Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Quite a few years ago — probably fifteen or more — I published an article in which, among many other things, I briefly told the story of how a local Utah Valley leader of what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now renamed the Community of Christ) had been disciplined by the heads of his church for defying orders and putting on a “Book of Mormon Day” in his chapel.
Some weeks or even months later, I received a letter on the stationery of the First Presidency of the RLDS Church (as it was also known) demanding that I retract what I had said about the man’s “silencing” — as I recall, that’s the term that had been used for his treatment by his leaders — claiming that it was false. Now, I don’t knowingly try to publish falsehoods, so I revisited the printed source on which I had based my few sentences about the subject, called and spoke with the journalist who had written it, and discussed the matter with a couple of others who were in a position to know the facts. (The local RLDS leader in question had moved away by this time, and I couldn’t reach him.) I concluded that what I had published was defensible, and I left it at that. I never responded to the letter I had received, and I never heard from its author (a secretary, or the secretary, of the RLDS First Presidency) again.
There is an interesting debate going on at DCP's Facebook regarding this article, and has even managed to catch the attention of Professor Danny Jorgensen. Jorgensen accuses DCP of fabricating the whole story and being arrogant and disrespectful of other religions. In part:
Professor Jorgensen wrote:The story of a local RLDS leader being sanctioned by the First Presidency who then took the trouble to send Peterson a letter demanding a retraction some fifteen years ago (1998) simply does not ring true... If a local leader was sanctioned as Peterson describes, it would have been extraordinarily unusual, and even more exceptional for the First Presidency to send someone like Peterson a letter demanding a retraction.
Whatever may have happened, it is very unlikely to have transpired the was Peterson describes it. He, morevover, makes himself the center of this implausible tale with a tone that is insolent, disrespectful, and condescending. Peterson, to wit, in a rather contemptuous tone dismisses RLDS leaders' concern that his contentions were mistaken.....
I am not sure what I expected from the posting; and restrospectively, I might have been more diplomatic in pointing to the narcissism, arrogance, and insensitibity of Peterson's comments.
Daniel C. Peterson, isn't it enough for you just to stir up contention in the LDS Church? Why the need to attack and be disrespectful to other religions?
Incredible. Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.