Uther wrote:I wonder how long it will take with the level of attention this thread is pulling, before the madpologist club desides to send an emmisary to derail it. Surely one of the lords henchemen has a sockpuppet that can be revived for this special occation.
consiglieri wrote:Now having completed reading the review, I liked the last part even better than the first, by which I mean I found the last parts more damning to Smith's scholastic approach; especially the part where he sets himself up as Dehlin's ecclesiastical leader.
What on earth were they thinking having something like this in a purportedly scholarly review?
And given the fact that Dehlin had quite publicly reaffiliated himself with the LDS Church before the publication of the hit piece, it comes across even more as attacking the faith and credentials of a fellow Mormon.
Nothing new and different there. Last guy's name was Meldrum.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
You have got to be kidding. I know you read over on MAD. If John hasn't been attacked, what do you call it (in the numerous threads about him over there)?
Rollo, Your review is outstanding and very revealing. Thank you for taking the time to comb through Smith's piece and write your own excellent review.
I hope people here and elsewhere will read it. I see that they are already discussing it over on the other board.
Madison54 wrote:I see that they are already discussing it over on the other board.
Yes, and the Mods over there have already stopped someone who had tried to link to it over here, saying this place has "inappropriate content." Classic.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Yes, and the Mods over there have already stopped someone who had tried to link to it over here, saying this place has "inappropriate content." Classic.
uh...are you saying by their standards it doesn't have inappropriate content? I beleive the complaint is temple content which is a big no no over there. So are you saying that's not true by putting that phrase in quotations?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:uh...are you saying by their standards it doesn't have inappropriate content? I beleive the complaint is temple content which is a big no no over there. So are you saying that's not true by putting that phrase in quotations?
Any temple content is not in this forum, where my review exists. So there's no reason someone can't come to this forum (i.e., the "Terrestrial Forum") and read my review without fear of seeing temple content.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Madison54 wrote:I see that they are already discussing it over on the other board.
Yes, and the Mods over there have already stopped someone who had tried to link to it over here, saying this place has "inappropriate content." Classic.
I saw the link before it was removed by the mods and it was to the Mormon Curtain website. Do they allow posting a link to this forum over there?
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Yes, and the Mods over there have already stopped someone who had tried to link to it over here, saying this place has "inappropriate content." Classic.
there is no chance it is going up over there.
will peggy fletcher stack do a follow up after the piece was published, and hamblin left the interpreter?
^^^^^ is her report about the dispatching of peterson from the review. this article does say he was 'fired'. he does still have a job, that is true. why me is still a horse's ass, also true.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
May I have your permission to repost this on my blog or one of my websites? I'm trying to put together a single location that contains information on the Dehlin affair -- including the actual essays and intelligent responses such as your OP.
Seth
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
it is okay to read at the trailerpark, and to talk about the trailerpark, and it is even okay for DCP's biggest supporters to post on this thread, but golly, do not let anyone read an unfiltered review of Smith's work.
typical double standards. that heavy handed moderation must be a bitch to manage.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)