Buffalo wrote:I'd like to see the apostates at the Maxwell Institute defend against this one:
Peppermint Patty wrote:The only thing that matters to me is that someone in a Church Leadership role (GA or an Apostle) made the decision that this article was inappropriate to be published. For me, this is all that really matters. This decision was made by our Leaders and we should not be questioning the wisdom of such a decision.
It would be interesting to see an email or other corresponce from this GA or Apostle and the reasons they felt this article was inappropriate, though.
Also, I don't think the personal attacks by both sides are justified.
Rather than directly acknowledge their rebellion against an apostle, they'll probably just respond with the deceptive "You don't know the full story" and leave it at that.
Will Schryver wrote:And thus we see how quickly and effectively the propaganda does its work! Already this story has achieved the status of "things as they really were."
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Rufus1 wrote:My post came from my heart and pained me greatly to relate to you all. I now have been mocked by those of you who have chosen to do so. I do not stand as a judge of anyone but, I am entitled to relate how I feel.
You all have this wonderful knowledge of how arguments are to be phrased and the fallacies of logic memorized and will surely pick apart anything I have to say. I am not here to debate anything with you. I am not inclined to even participate on these types of boards, however I felt compelled to do so in defense of John Dehlin. I have never met the man , but I have listened to his podcasts and read some of the things he has written, and can feel a humility and concern emanating him, a supposed critic. Whereas I read Peterson and other from the Maxwell Institute who are the supposed apologists, and I feel the spirit of contempt and hostility in their chosen voice. Their distain for one struggling is palpable and it led me away from the church. Many of your words and likewise divisive and filled with contempt.
All one has to do to find the source of my pain is read many of the responses to my first post. I'm sure you are all going to your heaven clothed in the glory and righteousness of your God. You have earned it by casting stones at those who disagree with you and through your hate for those who supposedly oppose you.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
David t wrote:Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, not feeling the peace of the Gospel, saw no reason to remain. They become vocally antagonistic to the Church. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, not feeling the peace of the Gospel, saw no reason to remain. They remain civil in their conversation about the Church and their experiences. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found wonderful, Christ-like behavior, and, still, saw no reason to remain. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found wonderful, Christ-like behavior, and, that was what they needed to hold on and to re-nurture their faith. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, still, found some reason to remain as a member.
These are all real, valid experiences. And I think that's important to acknowledge without assuming the one losing faith in either of these scenarios was always a mock-worthy person just looking for a reason to apostatize and Revile The Truth.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
David t wrote:Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, not feeling the peace of the Gospel, saw no reason to remain. They become vocally antagonistic to the Church. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, not feeling the peace of the Gospel, saw no reason to remain. They remain civil in their conversation about the Church and their experiences. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found wonderful, Christ-like behavior, and, still, saw no reason to remain. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found wonderful, Christ-like behavior, and, that was what they needed to hold on and to re-nurture their faith. Some Good church members have had real experiences that caused faith crises. Some of these members looked for reassurance, and found unwelcoming un-Christ like behavior, and, still, found some reason to remain as a member.
These are all real, valid experiences. And I think that's important to acknowledge without assuming the one losing faith in either of these scenarios was always a mock-worthy person just looking for a reason to apostatize and Revile The Truth.
AMEN and AMEN.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
rameumptom Christ wrote:Ya know, Jesus was very rude and antagonistic towards Pharisees and others. I mean, he called them "hypocrites" and only good for hell. If we had the attitude of Rufus, and some antis, we'd all quit being Christians right now.
That said, there is a solid point we can all learn from this (on both sides of the aisle, and I'm also talking about John Dehlin and his "friends" he quoted to a GA), that is: contention is of the devil. It is Satan's doctrine. Christ's doctrine is of unity (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11).
That said, we must also realize that Christ spoke out strongly against those who opposed his teachings, not as individuals, but as groups seeking to destroy the gospel truth.
That Dan Peterson can speak highly of Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, shows that he isn't a morgbot that cannot see that Josep Smith and the Church have some struggles. That most of us here on this list have that same understanding shows that we understand there are issues to consider regarding the Church. But our religion and faith are not based upon histories, whether the KEP is (fill in the blank), or whether Joseph Smith had 1 or 1,000 wives. It is an issue of whether God exists, whether Jesus is the Christ, whether God has called modern prophets, and whether Joseph Smith and Thomas S. Monson are two of those called prophets.
That John Dehlin went nuclear with immediately sending an email to a 70 GA, sending additional emails that attacked MI/FAIR, and did not even patiently wait to find out if there actually was an attack piece against him, and then take it publicly as an attack on MI/FAIR, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson and others, without any real evidence or giving time to address it quietly, plainly shows that his desire to do this in an appropriate manner was not sincere. Yes, there are ascerbic people in MI/FAIR. But you know what? They didn't start this fight, John Dehlin did. And he was ascerbic and tossed out ad hominems along the way.
We can clearly see that on the week Pres Obama chose to finally come out of the closet, so did John Dehlin.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
mentalgymnist wrote:The interesting thing is, is that Rufus is an example right here in front of you of the types of respondents Dehlin refers to in his study/survey. But what happens? Rufus is discounted at face value...along with those that John D. refers to in his second email that has been included in this thread. The vitriolic or at least unkind responsiveness that has manifest itself on this thread to Dehlin and Rufus is somewhat disconcerting to those that would like to come at things with an unbiased or balanced approach.I don't see any real threat, by the way, in Dehlin's emails. I do think he is trying to set up a firewall so that what he considers to be his "good name" is not smeared. Of course time will tell if Greg Smith's article is published whether or not John went overboard or not in attempting to create a firewall of protection. But in the meantime, why the attacks? Why is Rufus being treated with doubt and yes, a wee bit of ridicule for stating his overall "carry away" in regards to his experience with looking for answers and being discouraged in general with LDS apologetics? Granted, maybe Rufus is a dishonest anti-mormon or dishonest NOM just trying to muddy the waters. That seems to be the knee jerk response of some here.But what if he's not? Is he not worth listening to? It's not as though he's going to (as some would like) go into every detail concerning the problems with apologetic responses in specificity...that's not the purpose of this thread. When all is said and done, this thread is an example of why those that are struggling with the church may exit the doors of the LDS meetinghouse. What they have to say is discounted at face value. In a softer sort of way Kevin Christensen(?) looks at these folks and questions why they haven't jumped through all the intricate hoops of reasoning and logic that he has. If they only would, they would stay, etc. Problem is, a lot of these folks are just regular folks without academic training and expertise like many of you. You tend to look at them as all being on a level playing field with you and judge them accordingly. This is where, in my opinion, things have the potential of becoming un-Christlike. Kind of a holier than thou sort of thing.Regards,MG
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Sorry, John. this is getting a little worse and worse for you.
How do you figure? Scott's emails confirmed John's story.
John wrote:8 ) A few weeks back I wrote Scott Gordon to ask if he intended to publish the article. He declined any knowledge of the article, but did not respond regarding whether or not he intends to publish the article. Still waiting for that response.
For the record:
I wrote the following email to John on April 14.
Quote
Scott Gordon Apr 14
to John
FYI,
FAIR is not writing an article about you at the current time, and I know of no current plans to do so.
I'm very happy to hear that you have no plans to publish this article. Can you please let me know if this ever changes BEFORE you publish the article? I'd like to save you, me, the church, and Mormonism one big headache if I can. I don't think anyone wins via ad hominem arguments....except the enemies of the church. They certainly win.
I'm only posting one paragraph of his email as I am generally uncomfortable posting emails. I think the paragraph gets the point accross. I'm not sure why John is claiming here, and on another message board, that I didn't respond. I did respond and he acknowledged that response. Since FAIR and I are being drawn into this issue anyway, maybe I should reconsider.
Scott
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.