Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Are you claiming that if this had been ordered by the general Church leadership, that this would have been an unkind action by our church leadership?Interesting attitude for one employed by desnews. I'm just saying...Dan Peterson remains a professor at BYU with an office. He is not an employee of the Deseret News, but writes columns for which I doubt he receives much.His dismissal from FARMS Review was a decision made by the boss at NAMIRS. Your attempt to draw the LDS Church leadership into the matter is irresponsible. Your contempt is barely concealed.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Wait....insulting BYU organizations is like being an apostate? Well, I guess I am going to hell in any case. I am off to spend my tithing money on booze and hookers. See ya losers!!!!So I guess Hugh Nibley is burning in Hell right now then, because he was one of the harshest critics of BYU. During a debate he had long ago with Sterling McMurrin of the UofU, Sterling even had to defend BYU against Hugh's attacks. On the other hand, Hugh was told by the Brethren to keep doing it. 2
Bob Crockett Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Perhaps those who continue to feed the rumor mill that his removal from the editorship was ordered by the Church hierarchy when such a supposition is without foundation and, it now appears, has been denied by someone in a position to know.Did somebody in particular say that Dr. Peterson's removal was ordered by Church hierarchy? How would they possibly know? I mean, BYU issued a press release confirming the removal, but I never saw anything more than that.And who denied it? Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 So I guess Hugh Nibley is burning in Hell right now then, because he was one of the harshest critics of BYU. During a debate he had long ago with Sterling McMurrin of the UofU, Sterling even had to defend BYU against Hugh's attacks. On the other hand, Hugh was told by the Brethren to keep doing it.Which brings to mind John Connelly's statement.
blackstrap Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I think somebody needs to send a fruit basket with a " have a nice day " note. As for a new office,Dan should try for Hugh Nibley's old office. It was used to being crammed and cramped.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Would that it were only his malevolent stalker who is feeding the ill-founded gossip.Frankly, I've been surprised at the behavior of some individuals the wake of this whole sorry episode.I just realized that I promoted his stalker from malevolent to benevolent...after all he Is (the stalke) a P.h.D and he post on such a respectable board.
divinenature Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Perhaps. But lets look at it this way: he was mistreated. And that has been the problem. One can always look at the bright side or even see the benefits one or two years down the road. But that doesn't change the feelings of hurt from people that one has known. And I think that this is the problem.This is sad. But, such is life. Right, why me?
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Which brings to mind John Connelly's statement.You've got me there, Bob.What did John Connelly say?
why me Posted September 19, 2012 Author Posted September 19, 2012 This is sad. But, such is life. Right, why me?That is true. It is life. But here is the thing. Church members need to be careful about how they treat other members. Bad treatment can cause pain and hurt feelings because of insensitive actions by other members. Certainly people have left the church over less serious issues. By firing someone by email and then someone giving dan the boot from his office can leave a bad taste about the church for someone less faithful or believing than dan.The people involved in this episode need to step back and see their actions from the viewpoint of Christ. This brings to mind the five finger gospel of Mother Theresa: Psalm 11 Ephesians 5:15-21 St. Matthew 22:1-14 A Five Finger SermonIn chapter 4 of her book, “Finding Calcutta”, Mary Poplin relates how Mother Teresa occasionally “taught the volunteers and visitors a Scripture by using her five fingers. She pointed to each one and said emphatically (and please say this after me), “You – did – it – to – Me.” Of course she was referencing the passage from Matthew’s Gospel in which Jesus tells His disciples, “I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” And when the puzzled disciples asked Him, “Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?” Jesus answered Assuredly, I say to You, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, (say it with me now) you – did – it – to – Me.” (Mary Poplin, Finding Calcutta, IVP Books, Downer’s Grove, IL, 2008, 36.)If I harm someone, if I offend someone, if I cause someone pain, if I treat someone disrespectfully, Christ can say, why me you did that to me. Likewise for kindness, love, respect, care, etc. Christ can say, Why me you did that to me. Someone forgot the five finger gospel of mother theresa. 2
urroner Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 You've got me there, Bob.What did John Connelly say?Maybe I'm having a major brain fart here, but who is John Connelly?
ERayR Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Maybe I'm having a major brain fart here, but who is John Connelly?Take your pick:The Irish authorThe art gallery guyThe UC Berkley professorThe musicianThe English football player
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I just realized that I promoted his stalker from malevolent to benevolent...after all he Is (the stalke) a P.h.D and he post on such a respectable board.I thought maybe you were being sarcastic when you said benevolent.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Maybe I'm having a major brain fart here, but who is John Connelly?If it's who I'm thinking of, he was the governor of Texas and was with JFK in the limousine in Dallas when the assassination occurred. Later served as secretary of the treasury in Nixon's cabinet.I haven't a clue what Crockett is getting at, though. Edited September 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Walden Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Just a quick question here, but why are the political machinations of BYU and the various church apologetic institutions considered to be a worthwhile topic of discussion on the general discussion boards. Shouldn't they be in the Social Hall? If I had a squabble with an LDS employer, would mods here allow it to be discussed in this forum, or is this special consideration considering that Dan is considered a hero on these boards?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Did somebody in particular say that Dr. Peterson's removal was ordered by Church hierarchy? How would they possibly know? I mean, BYU issued a press release confirming the removal, but I never saw anything more than that.I have in mind those who are absolutely sure -- and continue to say so publicly -- that the thing wouldn't have happened without the institutional imprimatur of the Church and the Brethren.And who denied it?Evidently Dan knows. I'm confident he wouldn't lie about it.
Ares Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Just a quick question here, but why are the political machinations of BYU and the various church apologetic institutions considered to be a worthwhile topic of discussion on the general discussion boards. Shouldn't they be in the Social Hall? If I had a squabble with an LDS employer, would mods here allow it to be discussed in this forum, or is this special consideration considering that Dan is considered a hero on these boards?Thanks for the moderation help but we're good.
why me Posted September 19, 2012 Author Posted September 19, 2012 Just a quick question here, but why are the political machinations of BYU and the various church apologetic institutions considered to be a worthwhile topic of discussion on the general discussion boards. Shouldn't they be in the Social Hall? If I had a squabble with an LDS employer, would mods here allow it to be discussed in this forum, or is this special consideration considering that Dan is considered a hero on these boards?Because it is a general discussion thread. What do you think general discussion means? This is not just a gospel discussion board. It is a general discussion board. The social hall is more friendly and mainly for people who want a softer discussion about a topic.
Walden Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Because it is a general discussion thread. What do you think general discussion means? This is not just a gospel discussion board. It is a general discussion board. The social hall is more friendly and mainly for people who want a softer discussion about a topic.Right on, I'll remember that when I come here and start a thread dealing with workplace grievances concerning my LDS coworkers.We'll see how long that thread remains open. 1
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Right on, I'll remember that when I come here and start a thread dealing with workplace grievances concerning my LDS coworkers.We'll see how long that thread remains open.Are you as vocal about fairness when it comes to the way Dr. P is treated on other websites or is your crusade for correctness a one way street? It has been my experience that the moderators here allow a bit more leeway for Dr. P since he is a public figure in the Mormon discussion world and this sometimes provides a forum to answer critics and slanders.There are a lot of topics alive and well here about "what the Mormon church did to me" or "what a Mormon said to me" that have not been shut down. Your selective outrage is noted. Edited September 19, 2012 by KevinG
why me Posted September 19, 2012 Author Posted September 19, 2012 Right on, I'll remember that when I come here and start a thread dealing with workplace grievances concerning my LDS coworkers.We'll see how long that thread remains open.If you phrase it correctly, it would be allowed. Let me explain it this way: we in the church should hold one another accountable for the actions of others. For example, if I am working for a church institution and I feel that I am mistreated and relate it to the gospel, it would pass for general discussion on this board. The gospel should be an action oriented gospel and how we are treated by other mormons is a good topic, if this treatment is not up to standards.Dan is not looking for fellowship. If that were the case, he can start a thread in the social hall.
Walden Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Not outraged (so no need to take notes Kevin), just wondering about the favoritism for board heroes.Likewise, I do not cruise other LDS nor "anti" sites, so I do not follow how Dan is treated elsewhere. Actually, I try to avoid the anti sites as much as possible, as most of it is a pity party where facts and evidence are often trumped by emotional outbursts and outrage. I just assumed this board was run differently, that's all, and in fact, it is one of the reasons that I keep coming back, because it is run differently than those other chaotic boards.I generally commend the mods here for the extensive work that they put in to ensure that topics stay on point, personal and/or frivolous topics are moved or shut down, etc., but this topic just appears that it is not suited for LDS theological discussion, that's all.
ERayR Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Not outraged (so no need to take notes Kevin), just wondering about the favoritism for board heroes.Likewise, I do not cruise other LDS nor "anti" sites, so I do not follow how Dan is treated elsewhere. Actually, I try to avoid the anti sites as much as possible, as most of it is a pity party where facts and evidence are often trumped by emotional outbursts and outrage. I just assumed this board was run differently, that's all, and in fact, it is one of the reasons that I keep coming back, because it is run differently than those other chaotic boards.I generally commend the mods here for the extensive work that they put in to ensure that topics stay on point, personal and/or frivolous topics are moved or shut down, etc., but this topic just appears that it is not suited for LDS theological discussion, that's all.There are too few real heroes. We need to take care of the ones we have.
why me Posted September 19, 2012 Author Posted September 19, 2012 , but this topic just appears that it is not suited for LDS theological discussion, that's all.I can tell you this: if I feel mistreated by a church institution I would post it here on the general discussion board and relate it to a theological discussion. After all, if I attend my meetings and hear about love, love, love....and I am treated unlovingly, why wouldn't I bring it up here? It is worthy of a general discussion. By the way, dan did not start this thread. I did. I thought that what happened to him was worthy of a discussion...and if you noticed, I do bring up gospel principles. For example, the five finger gospel of mother theresa that I linked to in one of my previous posts.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I thought maybe you were being sarcastic when you said benevolent.No just spell check run amuck. With an IPad just touching a button it can happen quickly.
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Not outraged (so no need to take notes Kevin), just wondering about the favoritism for board heroes.Likewise, I do not cruise other LDS nor "anti" sites, so I do not follow how Dan is treated elsewhere. Actually, I try to avoid the anti sites as much as possible, as most of it is a pity party where facts and evidence are often trumped by emotional outbursts and outrage. I just assumed this board was run differently, that's all, and in fact, it is one of the reasons that I keep coming back, because it is run differently than those other chaotic boards.I generally commend the mods here for the extensive work that they put in to ensure that topics stay on point, personal and/or frivolous topics are moved or shut down, etc., but this topic just appears that it is not suited for LDS theological discussion, that's all.I can't find where the board rules say our discussions are limited to theological discussions, but I did find something on board nannying. I'll modify my "outrage" comment but the "selective" part has been confirmed.
Recommended Posts