- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wanted more than just my thoughts as input. The one thread they want to create has ‘cult’ in the thread title. After reading the thread it was softer than I though it was going to be but both the posts in the approval queue have a confrontational flavor; in this case directed towards specific people they consider exmo.
I don’t know that that’s enough to disapprove. You could say that several posts here are against the orthodox mindset, even specific people (usually an apostle). Maybe the post should be more directed at ideas than people? I guess that’s what I find troubling, one post is making a statement about John Dehlin’s motivations the other is against someone on Dehlin’s podcast (“exmo videos”) called Andrew Gold.
I don’t see much of a reason to not approve, getting the posts out there can open up a discussion. I guess I just initially balked at the cult word.
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts.
I agree with your initial balk and had the same feeling. They do seem to be directed at (or at least about) specific people outside the forum which would be a fringe violation Brian’s list of initial rules (they’re not directly addressing them). Still, I also agree it’s probably not enough to disapprove. I’m OK with approving but keeping an eye on them. (I briefly tried to research who they might be but it would appear that Melvin Jones and Nellie Chung are aliases.)
I will also be watching to see where this goes. I agree. I intentionally wrote my comment to see the nature of the response – including the last sentence. We shall see where it goes.
I think they registered with the sole intent of resurrecting the long debated allegations against Dehlin. Maybe it will dry up, if not I don’t see much of a point in it continuing. It would appear that way, for whatever reason they appear to be haters of John Dehlin. So be it, I couldn’t care less either way. I would not be surprised if Melvin Jones/Nellie Chung is one of the people they mention. I did make a pointed response, hopefully that does the trick.
You’re better than me DJ. After that snotty reply to the moderation note I’m tempted to delete the user and their posts. I was already on the fence for approving their first posts and it’s pretty clearly they only came here to grind and axe against John. Quote:Does that include self-professed public figures?
Something about that stood out to me. Maybe the word public because the word public does not appear in the forum rules.
I know I’m reading too much into this but…
“This is not a forum to address posts or comments directly to public figures.”
If the forum rule read that way the the response, what about
so-calledpublic figures, would have made more sense to me. That’s not what the quoted forum rule actually says though. It says anyone outside of this forum. That automatically includes public figures, even the so-called ones. It reads like they may be a little jealous or resentful of JD’s popularity.
Now time to read waaaaaaaaay too much into this. Public figure…
For whatever reason I decided to watch Rosebud’s testimony on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_La85KpX4rY&t=1877s&ab_channel=MormonRosebud ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_La85KpX4rY&t=1877s&ab_channel=MormonRosebud I didn’t get that far in. Rosebud starts her comments with, “Well, I worked for the Open Stories Foundation under um John Dehlin who is a public figure…” 9m18s
And there’s that phrase again. Public figure. Just a coincidence? Very much so.
Now you’ll have to excuse me, I have to have my microchip that was injected in my covid vaccine adjusted because the Earth is starting to feel flatter.
I actually saw the comment last evening and slept on it. It appears to me that Rosebud is a disgruntled former employee and ex-lover of Dehlin who wants to take him down, even resorting to accusations of sexual assault when evidence seems to suggest that the sex was not only consensual but was initiated by Rosebud at least some of the time. I poked around the Mormon Dialogue forum a bit and Rosebud is a known quantity there, although not necessarily the same person who at one time posted under that username (but could be). There are several references there to Rosebud disliking Dehlin.
The use of the exact phrase you mention bolsters my theory Melvin/Nellie is Rosebud or someone else closely associated with Rosebud.
The responses to the the cult thread are also interesting. I disagree with the assertion we’re ahead of the Catholic church now, having been Catholic and knowing many Catholics, they are way more tolerant of different ideas and thoughts among its membership (and even clergy) than we are. But I’m not responding in hopes that thread just withers because I don’t think we need to get into any discussion about who is and isn’t a cult.
I’m willing to wait and see, if the next post is just more vitriol I’m in favor of a very strong warning and/or banning.
I came here to say that I approve and support of your decision to lock the Dehlin thread. I am also in favor of waiting to see if Melvin has anything else to say on other subjects or if he is only here for the one thing.
I added a warning in the thread about the Catholic Church. One too many blatant misrepresentations pushed me over the edge. I came here, read your comments, and will go back and lock that post, as well.
I agree. Whoever they are, they are not here to support our mission. We can move both posts to our section in order to remove them from view for now, if that would be best – and write a short post explaining, generically, that it has been done.
We can talk about whether or not to reinstate them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.