cwald wrote:I give it a 9. I had to dock it a point for not breaking it up into paragraphs. Kind of hard to read.
Worth the effort -- but you're right -- the paragraph structure drove me crazy.
I would take issue with the portrayal of literalists as "fanatics." The term is too loaded. Otherwise, it is very insightful indeed. I have in the past looked at Mopologetics as an auto-immune disorder in the body of the Church, so I, of course, like his application of this metaphor.
Great stuff.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I was going to offer the same quote as pale, but with a little more context:
I asked Dehlin if there might be something that happened on his mission that led he to look for vengeance. Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala? No, but his companion died in that accident. I could not follow his explanation, except that he was fighting to put a stop to underage baptisms, and so forth. He then fingered some Assistant to the President as the one responsible for problems among the missionaries. But why then go after his Mission President? Those who know him [the Mission President] do not believe he was the source for the problem. And the Brethren who looked into the matter did not see him as the problem. I then added that I have no interest in investigating what when on in his mission, but that he should ask himself what went on in his heart and mind that eventually led him into a naïve atheism.
Wiki - That's Midgley quite clearly rhetorically implying Dehlin was involved in the death of a missionary. And this is his version of events defending himself from harsher descriptions of what he did.
These threads, and your guys' tireless efforts to exploit things like this to attack folks like Dan Peterson et al. speaks volumes about the vaccuity of your stated offenses.
If it is a hit piece and rather unsubstantive and wrong, and it get's published, then it's nothing but an embarrassment to the whole cause of defense.
Dehlin has acted rather immature about it all. he came he pronouncing Peterson as a very pathetic person, as I recall, and a pathological deceiver. Throwing a little fit over the whole affair. People patted him on his back for the showiness of it. Then he left, a bit embarrassed by how he did the very thing he apparently objected to regarding this supposed hit piece.
You guys are so happy it seems, so giddy, none of you know anything about the piece. It helps you guys in your efforts to demonize folks like Peterson. Hit piece or no, you all act as if you assaults on others are with great merit and are of great value to mankind.
Indeed, you objections are nothing but hypocritical. I have no idea why Wiki felt inclined to clarify anything for you all. It really doesn't matter. Your agenda continues on anyway.
have fun, whinos.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Just to remind the board, I have 'stemelbow' on 'ignore' so I haven't read what he has just posted. I'd like to keep it that way...
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
EAllusion wrote:I was going to offer the same quote as pale, but with a little more context:
I asked Dehlin if there might be something that happened on his mission that led he to look for vengeance. Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala? No, but his companion died in that accident. I could not follow his explanation, except that he was fighting to put a stop to underage baptisms, and so forth. He then fingered some Assistant to the President as the one responsible for problems among the missionaries. But why then go after his Mission President? Those who know him [the Mission President] do not believe he was the source for the problem. And the Brethren who looked into the matter did not see him as the problem. I then added that I have no interest in investigating what when on in his mission, but that he should ask himself what went on in his heart and mind that eventually led him into a naïve atheism.
Wiki - That's Midgley quite clearly rhetorically implying Dehlin was involved in the death of a missionary. And this is his version of events defending himself from harsher descriptions of what he did.
Yes, the combination of the word "involved" and "investigating" shows his intention to insinuate wrongdoing on John Dehlin's part.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
if I was bent on such hostile activity as what you guys do, I too would like to shut my ears to any efforts to get me to change my ways. I think it better if you guys just stop with all the hostility. Better for you, and better for all. If you don't want better, then by all means, continue your campaigns.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Wiki Wonka wrote:1) The original title was "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories that John Dehlin Tells to Me". I don't care for the title, simply because I don't like titles that include a person's name in them. I don't know if it was going to be changed for publication or not.
I don't care for the title because it's violates the meter of the Primary song's opening phrase. It's hard on the ears. Plus it's difficult to formulate hand motions for the title.
Wiki Wonka wrote:7) Once the article was rejected by the MSR, ownership reverted fully to Greg Smith. The only reason that it hasn't appeared since then is because Greg chose not [to] release it.
I suppose that IJMS is not a viable option for publication because Smith's article doesn't seem to relate to Mormon scripture.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac