alter idem Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Thanks for answering Calmoriah. I have a hunch that the person at MI who tipped off Dehlin's friend is also the 'leak' of Bradford's email and very well may be scratch's informant on behind the scene goings on at MI.
gtaggart Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) In my humble opinion this is the reason that the higher ups, whomever that might be, is squelching the Petersons and the Hamblins. They don't want members losing their testimonies after reading apologetics for it. Like myself, I learned so much more history by reading apologetics and very disturbing things to boot. I feel one day Fairlds will be a thing of the past because it deals with all the issues upfront. With a click of the mouse. Things no one would be privvy too had they not went to Fair.Oh balderdash. I have bookshelves of books that chronicle the problems you claim you can find discussed only on FAIR, books I owned years before I first cruised the Internet in 1995, many of which were published by the church/Deseret Book. Edited June 23, 2012 by gtaggart 1
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Dehlin has a sympathetic GA and that is probably Oaks (to whom he reported some nefarious goings on in his mission years ago) or Jensen. The Church is trying to take a low low profile on these issues, at least until the Romney campaign/presidency is over so, as I've said before, the order of the day is wheat with the tares. The best way to combat Dehlin is to not attack him personally but match him point by point with some of the good work FAIR et. al. has done and will continue to do, as well as with LDS doctrine which is often the best apologetic, while those of use who can quietly move cards in a direction that will marginalize and eventually oust him from the Church. Being an apostate, as most in leadership (and anyone else with half a brain) know he is, he may hang himself.I am relatively certain that Elder Oaks is not complicit with John Dehlin in any of this matter.Elder Jensen, however, I am not so sure about. Even so, as it was told to me, Elder "X" did not order Smith's paper censored, but only expressed concern to Dr. Bradford about what was reported to him: that an "ad hominem attack piece" on John Dehlin was about to be published in the Review. That, of course, was not true. I know. I have read it.
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I am relatively certain that Elder Oaks is not complicit with John Dehlin in any of this matter.Elder Jensen, however, I am not so sure about. Even so, as it was told to me, Elder "X" did not order Smith's paper censored, but only expressed concern to Dr. Bradford about what was reported to him: that an "ad hominem attack piece" on John Dehlin was about to be published in the Review. That, of course, was not true. I know. I have read it.You've been applying a fairly strict definition of ad hominem in these conversations. That's fine. But I'm trying to put the pieces together here. Were your recent thoughts about wolves in sheep's clothing inspired by Dehlin and the censored piece? Did the piece in question warn of wolves?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Thanks for answering Calmoriah. I have a hunch that the person at MI who tipped off Dehlin's friend is also the 'leak' of Bradford's email and very well may be scratch's informant on behind the scene goings on at MI.You hit the nail on the head. I alluded to this fact also. I do believe that Bradford should find the mole and show the mole the door. As long as such a mole is at MI, no one is safe from having their emails posted or dissected by a third party. And no meeting is safe from having its information ending up in the wrong hands.
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Elder Jensen, however, I am not so sure about. He is more or less retired. I doubt that he would get involved since he was heading out the door. Time for rest and relaxation.
David T Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) He is more or less retired. I doubt that he would get involved since he was heading out the door. Time for rest and relaxation.Elder Jensen has been shown to care passionately for those he serves, and to go significantly above and beyond the call of duty in all of his responsibilities. Whether or not he had a significant role in this, your comment doesn't represent what I've seen of Elder Jensen in any way. Edited June 23, 2012 by David T
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You hit the nail on the head. I alluded to this fact also. I do believe that Bradford should find the mole and show the mole the door. As long as such a mole is at MI, no one is safe from having their emails posted or dissected by a third party. And no meeting is safe from having its information ending up in the wrong hands.The idea that the Maxwell Institute should be a secretive base that carries out missions against "the enemy" has never sat very well with me. I always thought it was intended as a research arm, which usually doesn't have to worry about things like "moles." Maybe a better solution is to not have the organization discuss and dissect secretive, polemical information about individuals, and then there would be no need to worry about "moles." 2
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Oh balderdash. I have bookshelves of books that chronicle the problems you claim you can find discussed only on FAIR, books I owned years before I first cruised the Internet in 1995, many of which were published by the church/Deseret Book.You make a good point. What seems to be unknown to many new members is just how well informed church members were back in the day. Most everyone had BY's discourses. Many heard about the head in the hat or multiple accounts of the first visiion etc. The difference was: no internet where the critics can give their hypothetical illustrations, interpretations etc. Members who read the discourses read the things that brigham said and still respected him.Here is an example:http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=engThe article states there were nine accounts of the first vision and yet, we still get from the critics that the church hides this. What to do?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Elder Jensen has been shown to care passionately for those he serves, and to go significantly above and beyond the call of duty in all of his responsibilities. Whether or not he had a significant role in this, your comment doesn't represent what I've seen of Elder Jensen in any way.Maybe so. But he is retiring. I don't think that he would want to get involved in this since he never saw the article in question. What can he do when he was just months from retiring? And never seeing the article? Why get involved in speculation about something that would be published when he was retired?
Jersey Girl Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Thanks for answering Calmoriah. I have a hunch that the person at MI who tipped off Dehlin's friend is also the 'leak' of Bradford's email and very well may be scratch's informant on behind the scene goings on at MI.How can the leak of Bradford's email actually be the leak if only Bradford had the content of the email? Are you saying that you think the leak might have gained possession of the Bradford email because it was forwarded along with Dr. Peterson's reply?
Peppermint Patty Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You didn't address my point about being fired in a sleazy manner, basically as a slap across your face. That makes it very different. I would feel an obligation to warn others of the dangers of working for that particular employer, and how they're going to be treated.However, in this case, it's even a bit more different. We're not talking just about employment; we're talking about the struggle between the Church and those who would destroy the Church.The fact that our enemies applaud both the firing and the change of direction should, again, be disturbing to anyone committed to the mission of the Church.I applaud Bill, Dan, and others for speaking out on this. It takes a particular amount of courage for Dan to do so.Trying to get along with wolves only gets you eaten in the end.Jwhitlock,Thanks for your reply. I will certainly teach my children that it is necessary and expected as a Latter Day Saint to act respectful, honorably and Christlike if they are ever "fired in a sleazy way".I guess that I will remain in the minority in feeling that people should take the high road in this situation.I know that this can't be easy for Mr. Hamblin and Peterson, but I promise that things will turn out just fine for them. In the meantime, I just wish they wouldn't engage in behavior that they might regret later in life.I will bow out from commenting further on this topic as emotions are running high. Also, I promised my kids I would take them to "Brave".
David T Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Maybe so. But he is retiring. I don't think that he would want to get involved in this since he never saw the article in question. What can he do when he was just months from retiring? And never seeing the article? Why get involved in speculation about something that would be published when he was retired?Because his interest in the wellbeing of the Church and its members extends beyond and completely separate from his term of service as a General Authority, and if anything, the end would be a ramped up time to get more done, to do all he can while he still has the authority and ability to do something about it. He's becoming an emeritus General Authority - not an emeritus member of the Church.This has nothing to do with whether he did or did not get involved. I just found the idea that his end of service as a General Authority means he suddenly stops caring about the big picture shows a basic misunderstanding of the character of Elder Jensen. Edited June 23, 2012 by David T 1
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 The idea that the Maxwell Institute should be a secretive base that carries out missions against "the enemy" has never sat very well with me. I always thought it was intended as a research arm, which usually doesn't have to worry about things like "moles." Maybe a better solution is to not have the organization discuss and dissect secretive, polemical information about individuals, and then there would be no need to worry about "moles."The mole was against Dan. The mole lived to feed his or her information about Dan to the contact. And this is how threads on the other board about Dan were born.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I'm told that Elder Jensen was indeed involved, that he did indeed read at least part of the paper, that he strongly disapproved of it, that he shared it with others, that he received similar disapproval from them, that he expressed this concern with President Samuelson, and that that was what led to it being pulled. I am confident that this is what actually occurred, and therefore confident that there must have been something of concern in the paper that was being published.Obviously others here believe something different occurred, and perhaps have good reasons for believing that. Dr. Peterson, I believe, and perhaps others, has suggested that the article was not read. I do not think that that is true. And Bradford may not have handled the dismissals as best he might have, but this narrative that he is a dictatorial villain and that the apostates have "won" and now have the ears of the apostles is simply silly. 3
Jersey Girl Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 The mole was against Dan. The mole lived to feed his or her information about Dan to the contact. And this is how threads on the other board about Dan were born.That doesn't explain how the mole gained possession of the Bradford email. (I have no idea why I'm interested in this.)
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Because his interest in the wellbeing of the Church and its members extends beyond and completely separate from his term of service as a General Authority, and if anything, the end would be a ramped up time to get more done, to do all he can while he still has the authority and ability to do something about it. He's becoming an emeritus General Authority - not an emeritus member of the Church.Okay let me try it this way: John goes to elder jensen for help. John states that FARMs has done an attack piece on him. Elder Jensen asks John if he read the piece. John says no. Elder Jensen asks why John believes that it is an attack piece. John replies he heard rumors. Elder Jensen acts on rumors and squashes the piece. He then retires.Piece is published in a different journal and it is not an attack piece. What does elder jensen do? Not a great way to retire. He squashed a piece that he was misled on. Terrible for him.
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 That doesn't explain how the mole gained possession of the Bradford email.(I have no idea why I'm interested in this.)Because you used to post on the other board. I think that something may have been forward to a group of people on MI.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 The mole was against Dan. The mole lived to feed his or her information about Dan to the contact. And this is how threads on the other board about Dan were born.Is it your opinion then that there is within the Maxwell Institute a "mole," who must apparently be a researcher with inner access, who has a secret vendetta against Dr. Peterson? If so, what do you think that person's motivations are/were?
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Okay let me try it this way: John goes to elder jensen for help. John states that FARMs has done an attack piece on him. Elder Jensen asks John if he read the piece. John says no. Elder Jensen asks why John believes that it is an attack piece. John replies he heard rumors. Elder Jensen acts on rumors and squashes the piece. He then retires.Piece is published in a different journal and it is not an attack piece. What does elder jensen do? Not a great way to retire. He squashed a piece that he was misled on. Terrible for him.Why do you believe that Elder Jensen and others have not read the article?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I'm told that Elder Jensen was indeed involved, that he did indeed read at least part of the paper,How does one read a part of a paper and squashes a piece based on a partial reading of a paper? And who gave him a partial paper?`Greg? Dan? Will? John?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Is it your opinion then that there is within the Maxwell Institute a "mole," who must apparently be a researcher with inner access, who has a secret vendetta against Dr. Peterson? If so, what do you think that person's motivations are/were?You know and I know that the other board has several 'from my contact' threads about Dan. Can you piece it together? I have no idea the motive of a mole.
Jersey Girl Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Because you used to post on the other board. I think that something may have been forward to a group of people on MI.No, that's most definitely not why I'm interested. I couldn't care less about the behavior of he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-here-board. I think it's the dynamics that interest me most. That said, I think folks are missing a step here. But I might not know what I'm talking about.Like that's ever happened, right?
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 How does one read a part of a paper and squashes a piece based on a partial reading of a paper? And who gave him a partial paper?`Greg? Dan? Will? John?I would not hesitate to pull an article from a partial reading if the partial reading was objectionable enough. I do not know how the article was initially spread, but I do know that several people did indeed read it.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You know and I know that the other board has several 'from my contact' threads about Dan. Can you piece it together? I have no idea the motive of a mole.I also know that Dr. Peterson has repeatedly asserted over the years that the alleged insider-information was made-up fantasy.
Recommended Posts