Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[Daniel Peterson]

But do you think, for example, that a book like Rough Stone Rolling could have been written at BYU? Hopefully in the future, the answer will be yes.

i don't know. Maybe. I like the book, on the whole.

Parts of it, you may or may not know, were consciously written on the basis or in the light of summer seminars held at BYU, sometimes partially sponsored and/or hosted by the Maxwell Institute. And, when he first began writing the book, I remember Richard having a meeting with some of us in the Harold B. Lee Library to brainstorm about how to handle the matter of revelation in a way that would alienate neither believers (among whom Richard plainly counted himself; as a patriarch, he said, he had experienced revelation) nor unbelievers.

.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[ttribe]

I said "castigate". Are you now trying to make me an offender for a word -- a word I did not even say? Do you want to debate the quality of "severity" in your words? Seems pointless. But here is where you did it:

In using the word "severe" I was referring to the definition of "castigate." I provided no severe reproof. I simply suggested an alternative view on the matter. Your response was to accuse me of rebellion. If there was an opening hostile act, it was yours, sir.

Did I get it wrong? Were you not trying to put me in my place? What exactly was it you were seeking to do if not object to my position -- and by making it a matter of my personal qualities?

See above.

I agree you that you suggested it. And I agree that there are limits we do not cross. What I do not agree with, however, is that you get to legitimately set those for me.

Never said I had any authority to set limits for you. Just suggested there might be limits to consider; food for thought and all that.

I am sorry that I offended you. It seems that following the example of Christ when faced with the wolves who seek to slay the flock is a good thing and that you don't want people to do that.

I don't think you are 100% capable of differentiating the "wolf" from the sincerlely struggling (nor is any mortal capable of such a thing); that's a dangerous space to play in.

Hmm.. why did you give up on that position in this exchange? What has changed?

I didn't give up on any position; I was pointing out that your responses have been the very type of ham-fisted responses that have caused many a hurt around here (having observed such for almost 4 years now).

Edited May 12, 2012 by ttribe

[volgadon]

Then let us pass by the sins of our brethren, throwing a cloak of charity over them, that we may be the Sons of God, and have that power you would like to not exercise.

Before throwing a cloak over anyone, I would far rather make sure that the cloak in question isn't one of maliciousness. Cleansing the inner vessel first, and whatnot.

Edited May 12, 2012 by volgadon

[jwhitlock]

Paul was no stranger to contention and condemnation of his enemies. Old Testament prophets were even more direct in dealing with the enemies of God. We are told to reprove with sharpness when directed by the Spirit, and to show forth an increase of love (when possible) after that. I don't look to the scriptures to justify my responses, but I do understand that there is a divide between the Church and its enemies that is not going to be bridged. It is important to follow the direction of the Spirit in dealing with those who attack the Church, so that we don't use the wrong responses for those who are just questioning or searching.

This thread has been interesting in that we've been treated to a wide variety of examples on both sides that can be pondered. There's value in digging through this and coming to some conclusions by the Spirit about how the various posts should be perceived.

I've never been one to accept claims at face value. If I don't have any evidence to rebut a story or claim, it's often best just to leave it alone. However, we've had at least one poster here whose claims about being "troubled" were contradictory enough with what they posted that their credibility could be appropriately called into question. That's not been the case with all such claims here, so it provides some good data for comparison.

Making a distinction between those who attack and those who sincerely question, and leaving the latter aside, I personally have a deep seated antipathy for those who attack my faith, including those who make patently insincere claims of being offended or troubled and demanding that I "respect" their stories. I've had too much first hand experience with people who hate both me and my religion, who have worked to harm me, my family, my career and my relationships, all in the name of slaking their hatred for all things connected with the restored gospel. In these cases, the faces change, but the methodology is the same. It becomes very recognizable after a while, and I get no sense that we are required to just let them have their way.

My trouble with Dehlin is that he seems to be embracing and validating an increasing number of these kinds of people. I've enjoyed some of the items on his site in the past, but I've been troubled by a sense that he's moved more actively into encouraging and giving an open and uncritical stage to those who only want to attack the Church. I was very troubled by the quotes he provided to attack Dan, quotes that to me, at least, appeared gratuitous, totally subjective, and contradicted by what I know of Dan and have read from him.

There are a growing number of people out there who absolutely hate us. They crave validation for their hatred, and anyone - including apologists - who questions the validity of that hatred will be vilified by them. Is Dan really as vile and hateful and small minded as those who vilify him claim? It should be absolutely clear that this is NOT the case. And so, those who make and nurture such claims - including Dehlin, by using the quotes he did - condemn themselves for what they really are.

It's not a nice world out there anymore. As has been stated, a spiritual foundation of grounding in the gospel is absolutely necessary to withstand the tides of misinformation, misrepresentation, using facts out of context, questioning history, and all of the other ploys that the enemies of God are putting to use in the last days. If you don't have that grounding, the loud, angry voices are going to wear you down after a while. And that is something to be mourned.

[CASteinman]

Except in extremely rare situations, I'd much rather emulate the Christ ....Rarely is there a case in which a more compassionate answer would not have served better than a mean one, so why choose to be mean.

I wish I could always emulate Christ. I am just not quite that fit. I consider that being direct and critical of the enemies of the Saints to be a compassionate response. I accept how this seems incorrect to some people but I feel pretty good about it. I am always open to other ideas... but I see no good sense in coddling wolves.

On a different note, I am pleased that (it appears) you actually do not want to be known as a rebel! That makes me happy! God bless you!

[CASteinman]

In essence, you claimed that Because the Saviour said means things, so could you. Indeed, refraining from saying mean things could even come across as rebellion against God.

I don't actually think the Saviour said mean things. I think He said correct things that (he reasonably knew) could be taken as mean. But I do not think his intend was ever mean. And to me, that is the critical difference. Yes, I think we can and should do the same. I think refraining from that, when it is right, is distinctly bad.

You do not agree. OK. I accept that. Everyone is different. And one of the differences between us is that you want me to change -- but I accept you the way you are.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

i don't know. Maybe. I like the book, on the whole.

Parts of it, you may or may not know, were consciously written on the basis or in the light of summer seminars held at BYU, sometimes partially sponsored and/or hosted by the Maxwell Institute. And, when he first began writing the book, I remember Richard having a meeting with some of us in the Harold B. Lee Library to brainstorm about how to handle the matter of revelation in a way that would alienate neither believers (among whom Richard plainly counted himself; as a patriarch, he said, he had experienced revelation) nor unbelievers.

.

BYU has, in my opinion, made in some areas, some important strides (in part due to the efforts of scholars such as yourself). I hope it continues to progress.

[CASteinman]

I don't think you (or any mortal) is 100% capable of differntiating the "wolf" from the sincerlely struggling; that's a dangerous space to play in.

I'm gonna ignore all your *** for tat.. and just put it to this:

"OK. So we disagree. Can you accept that?"

[ttribe]

I'm gonna ignore all your *** for tat.. and just put it to this:

"OK. So we disagree. Can you accept that?"

Sure, I already said I didn't care if you disagreed with me.

[Calm]

I would rather simply retract my statements and say I was wrong.

Okay.

[CASteinman]

Oh that is so cool! I love it that this board is censored... even though I really did not mean to say anything wrong. (Don't really know the origin of that phrase!)

[volgadon]

Oh that is so cool! I love it that this board is censored... even though I really did not mean to say anything wrong. (Don't really know the origin of that phrase!)

This for that.

[Calm]

Oh that is so cool! I love it that this board is censored... even though I really did not mean to say anything wrong. (Don't really know the origin of that phrase!)

Just wait until you try to write the name of the author of Tale of Two Cities.

[Libs]

Someone asked (way back there - can't remember who) what this piece on John Dehlin was about. I would be interested in knowing that, myself. Was it a critique of his work (his podcasts, etc)? Or something critical of him, personally? Does anyone know?

[James]

As a BYU student, I'm saddened to see this conversation. It further persuades me to pitch my camp away from religion. I really think everyone involved needs to just drop it, and go volunteer at a homeless shelter together. No more rhetoric about ad hominems and hit pieces. No more angry, clever, passive-aggressive rebuttals. There's no salvation in it.

Welcome to the Board but please read the guidelines before posting again. There will be many threads you do not like. We do not take kindly to board nannies.

[Calm]

Someone asked (way back there - can't remember who) what this piece on John Dehlin was about. I would be interested in knowing that, myself. Was it a critique of his work (his podcasts, etc)? Or something critical of him, personally? Does anyone know?

No details have been released yet. And the only poster who informed us he has read part of it so is banned from the thread, I believe. You will just have to be patient like the rest of us, I guess.

[Skylla]

Per your request, I am willing to count you as a rebel against the standards set by Christ. Why do you want to be known that way?

CASteinman is banned. New posters joining this thread to make judgments against others will also be banned.

Skylla

[treehugger]

nvm

Edited May 12, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Then you are on the wrong board because I will not hold posters to a higher standard whether they are members of the church or not.

Nemesis

very much a disappointing post.

I'm sure it was, but it was the truth. I will not hold any group or allow anyone to expect another group to be held to an unfair higher standard. Sticking to that in mind has made this board successful in what it does.

Nemesis

I missed a previous statement of yours, about separate standards. Though I believe that LDS people should and are duty to live a higher standard, and conduct themselves according to the rule of "Do unto others", I do not advocate that two standards of conduct for this board.

I believe President Hinckley made the comment about "lifting up" others, it seems in regard to the issue of conduct LDS people have lowered themselves to conduct of others.

[Daniel Peterson]

The frenzy over at my Malevolent Stalker's board about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen is apparently beginning to die down. Which is not surprising, since even a place like that can't keep going forever on absolutely nothing; a true perpetual motion machine hasn't yet been invented. And, with the weekend coming on, the participants there will be on their own time, away from their workplace computers, so they'll have less leisure to post.

Which is perfectly fine by me. There was lots of heat and derision in their comments, but no light at all that I could see.

In some ways, from my perspective, the lowest point of the comments there, although it was little noticed, came when the matter of my brother's recent death arose. Some accused me of dragging it into the discussion myself; the truth is that I mentioned it in my emailed response to John Dehlin's initial emails to me, and those emails were then reproduced here; it had occurred just three days earlier, and those emails are part of the historical record relating to Dehlin's initial efforts to block publication of the essay.

My Stalker offered some (in my view) perfunctory condolences on a thread that some others had launched to express theirs. He could scarcely avoid doing so, if he was going to post something on that particular thread. But then he cheapened his reaction and the spirit of the thread with this: "I believe he posted about this on his blog a couple of months ago. As I recall, his story about it concluded with him and his family going to eat enormous pastrami sandwiches and huge plates of french fries."

Now, the Stalker studies everything I do, say, and write with obsessive care, always seeking whatever he can use, however disingenuously, to attack and defame me. He knows my writing, in that perverse sense, as well as anybody does. He's been watching my blog like a hawk. So I'm confident that his misrepresentation was deliberate.

Here's the blog entry in which I wrote of my brother's death. I began writing it almost immediately after hearing the news. I was disoriented with, devastated by, grief, and this was a way of coming to grips with it for at least a few minutes:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...march-2012.html

The next day, I returned to the topic with this entry:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...or-friends.html

A week later, I reported very briefly on something from my brother's funeral in California, with this:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...01_archive.html

Now, it's virtually certain that my Stalker was aware of these three entries (and of others in that same period where I mentioned my brother's sudden passing). He misses absolutely nothing that I post or write. But it wouldn't serve his purposes to call attention to anything that would humanize me, engender sympathy for me, or interfere with his carefully crafted portrayal of me as callous, heartless, cynical, dishonest, and mean-spirited.

You may think this a harsh judgment on my part, but I've been his target for more than six years now, and I know his modus operandi very well. (I've actually mentioned his deliberate misrepresentations on my blog: http://dcpsicetnon.b...se-witness.html) That's also, I'm confident, why he very seldom mentions my columns for the Deseret News or my Mormon Scholars Testify project, except, relatively rarely, to deride them as vapid or desperately hypocritical or as attempts to return to the good graces of the Brethren (which, he routinely says, I've lost); such things simply can't be exploited very easily for his obsessive project to malign and defame me. It's better, from his perspective, for his credulous and uncritical disciples not to be reminded of such things.

(By the way, he's shifted: He once said that I was the darling of The Oaks Faction, which supported the Maxwell Institute but had been defeated by The Packer Faction. Now, though, I'm apparently a tool of The Packer Faction, which favors the hardline cruelty of the Maxwell Institute. The twists and turns in the party line can be amusing to watch.)

It was only a week after my brother's death, and after those three posts, that my nostalgic remarks about the pastrami place came:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...wiches-and.html

The Stalker knows perfectly well that I didn't mingle the news of my brother's death with a gluttonous celebration of massive pastrami sandwiches and French fries. But that's who he is. He simply couldn't resist the cheap, hostile dig.

And then along came the lamentable LDSToronto, who joined in with the Stalker to make it look as if the passing of my brother, to whom I was extremely close, my only sibling, the last surviving member other than myself of my immediate family, really didn't mean much to me:

"His brother died 6 weeks ago. While sad, he seems to have been able to manage the grief as evidenced by his 127 blog posts since his death and numerous message board posts."

LDSToronto's statement was, by the way, at least partially false: I've been posting very little on this message board for months now (my recent burst of postings has come only because of the feeding frenzy surrounding The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen) and, apart from announcements of columns, have participated here scarcely at all since my brother died. And I've posted on no other message boards at all. So it's not clear where, apart from his own imagination, he came up with those "numerous message board posts."

To her credit, MsJack responded to LDSToronto's cynicism by noting that blogging can be a way of dealing with grief, citing her own experience with the death of her mother. She is precisely right on that.

***

Later addition: I want to be clear that this post is critical of the Stalker and of LDSToronto, but not at all of the others who posted in that thread, whose condolences were, so far as another person can know, sincere. I genuinely appreciate their sympathy. This has been extraordinarily painful for me. I miss my brother more, even nearly two months after his death, than I can express.

.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

As a BYU student, I'm saddened to see this conversation. It further persuades me to pitch my camp away from religion.

For the life of me, I can't see why this thread would turn anybody against religion. Or turn anybody toward it.

Anyway, it's not an either/or. It's possible to participate in conversations, even on line, and also volunteer in the community. It's certainly possible to be religious and to do good in the community. In fact . . .

Several years ago, I read Professor Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), which argues on the basis of numerous social science studies that, despite their preening of themselves on their superior concern for the poor, their very vocal boasting of their warmer hearts, and their frequently expressed disdain for religious conservatives, liberal secularists give considerably less to charity (and even to non-religious charities) and do considerably less charitable volunteering than do religious conservatives. Later, I read Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), which, despite its much more politically partisan title, uses still other social science research to make essentially the same point.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[treehugger]

As a BYU student, I'm saddened to see this conversation. It further persuades me to pitch my camp away from religion. I really think everyone involved needs to just drop it, and go volunteer at a homeless shelter together. No more rhetoric about ad hominems and hit pieces. No more angry, clever, passive-aggressive rebuttals. There's no salvation in it.

For the life of me, I can't see why this thread would turn anybody against religion. Or turn anybody toward it.

I think you have missed his point completely. I see James comment as a lament that of what has happened on this thread. Several posters on this thread has advocated lower themselves to the level of conduct of their critics. I believe is referring to how can people who claim Christ promote such behavior.

Anyway, it's not an either/or. It's possible to participate in conversations, even on line, and also volunteer in the community. It's certainly possible to be religious and to do good in the community. In fact . . .

doing good, and the lack of good being done in this thread is his lament.

Several years ago, I read Professor Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), which argues on the basis of numerous social science studies that, despite their preening of themselves on their superior concern for the poor, their very vocal boasting of their warmer hearts, and their frequently expressed disdain for religious conservatives, liberal secularists give considerably less to charity (and even to non-religious charities) and do considerably less charitable volunteering than do religious conservatives. Later, I read Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), which, despite its much more politically partisan title, uses still other social science research to make essentially the same point.

not sure why you felt the need to insinuate that James might be a liberal secularists who fains charity. (is this simple a well poison of one you do not agree with? He made no statement of being a liberal or a secularist.)

I feel confident that salvation is found in charity and not in "rhetoric about ad hominems and hit pieces" or in "angry, clever, passive-aggressive rebuttals".

Edited May 12, 2012 by treehugger

[Somebodyz]

The frenzy over at my Malevolent Stalker's board about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen is apparently beginning to die down. Which is not surprising, since even a place like that can't keep going forever on absolutely nothing; a true perpetual motion machine hasn't yet been invented. And, with the weekend coming on, the participants there will be on their own time, away from their workplace computers, so they'll have less leisure to post.

Which is perfectly fine by me. There was lots of heat and derision in their comments, but no light at all that I could see.

In some ways, from my perspective, the lowest point of the comments there came when the matter of my brother's recent death arose. Some accused me of dragging it into the discussion myself; the truth is that I mentioned it in my emailed response to John Dehlin's initial emails to me, which were then reproduced here; it had occurred just three days earlier, and those emails are part of the historical record relating to Dehlin's initial efforts to block publication of the essay.

My Stalker offered some (in my view) perfunctory condolences on a thread that some others had launched to express theirs. He could scarcely avoid doing so, if he was going to post something on that particular thread. But then he cheapened his reaction and the spirit of the thread with this: "I believe he posted about this on his blog a couple of months ago. As I recall, his story about it concluded with him and his family going to eat enormous pastrami sandwiches and huge plates of french fries."

Dan I'm sorry for your loss. I noticed the email posted by John Dehlin, and thought it crass, considering your loss. You are blessed to have had such a brother to have been loved and love a close sibling. It says more about those who use your loss to score points than anything they say about you.

Blogging, journals etc, all seem like a healthy way to try and come to terms with all the mixed emotions and memories, but then your detractors will use anything to wound.

I love the MI and often recommend members to Fair or MI sites, as I've personally found them very helpful, and uplifting.

[Daniel Peterson]

not sure why you felt the need to insinuate that James might be a liberal secularists who fains charity. (is this simple a well poison of one you do not agree with? He made no statement of being a liberal or a secularist.)

Good grief. Seriously?

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Nothing. Nothing at all.

He spoke about leaving religion behind and going out to do good. I simply pointed out that religious people tend to do more such good than do people who leave religion behind, which plainly shows that no either/or decision is required between religion and doing good.

I suspect that you would see less unchristlike behavior here if you weren't, as it seems, so eager to read it into other people's posts. Really. Good grief.

****

Thanks, somebodyz, for the very kind note.

[rodheadlee]

So what did I miss? It's ok to criticize the Church, it's ok to criticize it's members but it's not ok to criticize the critics of the Church?

Sorry for your loss Dan.