- responding to Senator, who said: "So JD didn't bring it here. He did show up in his own defense."

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.

Good hell William. You dug your own grave. You repeatedly said nasty things. You have noone to blame but yourself.

It's been a little over twenty-five minutes and Rufus has been dog piled on. His story has been discounted at face value. If you take some of the comments at the beginning of this thread by Schryver, Crockett and Storm Rider and then look at the response that Rufus has received thus far, it becomes apparent that there may be some merit to what he has to say. Look in the mirror people...Regards,MG Regards,MG

I'd like to see the apostates at the Maxwell Institute defend against this one:



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.

From what I can tell, all we have to go on regarding that point point so far is second-hand rumor reported by John Dehlin himself. Which General Authority made that determination, what was his reasoning and specific response, and, presuming the information is correct, had he actually seen the article in question?

No offense meant in the least, but the decision was made by a leader, and I'm not sure it was made by him acting in his capacity of leadership or just as a friend of JD.

Unless and until the decision is publically endorsed as being made for a specific reason, then i don't see how we can't judge this as the leader's (who's name we don't even know) opinion on the matter and nothing more. In this instance, i honestly don't feel that any leader's anonymous and behind the scenes wrangling should be at all binding on anyone.

When I read something like this, I begin to wonder if there really isn't more to the Calvinistic TULIP model of salvation than I have conceded in the past. I've been in some of the same callings as Rufus (and then some), read the same book, as well as some other decidedly less-faith promoting, and been disappointed with interactions with some in the Church (including a apostle). I have had my own personal struggles and demons to overcome, some of which are quite despicable. Yet through it all I have managed to maintain a quiet faith born of a a witness of Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration, and an expression from the Lord of His love to me. The only sense I can make of it -- why I remain (what I consider to be) a faithful Latter-day Saint while others will lose faith -- is akin to Calvin's concept of Perservence of the Saints. I have certainly done nothing in mortality to warrant the faith with which I have been blessed, but it is there nonetheless. Was it because I was more valiant in the preexitence than I have managed to be in mortality? Perhaps. Or am I simply the recipient of blessings because of the good works of my forebearers? Likely. Whatever the reason, the challenge I now face is being more charitable with those who have not been so endowed. We all ought to do so.

It's been a little over twenty-five minutes and Rufus has been dog piled on. His story has been discounted at face value. If you take some of the comments at the beginning of this thread by Schryver, Crockett and Storm Rider and then look at the response that Rufus has received thus far, it becomes apparent that there may be some merit to what he has to say. Look in the mirror people...Regards,MG Regards,MG

Mentalgymnastics must have never logged in over here. He calls a few challenges and questions, with a couple of comments that are less than noble, as being dog-piled on. Most of the responses to Rufus were fair and some were quite charitable, i'd say.

I'd like to see the apostates at the Maxwell Institute defend against this one:



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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, BTW, 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, IMO, things have the potential of becoming un-Christlike. Kind of a holier than thou sort of thing.Regards,MG

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.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/page__view__findpost__p__1209121391

ouch!

Sorry, John. this is getting a little worse and worse for you.

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.


John responded:

Quote
Date: Apr 14, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Quick chat?
To: "Scott Gordon"

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

Well, well, well ... I can now see why John Dehlin was so anxious to see Greg Smith's article censored.

I have now read about 1/3 of the article. It is an absolutely devastating piece of work--devastating to Dehlin's proclaimed "objectivity" and "balance," that is.

That said, I have yet to identify a single instance of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Quite to the contrary, what the article does is use Dehlin's own words, meticulously assembled and cited, to demonstrate that he (Dehlin) is what I have long claimed him to be: an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints.

The sooner this article appears in print, the better: it will conclusively expose Dehlin for what he really is.

reelmormon - I see you go by a pseudonym. Maybe you've been publicly maligned and slandered before with your real name, I don't know. But if you haven't....you might want to think about what that would be like before you judge my actions.

More importantly, I honestly, sincerely believe that MI/FARMS/FAIR hurt the church, its members, apologetics, and the people they target when they stoop to ad hominem attacks, so I feel justified in escalating to church leadership. I am told that an apostle and several GA's were involved in telling the Maxwell Institute to stop this piece. If you support your priesthood leaders, then maybe you might consider that my escalation was a good thing, not a bad one.

Just a thought for you to consider. Feel free to dismiss.