices within the Church saying "Now is our
time -- to be seen (and to operate) internationally as
something more than an obscure cultish sect."

The natural opponents of the more traditionalist MI
figures will generally also be the natural proponents of
a more modern, less problematic LDS Church's public image.

If progress stalls and sputters out, maybe we won't
see much on the surface -- from our outsiders' vantage
point -- but below the visible surface, currents are
swirling, and they are saying "Now is our time!"

UD

[_MCB]

If progress stalls and sputters out, maybe we won't
see much on the surface -- from our outsiders' vantage
point -- but below the visible surface, currents are
swirling, and they are saying "Now is our time!"

Now that is scary. I had better get back to work.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Look, Dr. Peterson is a wonderful guy. I don't always agree with what he writes or edits but there's a lot I don't agree with amongst good men who choose to be lightning rods.

This place has been terrible to him, and the assault is usually carried on by cowardly anonymous posters. People who should know better. Lawyers and academics and more.

I hope you're happy, Kish, sitting there in the safety of your ivory tower of Classicism and doing the anonymous thing that most of your treasured ancients would find despicable. I will wager that you were in Hypatia's mob.

Kish is not to blame one whit for Dan's recent demise. Dan's own (and by his choice) public missteps are to blame. The Brethren have made the conscious decision that members who defend the Church do so in a civil manner, particularly online, and Dan simply chose not to go along. Thus, "hit pieces" in the Review were no longer wanted. I sincerely doubt that Bradford made the decision to remove Dan without approval from higher up (I'm guessing GA-level), so blame them, not Kish.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish is not to blame one whit for Dan's recent demise. Dan's own (and by his choice) public missteps are to blame. The Brethren have made the conscious decision that members who defend the Church do so in a civil manner, particularly online, and Dan simply chose not to go along. Thus, "hit pieces" in the Review were no longer wanted. I sincerely doubt that Bradford made the decision to remove Dan without approval from higher up (I'm guessing GA-level), so blame them, not Kish.

Hey, Rollo-

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf here.

I have no delusions of grandeur regarding this situation. I can take no credit nor blame for these developments, and I am sublimely happy about that one fact. Like you, I take no pleasure in Dr. Peterson's suffering, and I would be very surprised and disappointed if he did not rebound from this situation.

Unfortunately, what this reflects is internal distrust of the people who made these decisions. Rather than criticize those people openly, which would be risky, they unleash on me as a convenient target with no institutional cover. Of course, it could also be that Bot, like the author of that angry email, just wants me to take stock of myself.

I do. And believe me, I do not see a perfect person here. I never did, but it is sobering to be reminded of that imperfection by gentlemen who are experts in making the most of it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Unfortunately, what this reflects is internal distrust of the people who made these decisions. Rather than criticize those people openly, which would be risky, they unleash on me as a convenient target with no institutional cover.

This is a typical response to anyone perceived a "critic" of the Church. Joseph Smith perfected this tactic into an art form, and modern-day apologists follow his lead.

Of course, it could also be that Bot, like the author of that angry email, just wants me to take stock of myself.

Bot cares nothing for you, me, or anyone else on this bb. He only cares about himself and feeding his ego by using his (perceived) legal wiles to attack anyone he sees as a "critic." Ignore him and his obsession with online anonymity.

... but it is sobering to be reminded of that imperfection by gentlemen who are experts in making the most of it.

They're just bullies who are not worth a bucket of s[p]it. Simply writing here what you believe to be true, regardless of whether others agree, deflates any control or influence these bullies think they have over us.

[_Fence Sitter]

If I were trying to figure out where a leak was in my organization and if I could limit my suspicions to a few people, I might be tempted to send out 18 or so bogus emails that appeared the same but had small differences, so that when one showed up in public I could tell who started the leak.

Just a thought.

[_Kishkumen]

Bot cares nothing for you, me, or anyone else on this bb. He only cares about himself and feeding his ego by using his (perceived) legal wiles to attack anyone he sees as a "critic." Ignore him and his obsession with online anonymity.

Point taken. Regardless of his motivations, I am sure he wants me to feel badly.

They're just bullies who are not worth a bucket of s[p]it. Simply writing here what you believe to be true, regardless of whether others agree, deflates any control or influence these bullies think they have over us.

In this activity, I think there is bullying. I have written what I think is true, and neither "side" has been perfectly happy with it--something that suggests to me the value in at least some of it. It never ceases to amaze me how this message board run by a few private individuals with normal day jobs is spuriously, but reflexively, equated with a multi-billion-dollar corporation that solicits big money from the wealthy members to crush all criticism of the LDS Church and its apologists.

Silly me, what am I saying?