158 replies to this topic

[Log]

Tru dat.  Well, I hear the locals piss on the Blarney stone, so watch where you put your lips.

[BCSpace]

Quote

1) To explore, and to inform as many people as possible about the historical, doctrinal, and cultural complexities of Mormonism -- so that people can navigate their lives and relationships with the church in ways that are more fully informed. Because traditional, active church membership requires so much of its members, and has such a significant impact on individuals and society, we believe that people deserve to be fully informed about the church before they make such decisions. Since the church tends to focus more on the positive and correlated portions of Mormonism, we try to explore "the rest of the story." We try to be as neutral as we can in our exploration, as evidenced by our willingness to interview both believing members (Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Terrell Givens, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Charles Harrell, etc.) and non-believing members (Grant Palmer, Margaret and Paul Toscano, the McLays, Simon Southerton, etc.).

This alone brings me into agreement with Will characterization about leading sheep to the ambush.  I have no problem "exploring" the history, the doctrine, and the culture, even critically (something that is against the guidelines and the effect of moderation on this board unfortunately).  The problem is when it's done in a fashion that is automatically unbelieving.  The assumption that it's not true is already there and the personal examples are often from those who are not active in Church and unwilling to serve which is an anti-testimony.  The Church should never allow the issues to be approached from the position of unbelief and yellow journalism under it's own auspices.  That side should come from nonmembers and ex LDS.  Yes, I do agree that there should be another side; opposition in all things, parable of the Sower, etc.

Quote

One sign that mormonism is not a cult is that the lds church has members such as these on this forum. Believing members are disagreeing with each other and have great debates. No cultish behavior here. In fact, it seems that the exmembers are living in a cult since most play the same tune on their violin. I see very little difference of thought on exmormon boards and the more prolds posts are deleted or the poster banned. Such is a cult.

Well stated.  However, there is a board, Dr Shades board, in which the pro LDS view is allowed to and would flourish if more LDS posted there (they could survive mentally and spiritually by ignoring the other stuff and/or posting in the Celestial forum).  But otherwise, the antiLDS denizens there do sing the same tune and walk together in lockstep, steeped in boorish self-congratulations.

[Bill Hamblin]

Daniel Peterson, on 09 May 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions.  But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong.  He hasn't.

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen.  And that's the nice way to put it.

[Bill Hamblin]

CA Steve, on 09 May 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

It seems strange that all by himself he is able to stop the publication of an article like this.

The world is a strange place.  Very strange.  But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed.  I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.  

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work.  I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now ...  But I have to go pack for Ireland.  Erin go Braugh!

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm certainly not going to disagree with either of Bill's posts above.

Sure would like to go to Ireland, though.  Never been there, but, as it happens, I'll be dropping in very briefly in July.


.

Edited by Daniel Peterson, 09 May 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Log, on 09 May 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

Tru dat.  Well, I hear the locals piss on the Blarney stone, so watch where you put your lips.

I've kissed many strange things in my time, but lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine!

[Tarski]

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

  But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed.  I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.  

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

Quote

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work. I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now

what stops you?

[Bill Hamblin]

Tarski, on 09 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

what stops you?

Ask him.

I didn't write it and don't have permission from the author to post it.  Be patient.

[Storm Rider]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

John has already said, he has made many mistakes.  Who hasn't?  Plus, he has already made it clear that he is not trying to "lead" anyone in or out of the church.  I haven't seen the Coe interview - I don't watch all of them, so I don't know anything about that.   I've never seen John claim to be any kind of authority on the Book of Mormon, though.

For me, it's not a matter of "trust", at least, not trusting him as the final word or authority on the church (or on anything, for that matter).  I don't think most people look to John for answers.  It is about his openness and willingness to allow people to question and explore without judgment...people on both sides of the issue, not just those who agree with him.   There are tons of critics out there who will "steal the sheep" without batting an eye (because they believe the LDS church is satanic)...John is most certainly not in that category and deserves respect, in large part, because he always gives it, whether you agree with him or not.

Edit:  John's "StayLDS, actually, did encourage me, for awhile, to try and stay in the church.

People claim many things, Libs; the problem lies in not what they say, but what they do.  Having listened to his podcasts for a while I no longer listen. He is not asking questions, but his agenda has moved from discussion to leading to conclusions.  Gentleness?  If I listened to every gentle word and assumed it was going to lead me to green, peaceful pastures then I would be the fool that gladly took Satan's hand and gently walked down to hell.

I have no problem with questioning, discussion, or anything of the nature; I have a giant problem with attacking faith in the attempt to destroy it.  I ignore his presentation and look at what actually happens. I reject his actions just as much as I reject those of many of the LDS Church's most sensational critics.  As I have stated before, he is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing.  I will trust his words when his actions follow them.

[Daniel Peterson]

Tarski, on 09 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

Ask the folks over at the Stalker's board.

They don't actually know, but, amidst much huffing and puffing and accompanied by lots of melodramatic attitudinizing, they'll tell you.

[Bond...James Bond]

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen.  And that's the nice way to put it.

I was asked to extend an invitation since many feel you'd fit in.  I'll PM you the URL to Bedlam.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Neener neener neener.

And your mother wears army boots.

Etc.

Enjoy your board.  Follow your bliss.  Personally, I enjoy no longer posting there.

[Bond...James Bond]

Daniel Peterson, on 09 May 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Oh my friends in Bedlam asked me to extend an invitation to you as well.  All are welcome in Bedlam!

[Daniel Peterson]

But only a few truly wretched souls are likely to be comfortable in Bedlam, and to enjoy it.

[Pahoran]

Daniel Peterson, on 09 May 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Neener neener neener.

And your mother wears army boots.

Etc.

Enjoy your board.  Follow your bliss.  Personally, I enjoy no longer posting there.

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog.  He is waxing hot in his indignation, suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable.  The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity.  Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy.  To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it.  Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent.  But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Bond...James Bond]

Daniel Peterson, on 09 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But only a few truly wretched souls are likely to be comfortable in Bedlam, and to enjoy it.

Checking your soul at the registration page is a prerequisite.

[Bill Hamblin]

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog.  He is waxing hot in his indignation, suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable.  The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity.  Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy.  To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it.  Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent.  But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

Regards,
Pahoran

The truth of the matter is that they are all sock-puppets of Satan!  I can no more tell them apart than I can the Three Stooges.

PS. Earth to Kishkumen ... Dan was joking!  
PPS. I am too!

[Daniel Peterson]

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog.  He is waxing hot in his indignation,

He seems to spend much of his day, every day, sneering at various people and being indignant or resentful.

It seems -- and I'm being very serious -- an unpleasant way to spend one's time.

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable.

I think that my Stalker is mentally and/or emotionally ill.  I can think of no other plausible explanation for his malevolent fixation on me, which is, as near as I can tell, in its seventh year.  Normal people don't behave this way.

However, if the Stalker is merely a sock puppet for the Stalker's seeming "disciple," then that may all be a mere pose, adopted for who knows what reason.  I know that the disciple has projected fictitious personae in the past; he frankly admitted it to me several years ago.

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity.  Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

I doubt that it is.

I've been quite careful on my blog to identify neither the pseudonyms of the Stalker and his disciple nor even the message board on which they hold forth -- and have, obviously, said nothing at all about the disciple's real-life identity, though I know it.

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy.  To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it.  Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

Precisely.

Pahoran, on 09 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent.  But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

I thought I expressed myself quite clearly.

***

Bond...James Bond, on 09 May 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Checking your soul at the registration page is a prerequisite.

That's been quite apparent for a long time.  It's why I never really felt comfortable there; somehow, I had circumvented that part of the registration procedure.

[Bond...James Bond]

Daniel Peterson, on 09 May 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

That's been quite apparent for a long time.  It's why I never really felt comfortable there; somehow, I had circumvented that part of the registration procedure.

Dr. Shades knows tthe guy who is the figurehead for Satan, the board owner and CEO,  and got you a pass from the soul removal.  Might not happen for Hamblin though since he doesn't have the "juice" you have with some people.

Edited by Bond...James Bond, 09 May 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[why me]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I am really disappointed in the tone of this discussion.  

This is usually a passive-aggressive statement directed at believing mormons. It usually means that mormons should be more controlling of their emotions and suppress any emotion that may show a particular tone. But mormons are just people who have emotions about many issues and some of these issues are personal and they do elicit a rather charged emotion. Mormons do not belong to a cult that requires its members to control all emotional outbursts and feelings of anger, distrust, etc. Mormons are human. Also, all the posts by members have been in the manner of discussion. No one is being mocked, bashed, name called etc as may happen on exmormon boards.

The problem that Joseph Smith had was with his anger management. People were surprised that a prophet shows anger and other emotions that members considered not prophet-like. And they left the church.