Matthew J. Tandy

21 minutes in to it he says his Bishop told a story to him about one prophet kissing an apostle on the lips, and talking about pure love versus lust. Anyone hear of this? Whether true or not, the situation shared seems to distort it to some degree, but curious if anyone heard this.

I offended quite a few Benji lovers in my ward when I pointed out that some of his behavior hinted that he struggled with sexuality (not jsut homosexual). His blog at the time, his appearance on the next season for a quick performance (wherein he pulled his pants down), etc, all indicated that, while a good guy, he wasn't on board spiritually with the Church in his heart, even if he loved and participated in it. It is sad to see I was right. As always with anyone, I wish him the best and much happiness in life.

So in this passage there is a qualifier save it were not built of so many precious things; Why? for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. Which means that we can infer that if those precious things were available, they would have been used. According to 2 Nephi 5:15, the ore to make steel was in great abundance.

But, as mentioned previously, apparently not in the later lands. And we stop eharing about common metals after 160 BC (and it was minimal before then). So... yup. Works for me.

Darren, next time we get together, you can perform that play for me. It'll be great.:-)

I have to say, I love how calmly and professionally, might I even say "maturely", that Elder McConkie handled it. It was touching how he also gently put his arm around the aging President Romney in a show of comfort. President Romney seemed a bit surprised. A good show of the sort of love that is shared among the brethren.

I wrote the following to my Bishopric a few minutes ago, and the underlying letter is good enough to share here:

Several people I know have recently received a mailer being sent out to registered Republicans and the Harris County populace in general. It has been put out by "The What's Up" radio show, a Christian broadcast on one of the local stations. The letter is titled "The Journal of Texas Conservative Politics" and is called "the Link". Terry Lowry is the responsible party and host.

While it initially seems to be political, standard stuff really, slipped into it on page 17 is a very non-satirical piece entitled Mormons and Women: Why Would Any Woman Vote For a Mormon?"

In it, we get bits such as:

"It is important to repeat that the female/wife will NOT be able to enter in to the Celestial Kingdom unless her husband calls her in to heaven. If he does not call her by her secret name, she will remain in the lower Mormon heavens or "degrees of glory" and will never be able to attain entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. As a further consequence, she will probably be separated from her earthly children in this imaginary hereafter as well. Again, this gives the male complete control over the wife's eternal destiny."

You can read it here: http://www.terrylowry.com/Pictures/ll/may2012.pdf

The actual piece is only one page, and excerpted from a book called "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters". Because of my work addressing anti-Mormonism claims and publications from an academic point of view, I am very aware of Tricia, her book, and her history. That any part of her terribly reviewed book have shown up in a mailer going out to our friends and neighbors, is a bit surprising. Normally this kind of stuff is kept to the backwaters of certain ministries, but again, this is designed to initially appeal to conservatives on a non-religious basis. It has information about voting, sample voting cards, and more.

Will it be a big deal. Not likely. It's equally unlikely anything in particular should be done, though I have encouraged those who have approached me about it to write to the editor of it expressing their concerns over publishing salacious material, which is different than publishing about valid theological differences. Either way, I thought y'all might like to be aware of the article, have the chance to view it, etc, in case anyone brings it up.

As a side note, the picture of the sweet and adoring wife pleading, not to God, but to a grumpy looking man, is classic and nearly hysterical. I will be sure to remind Christina that we've been doing it wrong this whole time.;-)

I wish someone had told me this whole time that my wife had to serve me or be cast down forever, and that I can cast her away at the last moment once we get up to heaven. I totally could uses more back rubs...

MercynGrace,

I appreciate you posting what you have. However, it occurs to me that some of it may be straining at gnats (I know it's not all from you, youa re a messenger on some). For instance, the review from Donald Parry, who I personally know. There is not a bitter or antagonistic bone in his body. I have never seen him act vindictively or personally attack someone. Anytime an argument even gets there, he abcks away and says no. And when I read what he wrote that you posted, I see nothing other than an expert on Hebrew, one of the worlds formeost authorities on the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc reviewing the actual data as an expert on hebrew. He clearly corrects errors, etc. He is not reviewing it as someone looking to see if it makes him feel good. He is reviewing it for exactly the reason he would have been asked to: From the opinion of a Hebrew Expert. Not only that, but there was nothing mean, nasty, or angry. Stating the truth plainly is something I applaud, and I appreicate he didn't insult the author directly. It is significantly in the favor of Farms Review that they recognized multiple ways to approach the book and included multiple reviews!

And this is the same thing I saw in several other items you shared. Farms Review is meant to be reviews in general from an academic perspective on items that venture into academic territory. I know, I have been hardened in some sense because when I read ANY biblical studies or historical studies journal, it often gets VERY personal when reviewing another person's work. FARMS has fr the msot part stayed far and above that, but it's still academically oriented. It's not about soothing hurt feelings, it's about analyzing and dissecting, allowing the most useful books and other materials to be lauded while those of little academic value to be relegated to the "someday amybe I will spend money on that..." pile. They are designed so others know the best books and articles to spend money and time on.

It can be reasonably argued that Farms should try to take a higher road that regular academia. That's fine. But I don't think the Farms Review should ever spare the rod. If they only reviewed about the fluffy peices and refrained from direct criticism, then I fail to see the point of even having it.

DWhitmer: Your post is completely irrelevant to this thread. It has nothing to do directly with the mysterios article involving John Dehlin, nor the interaction of Dan, John, and a general authority. Please open a new thread if you wish to preach about the fallen restored church. Wait. That's against the board rules. On second thought, please just try to stay on topic.

"Frazzelpuff" it is then. From the beginning, your assessment of this issue amounts to a bunch of frazzelpuff.

Apparently you are not interested in actual data and cogent argumentation. When specific examples were cited, you chose to ignore them. You shifted your position on what you meant. And then, you adopt a humorous word as an insult and fling it my way without any useful contribution to the argument.

That said, I am amused by your particular adaptation of frazzlepuff. Even though it was pointless, it was still amusing.

argumentum ad verecundiam

Yes and no. It was a statement that I am not ignorant to ad hominem and it's current and academic meanings. Since you implied I didn't know what I was speaking about ("If the logic still escapes you, you may wish to google ad hominem."), it was a relevant inclusion to point out that I am not, for instance, a car salesman who may not be familiar with debate tools.

I am quite aware of the use of it as a valid argument. However, Log's post, which I read and gave a rep point to, deflects the definition you provided initially when you said:

ad hominem, meaning an attempt to counter his efforts by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of Dehlin

It was to this modern and negative view of ad hominem that you provided that I was specifically addressing in the context of whether this article neither of us had seen did or did not do. In fact, you could have used a made up word such as "frazzlepuff", but since I am concerned with the definition as you provided it as a cogent element of your point in the post, I believe everything was addressed properly.

This is a non-issue other than it was your central tenant, using the definition you provided, which was being argued. That you have since adjusted it to the broader view of ad hominem has no bearing on the central points made. I am however pleased that, without fully agreeing, we seem to have come to a general agreement.

An ad hominemen argument is an argument based upon a person's motivation or character. If the piece shows, as Schyrver claims, that John is an evil apostate evangelist who wants to bring people out of the church, then the article presents ad hominem arguments.

It's not that complicated.

You are wrong. Perhaps it is you who should Google it. Cushan, I am not looking for a fight, but certainly agreeing on this basic term which, as a former academic of the ancient near east, I am more than aware of and schooled in, would be important to ending this side diversion.

Ad Hominem

"an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it"

I am using it in the academic dialogue sense. I can write a paper against the character of Joseph Smith, and that is not ad hominem. I can then write a paper against the theological argumentation of Joseph Smith regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, but then throw in a comment about how he founded Mormonism to sleep with other women, and that would be ad hominem (and wrong).

I can review the principles of a book without mentioning the character of an author. If I begin calling the author's take on a subject irrelevant because he is an apostate, that is ad hominem.

It's not ridiculous logic. Let me explain it to you. The stated objective of Mormon Stories is:

"to ensure that the projects we undertake 1) support individuals in Mormon-related faith crises, 2) save marriages, 3) heal families, and 4) celebrate, challenge, and advance Mormon culture in healthy ways."

According to Schryver, in an attempt to show that Mormon Studies fails in this effort, the piece shows that John is an "apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints," in the exact same breath in which he states that the article does not contain a single instance of ad hominem.

If the logic still escapes you, you may wish to google ad hominem.

I know exactly what it is, thank you. The goal appears to be that the current, and possibly even past, motivations of John Dehlin are not as altruistic as he verbally claims. To address a person and their claims of motivation is not ad hominem. Considering that Mormon Stories is also a site run by John, created by him, hosted by him, etc, it is logical to link his line of questions there directly to him and his motivations and styles. Additionally, it can be argued (although perhaps not yet convincingly), that John is no longer aiming for those four altruistic principles you cited. How would we determine this? By reviewing the content he has personally created. It has nothing to do with the direct arguments themselves, and everything to do with him.

Of course, if the article instead claims something like "John said there are people wavering in faith without any moral sins, but he's a jerk so don't listen to him, because jerks are liars and he's obviously sinning too" or some such, that would be ad hominem.

EDITED TO ADD: By the way JD, I am using you in this particular post to illustrate a logical point with him. It's not intended to be directly accusatory.

I will be interested in what others say because I have a hard time seeing how reading what's on FAIR could be damaging to one's faith.

My experience Deborah has been that the vast majority of those who claim FAIR was damaging either had the well heavily poisoned ahead of time, or (more often around here) the non-member or former/less active member is equating the interpersonal interactions on this non-FAIR/FARMS affiliated message board by some such as Dan Peterson, Scott Gordon, etc with the FAIR and FARMS organizations themselves. It's an uncalled for comparison, but it seems to happen regularly.

This isn't to say the websites don't have possible problems. They are rather vast and have many contributors. It would be good to have some feedback so it can be corrected.

Matthew J. Tandy,

I regret my vitriol, but I feel like the true offense is FAIR/FARMS/MI/Peterson/Midgley style ad hominem and personal attacks, but you may disagree with me, which is fine. I know at least a few GA's and an apostle who seem to agree with me though, so I know that I'm not alone in my feelings that what they do is hurtful and counterproductive.

I included GA's and cc'd Daniel Peterson for the simple fact that for the most part (if not entirely) he stopped responding to my emails to him a long, long time ago. It was the only way I could think of to get his attention. I honestly think he means to harm me, so why would he respond to polite email requests? That was my thinking, anyway.

I'm eager to include more faithful participants on MS, but I have sincere concerns about the BOM and BOA (among other things), so when someone comes on defending them, I am only asking sincere, honest questions out of genuine concern. At least I bring both sides into the discussion. Can't say the same for FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

Anyway, I won't try to convince you any more. All I'll say is....I'm trying to do what I feel is right. And I feel like the Maxwell Institute and Peterson/Midgley are hurting A LOT of people in how they do things, and I believe that bullies should be stood up against. And I honestly believe that they are bullies. Mean ones. Even if they smile and have the capacity to be polite and witty too.

John,

I appreciate the response. I personally feel that Dan, Will, and others have at times shared in the vitriol, but mainly in the context of a board where things tend to get personal. And it is definitely not the majority of the time either. I think it is important to distinguish between people when they publish an article or paper and when they are acting in a social capacity, even if LDS related. You are a prime example of this. Your questions are generally thoughtful in your podcasts. But in the subsequent comments you often come across as overly sensitive, hostile, and far from trying to bridge the gap from faithful to disbelieving cultural LDS. How you respond and conduct yourself in a focused and professional setting is different than in a forum or comment thread. I recognize you already know this principle, but it's good to keep in mind on days like today.

You do keep expanding the scope of influence involved. In your original post, you had indicated you heard that the Seventy in question had talked to someone, possibly even an apostle. It has steadily progressed from those vaguer, smaller beginnings of :

The GA told me that he would contact a few people in high places, and that he would do his best to intervene.

A few days later I was informed by a very, very reliable source that some very clear communication was given to the Maxwell Institute that publishing this article about me was ill advised, and that an apostle was involved in that communication.

to:

"I know at least a few GA's and an apostle who seem to agree with me"

I accept that perhaps since earlier today it had indeed expanded the scope. Otherwise, be careful that you keep it straight or you will be pounced on for rhetoric or conversational creep. Additionally, unless you have heard directly from them the reasons why, then it is not right to claim that they are necessarily on your side, though the end result may still be to your satisfaction. I recall a time where I had certain actions and a church activity forcibly cancelled when a distressed member went to the Stake President and wearied him until he came down on me to shut it down. Not for the reasons she said, but because he wasn't in the mood for a scene with that particular person as he knew she would make it grow bigger. Such a scenario is also possible in your case, considering your particular pulpit and elements of some followers of your website and podcasts. You can't say they "seem" to agree, therefore you "know" you are not alone because of them "seeming" to agree. It's a minor linguistic technicality that you didn't mean, but it makes a big difference in this case.

I included GA's and cc'd Daniel Peterson for the simple fact that for the most part (if not entirely) he stopped responding to my emails to him a long, long time ago. It was the only way I could think of to get his attention. I honestly think he means to harm me, so why would he respond to polite email requests? That was my thinking, anyway.

Consider this: You and Dan don't see eye to eye. When you two get together, sparks fly on both sides. Choosing not to respond to further requests for dialogue seems to be the prudent thing to do unless one or both parties have significant changes. Because by continuing that dialogue, vitriol as we have seen today erupts. You punched him (metaphorically speaking) to get his attention because he had stopped responding since it always lead to fights. Avoid the fight, then get dragged in anyway. It seems silly. Does he mean harm to you? Beats me. I accept you believe so. But I believe you honestly mean harm to him, as you have frequently insulted in the comments on your website Dan on both a personal and academic level and repeated constantly exactly what you said here: That Dan, FAIR, Farms, etc are a danger to the church. It is unreasonable for you to then be baffled as to why he and others hold a grudge. Are you trying to bridge some gaps? Sure? But you have been burning bridges in others (and of course, some on this side of the fence are happily fanning the flames and starting a few themselves...).

I'm eager to include more faithful participants on MS, but I have sincere concerns about the BOM and BOA (among other things), so when someone comes on defending them, I am only asking sincere, honest questions out of genuine concern.

John, if your questions are all pointed against the historicity of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text, and that there are no good answers you are aware of for the Book of Abraham (and all attempts so far to address either have been an embarrassment), then you have moved beyond neutrality and bridging the gap, and instead are guiding the conversation to demonstrate to your ends the concerns you have. Is it acting honestly with yourself? Absolutely! But if you turn around and claim you are bridging the gap with the faithful and the non-faithful, or that you are neutral, etc, then you are not being honest. And therein lies the crux of WhyMe's statements. At the beginning, you were much more even handed. Since then you have lost many in the faithful camp, especially in the last few months. You have changed. Your podcast has changed. The question is whether or not you recognize that, and if you do, what will you do about it? You can either embrace the new direction (which is, honestly fine), or make a course correction. If you do neither, the calls of a wolf in sheep's clothing will only get louder. Be who you are, and proud (or humble...:-D) about it.

I tried to post this before the board went down:

Let me get this straight. The article does not contain a single instance of ad hominem, meaning an attempt to counter his efforts by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of Dehlin. Instead it shows conclusively that Dehlin is "an apostate evangelist, whose objective is to erode the faith of the Saints."

This type of reasoning is why so many people, including many of those within the Church itself, are embarrassed by Mormon apologists.

Cushan, that's just ridiculous logic there. If the topic IS John Dehlin and his objectives, then it cannot be ad hominem. If it is addressing an academic podcast he created and rather than address the issues it attacks Dehlin and uses that to conclude that the academic aspects are false, that would be ad hominem.

It is perfectly valid to analyze motivation and claims to neutrality by the historical ratio of topics and how they are handled.

I wonder just how you would respond if Dan and Greg would enlist GA help. Would you be so kind?

Excellent point WhyMe.

John, I do want to sincerely ask you: How would you have felt if Dan Peterson, hearing that you were going to do a podcast that heavily scrutinized Dan and his motivations and words, and writings and etc, and rather than first come talk to you, immediately went to an Apostle or Seventy in an email, addressing them while merely copying you, and essentially warning them of you and hinting at further efforts to dissuade you via ecclesiastical means? How well would that really go over in non-believer circles? With the tables turned, don't you think various less than friendly to LDS boards would be in an equal furor?

Did I miss the threat that was supposed to be contained in the emails? I noticed a little name dropping but no threats.

SJDawg, there was threat, it was a outright punch. As I said in my previous post:

Your original email was not to Dan, it was to a General Authority, and you copied Dan on it while addressing him secondly. How could this not be viewed by Dan as a personal attack not only on him and his scholarship, but an attempt to have a religious intervention? Your initial email, while having what could be considered valid but unverified concerns, was lacking in decency, respect, and a true desire to get to the bottom of an issue. Although you had not verified you were about to be broadsided unfairly, you took a rumor and you walked up and punched a person connected to the rumor. It was unprofessional, and far below what I have come to expect from you on Mormon Stories.

Not name dropping. The email was sent to an ecclesiastical leader, and not a low one, but a seventy! The punch and threat to keep punching if Dan didn't comply was self-evident.

1) I really just wanted to get a post in on this fast moving thread... I mean, I opened it up over an hour ago, and it tripled i size before I got to what is the end of it as I start this post (2nd post down on page ten at this moment...).

2) JD, I appreciate in some ecumenical sense what you have tried to do with Mormon Stories. I have listened to many. Like others, I feel that in the past few months it has become far and beyond heavily weighted towards "against". If you wish to maintain your original premise, you might consider a course adjustment. However, I understand if over time your views of your role and the role of Mormon Stories has changed and you wish to take a new direction.

3) JD, I feel that your posting was vitriolic. I understand you were attempting to defend yourself, but it came across as vitriolic and over-the-top reactionary defensive. Your failure to post the original emails to Dan was lacking in wisdom, and I think you now realize that. Your original email was not to Dan, it was to a General Authority, and you copied Dan on it while addressing him secondly. How could this not be viewed by Dan as a personal attack not only on him and his scholarship, but an attempt to have a religious intervention? Your initial email, while having what could be considered valid but unverified concerns, was lacking in decency, respect, and a true desire to get to the bottom of an issue. Although you had not verified you were about to be broadsided unfairly, you took a rumor and you walked up and punched a person connected to the rumor. It was unprofessional, and far below what I have come to expect from you on Mormon Stories.

4) Vitriol has been on all sides in this thread. But it's always there. And honestly, while we can all do better on being more respectful or gentlemanly in our responses at times, the Gospel teaches us also not to be offenders of a word, and to be thick skinned. Go the extra mile. etc etc etc. Instead we get a critic insulting someone for being insulting, and vice versa without any truly well meaning analysis and critique.

5) I have personally been strengthened by FARMS, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and these message boards. I praise God Almighty for the great resource of knowledge that they have been. I do not find them to be perfect. Indeed, sometimes multiple, opposite views have been taken on the very same sites and in the same organizations and published regarding one topic or another. The value in them is that they have shown that there are a myriad of legitimate ways to view history and scripture and still retain a dazzling strength in witness of the Restored Gospel, which has allowed me to focus even more time on better understanding the aspects that make me a more Christ like person: Faith, Hope and Charity.

"call themselves" gay or lesbian are really just straight people with "SSA," a rather demeaning acronym that sounds like a disease.)

SSA is not insulting unless you choose to believe it is. Every LGB is so because of same sex attraction. How is that demeaning? It is a fact, and is not morally judgemental in any way.

the church is always vascillating on whether gay and lesbian people exist or not

No, they are not. No one questions their existence. The only question has been theological or biological in terms of the how and why. Not "do they exist".

But I don't think the disparity is likely to be too vast, considering that very few LGBT Mormons come out prior to going to college, and often they have not yet even admitted to themselves that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered

That is probably true. There is though the factor that most male students at BYU served missions, so they had more time to "figure it out" so to speak. The principle of the matter is that it is erroneous to beleive that the same national averages can be flatly applied with accuracy to the BYU population and then presented as fact.

Matthew: Just on number 2, I think that comment might have been connected to a common problem, that was talked about at the forum about trying to bargain with God, or expecting faith (and subsequent faith actions) to heal them of their desires. The logis would go: my feelings are wrong, God teaches us to repent and be healed, ergo my wrong feelings will go away because God wouldn't make me this way.

Yeah, I realize that. It was more of a quibble with the line of thinking in regards to the mission. They do in a sense correct it. The flip side is that I don't think they should be promoting a view that God didn't make them that way, or that he did. Neither is valid,s ince God may have made one person in one way, and simply allowed the other to happen. It depends on the challenges in life each person is to have. I think this comes into greater focus when we take away the LGB community adn focus solely on Transexuals. If you have both body parts, how does a faithful member of the gospel resolve the who and why as well as their role in the gospel and sexual relations. That is where the deepest questions about it all lay in my mind.

Lots of Jewish traditions about the animals killed. Some variation between whether it was God, Adam and Eve, or even Satan. Typically it's a sheep, but some have goats, and I think one or two traditions cite other animals.

One third quibble:

3) There will be backlash and a bad end result if they do not make more clear in things such as the video that the church's doctrine does not allow for acting LGB relations. That being open and honest is ok, and you are still loved, but acting on those feelings sexually will likely lead to disfellowship or excommunication, especially for endowed members. It is apparent from the panel that at least one, if not two, of them are considering an active homosexual lifestyle, adn they need to be clear that has a different acceptance level than simply being open and honest about your attractions.

Good video.

I would point out two minor quibbles:

1) I could be wrong, but that numbers they use for Gay students at BYU appear to be based off of national averages. This would be wrong for many reasons. First off, many people who otherwise may consider being LGB don't because they have overcome those feelings, or view it as something they choose not to identify as despite any occasional thoughts. The line that marks when one is Gay versus not Gay can be fuzzy, and is more like a general grouping of thoughts and behavior that can have a lot of variation therein. What one considers gay, another may not, and vice versa. Additionally, and more importantly, it's probably safe to assume that less people who identify as LGBT would attend BYU to begin with, either because the LGBT community is not very associated with conservative groups (and so they won't feel welcome based on political ideology, sexual ideology aside, if they feel the BYU environment is not politically open), or because they feel they cannot "be themselves" in terms of openness about being LGBT, at BYU. The video and meeting may change that dynamic, but for now, it seems use of the national percentages to identify LGBT at BYU is disingenuous, if not outright dishonest in an attempt to make it seem like a bigger "current" issue than it is.

2) One of the guys mentioned that he went on a mission believing it would help him overcome his homosexual attractions. Going on a mission to "overcome" being gay is possibly more senseless than going on a mission to overcome immoral behavior. I have no doubt that someone, maybe even a well meaning ecclesiastical leader or friend, suggested it, but it's still silly. I would not be surprised though if the spiritual lessons he learned on his mission helped him to find peace now.

It might be nonsense, but it's still published by the Church at LDS.org and was recently twice reiterated in General Conference, so it's Grade A nonsense.

It's not all nonsense but... a few points are definitely not correct. And yet, they are doctrinal now despite being in conflict with other doctrine. Well, conflict if one is an absolutist. I am not conflicted, but I could see how absolutists are.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with all life, including God, resulting after the Big Bang. Since time seems to mean something different in his sphere of existence than ours, I am not certain when he came to be matters, since he seems to have past, present, and future before him as one now. I seem to recall reading something once how in quantum physics, time doesn't exist, just frames of existence. Even is the past is before him because he knows it perfectly but cannot alter it, I am ok with that too. Whether he created the universe or just helped speed evolution or colonize countless worlds and lead his children to a happy ending, I am fine. He is still God to me.

I missed priesthood session...

It was excellent, especially the first half. Very focused on less actives.