Bill Hamblin Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Neither I nor anyone I know of has received any direct communication from any general authority about anything related to the MI situation. We do know that one general authority (it is not known who), sent a letter to President Samuelson regarding the forthcoming publication of Greg Smith's article about John Dehlin. The contents of this letter are unknown. Samuelson sent a letter to Bradford requesting the article not be published, who passed the word on to Dan, who passed it to Greg. Dan and Greg agreed not to publish the article, per this request. We don't know if the general authority asked that the article not be published. For all we know, he may have simply said: "please look into this," and the decision to not publish the article was taken further down the line. It may also be that the request said to not publish the article at this time; who knows what will happen after November 6th, to choose a random date. (But this is all sheer speculation.) At any rate, nobody I know is "in trouble with the brethren" about this. This claim is sheer delusional fantasy on the part of the apostates and anti-Mormons.
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Pahoran knowingly answered;The opposite was true. The brethren were excited with FARMS enough so that they thought it impressive enough to make it part of BYU.Hmm. The same could be said about John C. Bennett, I suppose. What is wrong with BYU simply having a change of desire and direction. Lesson here: Don't savage the gates of the temple on the way out.
Anijen Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Hmm. The same could be said about John C. Bennett, I suppose. What is wrong with BYU simply having a change of desire and direction. Lesson here: Don't savage the gates of the temple on the way out.First a post of mine is compared to Jim Jones, now due to a reply, John C Bennett. Really?No, there is nothing wrong with BYU having a change of desire or direction and I never implicated such a notion. Lesson learned about savaging the gates of the temple on the way out, although I did no such thing. Edited July 16, 2012 by Jeff Holt
Anijen Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Neither I nor anyone I know of has received any direct communication from any general authority about anything related to the MI situation. We do know that one general authority (it is not known who), sent a letter to President Samuelson regarding the forthcoming publication of Greg Smith's article about John Dehlin. The contents of this letter are unknown. Samuelson sent a letter to Bradford requesting the article not be published, who passed the word on to Dan, who passed it to Greg. Dan and Greg agreed not to publish the article, per this request. We don't know if the general authority asked that the article not be published. For all we know, he may have simply said: "please look into this," and the decision to not publish the article was taken further down the line. It may also be that the request said to not publish the article at this time; who knows what will happen after November 6th, to choose a random date. (But this is all sheer speculation.) At any rate, nobody I know is "in trouble with the brethren" about this. This claim is sheer delusional fantasy on the part of the apostates and anti-Mormons.Do you know if Greg's paper will be published somewhere else or has it been abandoned altogether? A shame that Dehlin's tactics thwarted his research, and done so without the paper even being read. Just speaking out loud.
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Time for all to come down to the river and be baptized in the new direction at BYU.
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Do you know if Greg's paper will be published somewhere else or has it been abandoned altogether? A shame that Dehlin's tactics thwarted his research, and done so without the paper even being read. Just speaking out loud.I predict that a good member like Greg will never permit his paper to be published.
Pahoran Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Time for all to come down to the river and be baptized in the new direction at BYU.Heavens, no.BYU is not the Church, and the Church is not BYU.That the Church has BYU is, in my view, a very good thing. But they are not coextensive with each other.I predict that a good member like Greg will never permit his paper to be published.Why?Given (and it is a given) that there's not a shred of evidence that anyone in authority in the Church has any problem with the content of Greg's essay, why should the fact that a BYU functionary squashed it be taken as some kind of litmus test of Greg's faithfulness?Regards,Pahoran 3
CASteinman Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Neither I nor anyone I know of has received any direct communication from any general authority about anything related to the MI situation. We do know that one general authority (it is not known who), sent a letter to President Samuelson regarding the forthcoming publication of Greg Smith's article about John Dehlin. The contents of this letter are unknown. Samuelson sent a letter to Bradford requesting the article not be published, who passed the word on to Dan, who passed it to Greg. Dan and Greg agreed not to publish the article, per this request. We don't know if the general authority asked that the article not be published. For all we know, he may have simply said: "please look into this," and the decision to not publish the article was taken further down the line. It may also be that the request said to not publish the article at this time; who knows what will happen after November 6th, to choose a random date. (But this is all sheer speculation.) At any rate, nobody I know is "in trouble with the brethren" about this. This claim is sheer delusional fantasy on the part of the apostates and anti-Mormons.Regardless of what the precise contents were, it is troubling that an anti-Christ manipulate things this way.You are out of the thread for labeling a poster with an outrageously inflammatory label.
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I predict that a good member like Greg will never permit his paper to be published.I am not so sure about this. Why wouldn't Greg publish his paper? What is known is that the paper was turned down by the Maxwell Institute for its own very obvious reasons. We do not know that the the request was made by a General Authority. Now if Greg is called downtown to meet with a GA and politely asked not to publish his paper (which has not been seen by the GA) he may not publish it. But papers are turned down all the time in the academic world. No big deal. My guess is that Greg's paper will be published in a new apologist publication as the lead article. It will generate much comment for the new publication and make a lasting contribution.Hopefully, it will be an internet publication for all to read with voluntary donations to keep the site going.
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 What is wrong with BYU simply having a change of desire and direction. Lesson here: Don't savage the gates of the temple on the way out.Nothing wrong at all. As I said many times to you before, it was the way it was done that has been the problem: dismissing by email when the person was out of the country.That way of dismissing someone is harmful and cruel. Do you not think so?
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Excellent question, Why Me.AFAICT, the purpose of this thread is for someone who only occasionally (if at all) heeds the counsel of the apostles and prophets to opportunistically exploit a context-free snippet from President Uchtdorf's talk for polemical purposes -- without making the slightest effort to apply the principles taught therein to himself.Just IMHO, of course.Regards,PahoranI have the same feeling: using a GA's talk to silence apologists or to make the apologists tone cultish and without passion. 3
Avatar4321 Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I am sure our critics would love us to stop attempting to defend the Church through scholarship or any other way, but the fact is we cant and wont stop. D&C 123 is very clear that we are to collect and respond to the lies and false accusations of our critics. In fact, we are commanded to do it so that people are left without excuse for rejecting the Gospel.There will be scholarly defense of the Restored Gospel as there has been in the past. The vehicle might change, but it will be there.I hope however, if there is any contention involved, that it will cease.
Calm Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I predict that a good member like Greg will never permit his paper to be published.I predict that a good member won't depend on vague claims to make decisions about whether or not to publish his paper. When he does make a decision, he will know what actually happened imo and base his decision on that, not speculation and incomplete claims and letters pointed to but whose information is not actually shared. 1
Calm Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Time for all to come down to the river and be baptized in the new direction at BYU.Honestly, while I know you don't mean for this to appear this way, it almost sounds like you are suggesting holding the baptism as a way to covenant with BYU, not the Lord, substituting the institution for the real thing.
wenglund Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Once again you are invited to address the subject at hand and not make it personal. Otherwise please leave the thread.Excellent!! You just handed me the perfect response to your oft tangential finger-pointing posts.However, as extraordinarily valuable to the progress of mankind may be your speculating about the possible impact of Elder Uchtdorf's talk on the future of FARMS-like apologetic organizations, my crystal ball isn't working at the moment, and so I am out, and will have to content myself with trite and mundane issues like perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for those in need.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Once the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Peterson is out.I don't view that declaration as applicable in this way. However, since you do, then it is hypocritical for you to still be here debating--not that hypocrisy may be even the least deterrent for you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
robuchan Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I don't view that declaration as applicable in this way. However, since you do, then it is hypocritical for you to still be here debating--not that hypocrisy may be even the least deterrent for you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-I am guilty of ark steadying in this case, you're right. The image of the church is very important to me, and I know I should trust the brethren on this, but it's a temptation to try to speak for them. I know they are doing what they need to do to protect the image of the church by firing Peterson, and I trust that they will continue to take measures against him if necessary. I should just back out and let them run the church I guess.
Anijen Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I am guilty of ark steadying in this case, you're right. The image of the church is very important to me, and I know I should trust the brethren on this, but it's a temptation to try to speak for them. I know they are doing what they need to do to protect the image of the church by firing Peterson, and I trust that they will continue to take measures against him if necessary. I should just back out and let them run the church I guess.Firing Dr. Peterson had nothing to do with protecting the churches' image. He is still in charge of his Near Eastern Studies, he is still a BYU professor. You are once again setting up a straw man to attack when that is not the case at all.I would advise stop speaking for the church you barely can speak for yourself. 2
Senator Posted July 16, 2012 Author Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Incredible!As this thread has been quickly (and I believe intentionally drawn south), I request that the mods shut it down.What has taken place on this thread is, I think, a case in point as to why apologetics cannot be officially owned by the church.And once again I thank those of you who offered the personal invectives.It appears that my contributions here inevitably draws contention. And unfortunately its with my fellow Saints. As this is not my intention and in fact weights me down a great bit, I will cease and desist, and take my leave. Edited July 16, 2012 by Senator 3
Recommended Posts