Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[mentalgymnast]

And if that is true, he unfortunately has a negative impact in regards to those that are sincerely/honestly trying to get at the truth of the matter(s) as it relates to the mormon story. One bad apple...That's the problem with these message boards. No face to face contact, and it IS difficult sometimes not to take things at face value...without the face.Regards,MG

I for one, am willing to take Rufus at face value...unless I have reason to think/believe otherwise. Time will tell, I suppose.Regards,MG

[Calm]

Viewing the conduct of lds apologists elsewhere...

Grouping all those who attempt to defend the Church into one lump is not helpful to the discussion either. Pointing out specific instances of harm would be.

[Benjamin McGuire]

And what is troubling to me is that while there is willingness to condemn there does not appear to be willingness to help change for the better since there is only generic accusations without any effort to actually identify the problems he says exist.

So .... let me repost part of his initial comments:

My sojourn takes me to Mr. Peterson's writings, and he was not the only one, but the tone and vitriol of what was being written by these supposed men of God, totally turned me from a believer desperately holding on to my now fragile testimony, to a person shattered. Where was the humilty and respect of the Savior? Where was the kind and nurturing messages I had hoped for? What I found was akin to my elementary days and middle school days of schoolyard name calling and pious denunciation of those to whom the authors so disagreed.

So I turned to other sources and found books written by current and former members who were contrite and humble in what they presented. I ahve carefully avoided the Tanners and others whose retoric is decidedly anti-Mormon. I can honestly say that I owe my personal apostacy to those "intellectuals" at Fair/Farms/ and the Maxwell Institute.

I am, I suppose, one of these "intellectuals" at FAIR/Farms/ and the Maxwell Institute.

I didn't read Rufus's post as identifying problems. I read it as an attack. It was full of gratuitous jabs everywhere. I think that if someone comes forward with constructive criticism then it would be a much different situation, don't you think? But this was in attack mode from the beginning.

Ben M.

[Trevor]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that John Dehlin is perhaps the first person in the history of the Church to even come close to feasibly bridging the gap between the Church and "disenchanted" members. For people like Rufus and the countless others who begin to question their faith based on problems with Joseph Smith, polygamy, the Book of Abraham etc., John Dehlin is the most visible and successful voice trying to help these people find peace with their doubts and still maintain support for (or at least some degree of comfort with) the Church and its members.

Can you provide real examples of "countless" people who claim to have actually been helped to stay in the church? I know there are some (although according to what he said, Rufus does not seem to be among them), but they seem rare. If you want to see lots of real examples of people he's actually helped out of the church, however, just look at his Facebook page or the Mormon Stories website. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but it appears from here that the net effect has been very negative.

[Calm]

I didn't read Rufus's post as identifying problems. I read it as an attack. It was full of gratuitous jabs everywhere. I think that if someone comes forward with constructive criticism then it would be a much different situation, don't you think? But this was in attack mode from the beginning.

It came across that way to me as well.

I have seen in the past positive responses to constructive criticisms. Good things have resulted. OTOH, it frustrates me when people claim the 'high ground' while undercutting their own position by obviously taking the low road. The conversation generally goes nowhere. While it would be better to actually start from that stance, people can recover by turning to constructive criticisms instead of just repeating the generic accusations that come across as pure attack mode. If it stays general, we can safely conclude the purpose of the original post. If he supplies us with some constructive criticisms (which admittedly may take some effort, but if there is that bad of stuff out there that it makes an impact that leads people away from their desired faith, it shouldn't be that hard to find), then it opens up to more positive views.

We will see if this happens here.

Edited May 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Buzzard]

Well, THAT was an interesting way to spend my lunch hour. I don't have the scholarly chops to keep up with a lot of you good folks, but it does seem like there is a double standard. We here on the TBM side are supposed to be above being insulted and free from all guile, while critics expect to get away with venom and general snarkyness because, well, they are critics. Maybe I'm just seeing it that way because of my POV, but we are all allowed one, aren't we?

As to the esteemed Mr. Rufus, I'll give his sincerity the benefit of the doubt, but it would help is cause if in response to repeated requests, he would just tell us what in the world his exact issues were.

BTW, I've never seen a thread get to 8 pages so fast. I'm duly impressed.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Buzzard

[Rufus1]

Mmmm ... smells like a Buffalo.

At any rate, a brand new member of two message boards, who magically has all the controversial issues and all the terminology down pat in a single day ... you're an absolute marvel.

I know about MDB and MDDB because there was an interaction on one of the pages of the infamous thread yesterday on MDB. So are you saying that because I read and learned a very minor amount of info from this and the thread yesterday, that I must be a fraud? So you are searching for the balm to assuage your guilt at ripping on people who might be going though a faith crisis? I'm trying to understand where you get off coming at me like this.

[Mark Beesley]

It came across that way to me as well.

I have seen in the past positive responses to constructive criticisms. Good things have resulted. OTOH, it frustrates me when people claim the 'high ground' while undercutting their own position by obviously taking the low road. The conversation generally goes nowhere. While it would be better to actually start from that stance, people can recover by turning to constructive criticisms instead of just repeating the generic accusations that come across as pure attack mode. If it stays general, we can safely conclude the purpose of the original post. If he supplies us with some constructive criticisms (which admittedly may take some effort, but if there is that bad of stuff out there that it makes an impact that leads people away from their desired faith, it shouldn't be that hard to find), then it opens up to more positive views.

We will see if this happens here.

Rufis is now feverishly searching for something on the FAIR site that he can hoist as a banner to say, See, this is what I was talking about.

[rpn]

I have to wonder what would have happened if JD had emailed Dan Peterson during business hours saying, "someone told me that he thinks MI is going to publish someone about me, and that he thinks it's going to be a "hit piece". I first thought it was going to be FAIR, and Scott Gornon told me he didn't know of anything they were writing about me. Can you tell me if MI is considering publishing anything about me? If it is I'd like to be interviewed for the piece so I will have a chance to rebut anything that isn't truthful, and know when it will be published so I can be prepared with an appropriate rebuttal. Let me know please, as I'm feeling quite anxious about it".

And I have to wonder what would have happened if some here hadn't had such wearying experiences with church critics so that it is hard to approach each new event as fresh for the person raising the issues. I'm thinking most of us would admit that this thread isn't a very good example of peace and forbearing and avoiding contention.

[bluebell]

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

If you consider my post to be 'dog piling' then i have to doubt your ability to judge such things accurately.

In most of society, when you say 'don't you judge me' and then start calling people you don't know self righteous, insincere, and proud, you're going to get a negative response.

He didn't want people to do it to him, so it's odd that he was so quick and comfortable doing it to other people. You can't fault other people for pointing that out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think these discussions/disagreements would be a billion times shorter if all the biting sarcastic rhetoric and name-calling was removed from the picture. The cheering gladiatorial crowds, however, wouldn't be nearly as entertained. But I get the feeling if the participants didn't want the crowds, they wouldn't constantly be going in for the verbal kill.

So go post this on the other board.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you provide real examples of "countless" people who claim to have actually been helped to stay in the church? I know there are some (although according to what he said, Rufus does not seem to be among them), but they seem rare. If you want to see lots of real examples of people he's actually helped out of the church, however, just look at his Facebook page or the Mormon Stories website. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but it appears from here that the net effect has been very negative.

If one is already out or on the way out and has the objective of hindering or destroying the Church, it seems to me that person might embrace a strategy of vilifying and discrediting the person who arguably is its most effective defender by trying to make it seem that the defender is doing more harm than good. In short, antagonists don't strike me as credible on this point.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Mark Beesley]

I have to wonder what would have happened if JD had emailed Dan Peterson during business hours saying, "someone told me that he thinks MI is going to publish someone about me, and that he thinks it's going to be a "hit piece". I first thought it was going to be FAIR, and Scott Gornon told me he didn't know of anything they were writing about me. Can you tell me if MI is considering publishing anything about me? If it is I'd like to be interviewed for the piece so I will have a chance to rebut anything that isn't truthful, and know when it will be published so I can be prepared with an appropriate rebuttal. Let me know please, as I'm feeling quite anxious about it".

And I have to wonder what would have happened if some here hadn't had such wearying experiences with church critics so that it is hard to approach each new event as fresh for the person raising the issues. I'm thinking most of us would admit that this thread isn't a very good example of peace and forbearing and avoiding contention.

Nobody has been shot . . . yet.

[Xander]

So go post this on the other board.

Seriously? How about Dan's ridiculous attack blog.

Oh wait, he doesn't allow comments to his lecture sessions.

[Gohan]

Been watching this thing all day, and I've lost some respect for some of the posters here. This thread is a perfect example of what Elder Cook was speaking out against in his CES Fireside back in March.

And as to your question Trevor, I'm one of the people who John actually helped, both through some of his podcasts and talking to him over the phone. I wasn't about to leave the church, but I was plenty frustrated with attitudes and the way some things were being taught. I've been able to sort through that now. There's my testimonial for him. He's got his faults, but he's a good guy.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Gohan

[Bond...James Bond]

So go post this on the other board.

I second that. David T would be welcomed with open arms to Bedlam. (You too Mola.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Been watching this thing all day, and I've lost some respect for some of the posters here. This thread is a perfect example of what Elder Cook was speaking out against in his CES Fireside back in March.

Please elaborate with specific examples.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Seriously? How about Dan's ridiculous attack blog.

Oh wait, he doesn't allow comments to his lecture sessions.

Yawn.

[ttribe]

Is it a FACT?

I don't believe it, and I don't believe you can demonstrate it.

Again, I am convinced it is a myth, created and 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.

If I were you, I would be a little embarrassed to have fallen for it.

Will, do you really believe that all people can be categorized as either: 1) trying to grow the Church; or 2) trying to destroy the Church?

[rameumptom]

Rufus,

The key is, one cannot gain a testimony, nor maintain it, by the scientific method nor history. God made it that way. We must learn spiritual things by faith and personal revelation. Once one has that personal revelation, then there is no reason for anything shocking to deter us from that faith.

The Book of Mormon teaches us regarding the differences between the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TK) and the Tree of Life (TL).

The TK teaches us all that there is to know via our senses. Whatever we can touch, feel, see, or hear is to be believed. It is experience bound by our mortal body's ability and inability. So, we learn through joy and sadness, birth and death, pleasure and pain. There is much we can learn from this methodology. Still, there is lots that we cannot definitively learn. Scientific methodology establishes that there is no perfect proof, as something we discover around the horizon could change everything we currently believe. An example of this is Newton's laws that revolutionized the world in his day, and then were partially found wrong when Einstein revolutionized the world with his theories later. It all becomes a state of flux, depending upon the current knowledge, perspective, etc.

One thing the TK teaches us is that we will all die. It cannot believe in God, as there is no real evidence of God. It cannot believe in miracles, as they go beyond what the world can experience and replicate in a laboratory.

That is where the Tree of Life comes in. There is an unseen world out there that can only be seen with spiritual eyes. It requires faith in spiritual evidence. It does not require perfect prophets or perfect scripture. It requires faith, or at least a desire to believe (Alma 32). When we see the seed begin to grow, we must not cast it out by our unbelief (Tree of Knowledge) of spiritual things, but nurture it with spiritual nurturing.

Why do people lose their testimonies? Because they forget to spiritually nurture the testimony they've received, and instead seek for answers from the Tree of Knowledge. Neither Dehlin, MI, FAIR or any other can convince a person to believe with earthly evidence. Some of us at least try and show that there is evidence for those sincerely interested in bolstering their testimonies. But a person who refuses to spiritually seek the real answers will not find satisfactory answers for staying LDS (or a believer in God, for that matter) at Mormon Stories, MI or FAIR.

Now, if Mormon Stories was more about spiritual experiences people had, encouraging others to re-seek their spiritual roots of testimony THEN it could rekindle the fires of testimony within a person. But having stories that explain why people leave are almost always based upon TK answers that completely ignore TL. How often does Dehlin (or any other group for that matter) ask these people to share how they first found their original testimony in the first place?

I can tell you, my testimony did not come from studying Hugh Nibley, Dan Peterson, the Dead Sea Scrolls, LDS history, etc. It came through pure revelation, spirit to spirit. I have had to maintain that experience in my life, because some historical issues have shocked me in the past. These did not, however, cause me to question my testimony, because I know it comes from a different source than history.

Yet, with this explanation, how many people do you think have scoffed at it? Only those who are not interested in or doubt spiritual things.

[David T]

So go post this on the other board.

If we're talking about MormonDiscussions, I stay way from that board, because I'm not a fan of the tone there in general. It's rarely informative or helpful in any way. It's far more 'Gotcha!' and back and forth high-fiving and mocking (both sides) than actual discussion, in my experience.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My sojourn takes me to Mr. Peterson's writings, and he was not the only one, but the tone and vitriol of what was being written by these supposed men of God, totally turned me from a believer desperately holding on to my now fragile testimony, to a person shattered.

Thank-you for the opportunity to respond!

Rufus

Ok Rufus, here is the issue. In this section you asserted that what Dan had written was essentially bad. Please provider this "bad" apologetic work. Please present the "tone and vitriol", that you found. Until you do, all we have is your say so. I have read several articles from Dan and I must say that I just don't find that stuff in there.

[volgadon]

He's got his faults, but he's a good guy.

He is.

[Rufus1]

Let me offer a couple pieces of advice then.

First, joining a forum under an alias and jumping right in as the cheerleader for a controversial person in a particularly controversial post doesn't help. Forums like this are communities. And, despite every claim that you make (anonymously), you don't simply become a member of that community just by virtue of registering and posting. (Being a member of the church, having held callings, even having some kind of testimony do not make you a member of this community). If you want to be a part of this community, then become a part of it. But, essentially, all you did was make a drive by shooting here. You shouldn't be at all puzzled by the response you got.

Second, you can relate all you want about yourself, but, as long as you participate anonymously, all anyone has is your word. In this specific case, that's going to be a real problem for you. Many of the participants here know these individuals. I have met Dan Peterson several times. We have spoken. He is a wonderful person. You, I don't know.

Do you think that we should all simply accept what you have to say at face value?

Ben M.

I don't know any of you and I have no desire to give my personal info out. Although most of you have been on this board for a long time, it is my first time. There was a link over at Mormon discussions about someone named Hamblin having the alleged "hit piece" in question and the link brought me here. I saw john being attacked in a more pious way on this board, and so I added my comment that I wanted to add yesterday to that board.

I have heard that Dan Peterson is a rather nice guy in person. But he has a viciousness behind a computer and keyboard. His approach seems to be to go for the jugular and let the pieces fall where they may afterward. I read a few things about Dr. Scratch and Kishkumen on the other board and I don't agree with their philosophy either. There is a lot of anger and resentment on both sides.

I am reluctant to write about why I have had a crisis of faith because the moderator seemed pretty ernest about writing my personal story on here. Take that for what it is worth. I have nothing to hide however, as long as it is not related back to my friends and family, which would cause a tremendous amount of questions that I don't feel like I am in a position to answer right now. I have not figured it all out, but I do feel that love and charity is the answer rather than intentionally inflicting pain through words.

Peace

[rameumptom]

BTW, on Dan's personal blog Sic Et Non, while he does speak about his detractors, he does not name them. This is clearly different than JD's posting emails from others in a way that casts them in bad light. I would like to hear from Greg Smith if he has even written anything at all. I'd like to hear where JD's friend got his information, and how he came to the conclusion that it was an attack piece.

Obfuscating on the relevant information only creates contention and confusion. Clearly, if JD wants to shed some light on the issue, I would hope he would actually shed all the light possible on the issue. For him to post only things that make him look good, and the others as bad, is not honest. That others' posts that show JD's story as being somewhat different than what he claimed, leaves him to answer.

It is, after all, his accusation that started this.