I see it differently, queuno. I don’t see that as a claim that people should still support the same causes they supported forty years ago. We all change, and our perspectives change. I think it is simply a matter of acknowledging that, at one time, this was important to Dallin Oaks. It would have been silly for us back in the early 70′s to make judgments about Elder Oaks’ worthiness, and it is just as silly now for us to jump to conclusions about the ultimate righteousness or worthiness of people who find Dialogue useful.

I have a family member who was involved in Dialogue’s founding. And he’s apparently moved on. If you’re going to start dropping names of founders from 3-4 DECADES ago, shouldn’t they still be affirmed supporters today?

You’ve said that before; it reminds me of a creative writing prof I had (a prominent poet, editor of one of the major poetry journals in the U.S., but it’s been years and I don’t remember his name). He decried the tendency he’d seen of aspiring poets to not read poetry, arguing that they didn’t want their expression of poetry tainted by others’ ideas. He argued that, by attempting to create their own hermetically sealed world of poetry, they wrote sucky poetry.

Outstanding analogy. Applicable to many a field.

Isn’t promotion of homosexual activity and cross-dressing a violation of our comment policies?

Aaron B

“You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen,” the radio host says. The former governor agrees, affirming Skousen was his professor and when the radio host professes his fondness for Skousen’s book The Making of America, while he acknowledges he hasn’t read it, Mitt quickly says “That’s worth reading.”