DiscussMormonism.com

The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

CFR

I'm not aware that The Savior authored any of the Bible.

The Bible reports that he he did.

bcspace wrote:The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

CFR

I'm not aware that The Savior authored any of the Bible

The Bible reports that he he did.

CFR.

dude. Are you for real? have you even the most basic understanding at all of New Testament authorship? The only thing Jesus wrote were the words on the ground at the event if the woman taken adultery.

wayfarer wrote:The only thing Jesus wrote were the words on the ground at the event if the woman taken adultery.

He wrote the list of that woman's customers - in fact the woman was a prostitute, which is the most archaic profession.

It s not a wonder, the men around scattered the stones and oozed away...

I like it, Ludwig! (Maybe "go and sin no more" was really an indication that the poor woman should do a better job vetting her customers. Don't sleep with every man who offers you money and/or tales of a flaming sword. Pick the nice guys, and let the hypocrites get their rocks off somewhere else.)

ludwigm wrote:

wayfarer wrote:The only thing Jesus wrote were the words on the ground at the event if the woman taken adultery.

He wrote the list of that woman's customers - in fact the woman was a prostitute, which is the most archaic profession.

It s not a wonder, the men around scattered the stones and oozed away...

Never heard this before.

Where did you get this idea?

It is certainly believable and makes the stroy much more interesting.

well, the thread is locked. Too much speculating according to the mod -- a true understatement.

Had some interesting flourishes and skirmishes at the end. Here is my self-righteous, impudent, "bearing of false witness" challenge to DCP, which another poster called a "draft hit piece" (I'm so proud of that distinction -- I, too, can pretend to be a mo-po).

BUFBFEO wrote:

MichelleD wrote:I don't understand why members on here are not more upset and shocked at the contents of the quotes in the paper on John Dehlin. Isn't the author a Bishop? Would he treat a member of his ward in this manner whether he was inactive or was trying to repent and come back? This man represents Christ's church and what he's written is anything but Christlike. Who cares about fighting over what to technically call it (a hit piece or not a hit piece)? I cannot believe there are members here who are defending the writing of such a shameful article.

"Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!" --Jesus Christ

Sometimes it is necessary to call a spade a spade, even within the church, even by loving and Christlike observers. If Greg Smith sincerely believed that Dehlin was harming others (and I know that he did/does so believe) then I think we can better analyze his motives and the paper's worth. Reading the entire paper will make this more clear.

Let's investigate the use of Jesus Christ's words you quote above. Relative to the Church structure of the time, who were the Scribes and Pharisees? The scribes were the originally the copyists of the Torah, the Law, but they declared themselves, much to Jesus's disdain, to be the "Interpreters" of the scripture. The Pharisees were the rabbinical jews who "built a fence around the law" using oral tradition (Talmud), coupled with extensive scripture study. The Scribes and Pharisees saw themselves as the defenders of the faith, and sought to villify and condemn those who struggled with their faith, who did not embody the purity they demanded, or were involved in occupations they considered unworthy of being a full-standing jew.

They prided themselves on being the elite of scriptural knowledge and the primary interpreters of the Torah. So, when you look to see if any group sets themselves up as being the "Interpreter of Mormon Scripture", you get a very direct sense of who the "Scribes" of today are. When you look to see if there are any who are building a fence around the law, and villifying those who believe otherwise, you get a sense of who the "Pharisees" of today are.

So, when we look at the enemy here: the John Dehlins of the world, the so-called "wolf in sheeps clothing", who does he parallel in Jesus' account? Is there one that doubted? Is there one who didn't see a reason to believe in a literal resurrection? Thomas. Thomas the doubter. Yet how did Jesus treat Thomas? with love, understanding, and with the idea that some just aren't going to believe without the logical part. Did he condemn? NO. He said there is a more excellent Way: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.

And what does the leader of this merry band of "Interpreters of Mormon Scripture" have to say when someone simply points out the obvious?

Daniel Peterson wrote:Good grief.

Dan, it's time to stand up and lead. If the quotes in Greg Smith's article as posted by your "Malevolent Stalker" are accurate, it's not a piece worthy of publication by the Church, by BYU, by MI, or even (cough) by MormonInterpreter.com. It's a "hit piece", even if you still deny the obvious. It's time to stop the vilification of those who are simply struggling with their faith. It's time to stop this sad, pathetic drama. As leader of the group, you could make a huge difference by repudiating these articles and adopting Elder Maxwell's mission with integrity and honor, rather than as a platform to smear those you consider unworthy. And before you scream "stop bearing false witness", I hold you responsible as leader of this group for the harmful words and actions of its members.

You could make a difference. do the right thing on this. Now.

Thanks Wayfarer.

The church may survive if they will stop pushing the "wayfarers" out.

deleted.

DrW wrote:

ludwigm wrote: the woman was a prostitute

Never heard this before.

Where did you get this idea?

It is certainly believable and makes the stroy much more interesting.

I used to read it somewhere, decades ago. Don't remember the title or the writer.

Maybe it was in a novel, not necessarily true.
I liked the slant, that is why I took note of it.

Since then I've learned that in Jesus' time the adultery was no more that cardinal sin as few hundred years before.

wayfarer wrote:So, when we look at the enemy here: the John Dehlins of the world, the so-called "wolf in sheeps clothing", who does he parallel in Jesus' account? Is there one that doubted? Is there one who didn't see a reason to believe in a literal resurrection? Thomas. Thomas the doubter. Yet how did Jesus treat Thomas? with love, understanding, and with the idea that some just aren't going to believe without the logical part. Did he condemn? NO. He said there is a more excellent Way: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.

And what does the leader of this merry band of "Interpreters of Mormon Scripture" have to say when someone simply points out the obvious?

Daniel Peterson wrote:Good grief.

Dan, it's time to stand up and lead. If the quotes in Greg Smith's article as posted by your "Malevolent Stalker" are accurate, it's not a piece worthy of publication by the Church, by BYU, by MI, or even (cough) by MormonInterpreter.com. It's a "hit piece", even if you still deny the obvious. It's time to stop the vilification of those who are simply struggling with their faith. It's time to stop this sad, pathetic drama. As leader of the group, you could make a huge difference by repudiating these articles and adopting Elder Maxwell's mission with integrity and honor, rather than as a platform to smear those you consider unworthy. And before you scream "stop bearing false witness", I hold you responsible as leader of this group for the harmful words and actions of its members.

You could make a difference. do the right thing on this. Now.

wayfarer, you are a treasure. Thank you.