Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

If anyone concedes all the above, what is the point?

If Dehlin used his power and authority to scheme a way to get Rosebud out, because of their affair, what can possibly come of this now? Are you just wanting to smear John's name because you don't think he should be doing what he's doing? Do his followers deserve to know, or something?

You've hit the nail on the head here, Stem. We have here the confluence of a number of different groups who are seizing on this opportunity to hurt JD for their own purposes. "Justice" for Rosebud is just one facet of it, and here "justice" essentially means "the payback JD was promised." For KK this is about fighting the "Patriarchy," which is the funhouse mirror version of fighting "Socialism" in our messed up dualistic political wars between ideological extremists. For Kwaku et al. it is slaying the anti-Mormon dragons. Yeah, I think in each case I can glimpse *something* to sympathize with.

JD was stupid and irresponsible to have an extramarital relationship with a deeply troubled person. Bad on him. Seriously.

JD is really kind of smarmy and annoying with his post-Peter Priesthood way of being a champion of freedom and justice. It grates. I would prefer to see a more serious and formidable female voice getting the attention JD gets.

Just being honest. No offense John. You really have some great interviews.

And here's the thing: Kate Kelly is not that person. Someone like Joanna Brooks.

JD's perspective may be pretty popular, but it is intellectually exceptionable and debatable in so many ways. The Kwaku solution, however, which is to take middlebrow Dehlinism down to lowbrow Kwakuism, is truly wretched and vomitous.

There are no perfect worlds, there is no perfect justice, and, if we become too fierce and uncompromising in our pursuit of perfect worlds and perfect justice, we run the risk of becoming what we rightly hate.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can live with that.

What do you mean by winged monkeys?

I think Kishkumen is doing an accurate job of explaining who the winged monkeys are.

- Doc

[Meadowchik]

What do you mean by winged monkeys?

I think Kishkumen is doing an accurate job of explaining who the winged monkeys are.

- Doc

He's posted a lot in this thread. What specifically do you mean?

[dastardly stem]

You've hit the nail on the head here, Stem. We have here the confluence of a number of different groups who are seizing on this opportunity to hurt JD for their own purposes. "Justice" for Rosebud is just one facet of it, and here "justice" essentially means "the payback JD was promised." For KK this is about fighting the "Patriarchy," which is the funhouse mirror version of fighting "Socialism" in our messed up dualistic political wars between ideological extremists. For Kwaku et al. it is slaying the anti-Mormon dragons. Yeah, I think in each case I can glimpse *something* to sympathize with.

JD was stupid and irresponsible to have an extramarital relationship with a deeply troubled person. Bad on him. Seriously.

JD is really kind of smarmy and annoying with his post-Peter Priesthood way of being a champion of freedom and justice. It grates. I would prefer to see a more serious and formidable female voice getting the attention JD gets.

Just being honest. No offense John. You really have some great interviews.

And here's the thing: Kate Kelly is not that person. Someone like Joanna Brooks.

JD's perspective may be pretty popular, but it is intellectually exceptionable and debatable in so many ways. The Kwaku solution, however, which is to take middlebrow Dehlinism down to lowbrow Kwakuism, is truly wretched and vomitous.

There are no perfect worlds, there is no perfect justice, and, if we become too fierce and uncompromising in our pursuit of perfect worlds and perfect justice, we run the risk of becoming what we rightly hate.

Yes and it's a dreadful way in life. It's a life filled with cynicism and defeat.

Your sig quoting Rosebud says it all, though. She makes allegations and feels no obligation to support them. I can't fault the board or anyone who couldn't take it seriously, even though, with Lem, I can agree there seemed to be something missed there, at least.

[Kishkumen]

He's posted a lot in this thread. What specifically do you mean?

Minions. People working on behalf of another to cause trouble.

[consiglieri]

I can live with that.

What do you mean by winged monkeys?

Come on, Meadowchik.

Even Steve Rogers got that reference.

[Meadowchik]

He's posted a lot in this thread. What specifically do you mean?

Minions. People working on behalf of another to cause trouble.

Sorry, but this is really, really tone-deaf in reference to anything about John Dehlin. I've seen his "minions" in action.

[Meadowchik]

Come on, Meadowchik.

Even Steve Rogers got that reference.

I know the reference to the Wizard of Oz. What I was asking is what kind of people are you talking about? Did you want people who have misgivings about Dehlin or sympathy for Rosebud to miss the opportunity to call in?

[consiglieri]

No more than I wanted people with misgivings about Rosebud or sympathy for Dehlin to call in.

[jpatterson]

There are no perfect worlds, there is no perfect justice, and, if we become too fierce and uncompromising in our pursuit of perfect worlds and perfect justice, we run the risk of becoming what we rightly hate.

This is a point very well taken.

Part of what is fascinating to me and probably triggers some of my obsessive qualities is how the above applies to John himself. In his uncompromising pursuit of taking down the church, he ultimately became many of the things he came to loathe about Joseph Smith and the church, although on a much smaller level of course. He repeated many of the same mistakes Joseph made and adopted many of the same qualities that Joseph did. I feel like I left the church and allowed myself to get sucked into a mini version of the church all over again. That's on me. But I think John has made a living of keeping people in faith crisis, keeping them in a vicious cycle of outrage and anger and using his content to do so. I think that completely contradicts what he says his mission is. I think his business model is centered on keeping people in this trauma cycle and I don't feel it's a bad thing to try and minimize his influence.

I realize such a mindset opens me up to criticism and ridicule. But then I also observe here a board that spends inordinate amounts of time obsessing over peculiarities of Mormonism that will never, ever change.

So I guess I would ask many of you the same question: If everyone concedes that the church isn't going anywhere, what's the point of this board? If the church actually was founded by a sophisticated con man in the mid 1800s, what can possibly come from arguing about it now? Are you all just wanting to smear the church's name because you don't like what they're doing? Do the church's followers deserve to know or something?