My New Dialogue Subscription

Due to By Common Consent’s recent affiliation with Dialogue, I have revisited the idea of subscribing to the journal. So, for the fist time in my life, I will subscribe to an independent publication focused around Mormonism. Doesn’t sound like a big deal, right? Well, for me it is, and here’s why:

My teenage years were during the “other voices” shake down, which caused my fairly conservative family to look upon independent Mormon publications unfavorably. Not that we ever had a subscription to Sunstone or Dialogue anyway, but that somehow didn’t stop me from passing judgment naively.

In many ways, part of me has always felt like Davis Bell and/or Rosalynde. Davis here wants to know more about the “…relationship between Sunstone and/or Dialogue and the institutional Church/GAs” in true Davis Bell fashion. And Rosalynde here states that part of her hesitance has to do with the idea that, “It’s very possible that BYU will continue to frown on participation in Dialogue.” Interestingly enough, I see myself in these comments, as I have wondered about the consequences of affiliating myself with Dialogue.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that all my worrying is based on rumors, hearsay, and straight up gossip. I don’t know what happened ten or fifteen years ago. But then again, I don’t know what sins or misdeeds Davis or Rosalynde committed ten or fifteen years ago either and I somehow have no issues affiliating myself with them and/or reading their posts as part of the Bloggernacle.

Thus, it is time, time for me to seek and understand for myself. I don’t need a historical background of the shakiness associated with Dialogue in years past, and I especially don’t need BYU’s approval for choices in my life. What I need is to read the journal with my own eyes and see if it will help me in my quest to better understand various aspects of Mormonism. It could or it could not; I’ll never know until I read it.


  1. I simply don’t understand this “BYU frowns on Dialogue” stuff. I was just at their site (see cool button top right) and looking at their call for papers on international Mormonism. Who’s editing that issue? Ethan Yorganson of BYU-H. Am I missing something?

  2. Rosalynde says:

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha…… My checkered past will yet rise to taint even your reputation, O Bob Caswell…. (After all, I did wear and off-the-shoulder prom dress, and you know what THAT means!)

    Congrats on the new subscription! I subscribe to Dialogue, as well, and I’m not at all afraid to admit it or even to leave issues of the journal lying around the house when home teachers come over. I’m a great fan of Dialogue, and I have an abiding love and reverence for one of its founders, Gene England. If Dialogue were in imminent danger of demise, I would be be genuinely chagrined, and would do whatever I could to help save it. But at this particular point in my (non-existent) academic career, I won’t publish in it. Once I come to my senses and recognize the bazillion reasons why I’ll never teach at BYU, and if the journal is not overtly anti-Church at that time, I will be very pleased to publish there.

    Ronan: the BYU taboo thing is diffuse and unclear, admittedly, and must drive the Dialogue folks batty. As you point out, some BYU faculty do participate, so there’s not an outright prohibition. But my sense (and what I have been told by some who should know) is that for a non-tenured faculty or job applicant in the more ideologically riven departments, like English and history, a Dialogue publication is risky.

  3. Elisabeth says:

    I’ll come out of the closet and admit to being a former Dialogue subscriber. I subscribed for a year, but then didn’t renew. Some of the articles I read were interesting (I especially enjoyed reading a sister missionary’s experience about her mission), but Dialogue just couldn’t compete with the New Yorker for the precious minutes of my recreational reading time (which I wedge in between my obsessive viewing of episodes of “The Office”).

    My participation in the bloggernacle has renewed my interest in Mormon studies, such as they are, but, Dialogue and Sunstone (and Exponent II) have all at various times been condemned by the leaders of the Church, right? I think the message the Church leaders is that we should stick to the standard works and for all of our information about the Church. So, many members are hesitant to branch out and read information from alternative (questionable) sources. I don’t fall into that category, but I can understand why other members might feel nervous about reading Dialogue.

    In any event, I’ll support any good faith efforts at encouraging healthy intellectual and spiritual discussions in the same vein as Eugene England and Lowell Bennion (and Leonard Arrington). The reason I’ve enjoyed the bloggernacle so much is that I think the discussions here are a great step in this direction of encouraging faithful, open discourse about the Church. Cheers to Steve and others for facilitating this.

  4. Bob Caswell says:

    Rosalynde! Stop playing with me… Off-the-shoulder prom dress? And to think I thought highly of you! Leaving issues out when home teachers come over? You are bold. What’s next for you? Please don’t tell me you’ve shown up to a ward barbecue with a caffeinated beverage…

  5. Nate Oman says:

    To my knowledge, Dialogue has NEVER been condemned by the leaders of the Church. I can think of any number of statements by Church leaders saying that the Standard Works, etc. are the proper sources for official church doctrine, but saying that Dialogue is not the official (or unofficial) mouthpiece of the Church and saying that it has been condemned by the Church strike me as two entirely different things.

    Dialogue has any number of problems — a penchant for boring poetry, some really stupid editorial decisions in the past, etc. — but I think it is quite unfair to suggest that it has been officially condemned by the Church.

  6. Rosalynde, as you know, any journal’s content is constrained by what actually gets submitted to it (among other factors, of course). My academic discipline has been going through a many-year fight about whether qualitative and interpretive approaches have adequate representation in our leading journal. For me, the crystalizing moment of this debate was when the editor published a break-down of submissions by methodological approach; in effect, the journal’s final publications roughly mirrored its submission pool. Long-winded way of saying that, if you’re worried about Dialogue being overtly anti-Church, one way to work against that is to try to publish there…

  7. Wow Nate–it seems so unlike you to hold yourself out as a poetry critic.

  8. Elisabeth says:

    Nate – maybe “condemned” is too harsh a word, but there are quite a few statements cautioning members against associating with “so-called” intellectuals and publications “critical” of the Church. Dialogue, Sunstone and others haven’t been specifically condemned, but I think it’s pretty clear that many Church leaders would discourage members from reading and participating in these publications.

  9. I used to read Dialog fairly regularly. While I was at BYU, which was during the height of the issues over Sunstone, the so-called September 6 and then the internal battles in the English departments, there were quite a few copies of Dialog around. I used to read them regularly in both the Maeser building and the Library. They were prominently on sale as well.

    I don’t get up to campus much anymore. But they still have them in the library and I photocopied quite a few there.

    I really hope that Levi’s rebirth of Dialog works, as I think we do need a journal that fills that niche. I confess that my main complaint about the late 90’s was more concern over the quality/relevance of the articles. If he can make interesting relevant articles then I think that he’ll be successful.

    With regards to the whispering campaign, I think there’s a little rub off from Sunstone. But also I think there were a few controversial articles that rubbed people the wrong way. Once you get labeled it’s hard to get rid of that label, even if it isn’t deserved. That’s why I mentioned in Nate’s thread over at T&S that it almost might be easier to start a new journal. Perhaps with more of a narrower focus. Trying to be all things to all people is hard.

    I’ll check the articles though. Who knows, I may subscribe if BCC readers get a discount. But it would certainly depend upon the articles and whether that makes it worth it. I’d like to see a renaissance of Mormon journals. Element, the LDS philosophy journal, certainly is exciting and good. That might end up pulling away some of the articles I’d like to see in Dialog. We’ll see.

  10. Bob Caswell says:

    “…but I think it’s pretty clear that many Church leaders would discourage members from reading and participating in these publications.”

    I think exactly the opposite. Pretty clear in this case would mean specificity. Vagueness and ambiguity is what we have.

  11. Steve Evans says:

    Clark, don’t confuse Dialogue with Dialog

  12. Dang. My Canadian nature got the best of me. Well colour me grey and the cheques in the mail.

  13. BTW – my family really does tease me about loosing my accent. If I started reading a Luteran journal rather than a Mormon one I’d really be in trouble. (grin)

  14. Rosalynde says:

    RT, I understand what you’re saying. But right now I estimate the potential benefits to Dialogue of my publishing in it to be less than the potential risks to my future activities. I consider both desires—publishing in Dialogue, and teaching at BYU—to be ways of building the kingdom, so at this moment I make the decision based on the relative risks and benefits of each, and on my own desires and interest.

    (I also don’t want to overplay the BYU card: I have no current plans to apply there, but I’m also not ready to close the door.)

  15. Aaron Brown says:

    Nate — I was once told by a prominent BYU professor that when the Church made its declaration about alternate voices/symposia, it actually originally wanted to mention Dialogue and Sunstone by name, but decided not to for “legal reasons.” I don’t know if that’s really true, or if it even sounds plausible, but since it was told to me by a BYU religion professor, and they are, by definition, always in tune with the Lord’s will, I guess it must be Gospel truth.

    Aaron B

  16. I’m with you Bob. I think most people would be surprised to know that I have never subscribed and just yesterday recieved my first copy. (FYI: Jason H. Lindquist’s article on Joseph Smith, Language Change, and Theological Innovation is fabulous so far). When I was younger a couple of my mom’s progressive friends left church and that had a big effect on me (not that it had anything whatsoever to do with Diologue). I have, however, been a big reader of archives.

    Since coming to the bloggernacle, I have chosen to make a stand for myself. I’ve decided to engage what I didn’t have the volition or time to engage in the past. I’ve drafted outlines for several Mormon Studies papers and am commited to submitting at least one of them to Dialogue. I am very excited to flavor the community and not simply taste the product.

  17. Actually, Dialogue’s founders added the subtitle “A Journal of Mormon Thought” to avoid confusion with Dialog: A Journal of Theology. Surveys have shown that most Canadians remain confused.

  18. Davis Bell says:


    In true Davis Bell fashion, I’d be interested to know what true “Davis Bell” fashion is.

    Sins or misdeeds I committed fifteen years ago: water balloons. Lots and lots of water balloons.

    Ten years ago: More water balloons.

  19. Nate Oman says:

    Aaron: If we are reduced to the legal opinion of a BYU religion professor whose analysis is based on rumors of what the Brethren “really” wanted to say, we are doomed.

  20. I was born confused. I wander the world inquiring after everyone if they can raise me out of my confusion. But I leave not only still confused but sewing confusion in my wake. And mixing metaphors. That too.

  21. Elisabeth says:

    I think I’ve been misunderstood here. I wish I could go back and delete the word “condemned” from my post about Dialogue, which I think caused most of the confusion. What I was trying to say is that prominent Church leaders have expressed consternation at the prospect of members engaging in “off the record” (i.e., outside the standard works and discussion groups or associating with publications (and people) that could be interpreted as critical of the Church.

    Some people believe Dialogue fits into this category. I do not believe that Dialogue should fit into this category, which is why I used to subscribe to Dialogue.

    Also, I don’t think the main reason why Dialogue is held in its current esteem is because of bad poetry and unfortunate editorials (although this certainly contributes to its reputation). I think one of the reasons why people don’t read (and contribute to) Dialogue is that they think it is critical of the Church, and Church leaders say not to read things critical of the Church (and this is probably what causes the bad poetry and unfortunate editorials in the first place).

    Peace out.

  22. Clark, that’s okay. I think confusion is the highest form of understanding.

  23. Greg Prince says:

    As current chairman of the Dialogue board of directors (a one-year appointment), I am heartened by the vitality of the discussion here. Certainly all of us will benefit by the interplay of thoughtful voices from people across the philosophical spectrum, whose common denominator is the struggle to combine faith and reason.

  24. What about those of us whose struggle is primarily to get academic tenure?

  25. Greg Prince says:

    No offense intended. An uncommon denominator can be far more daunting.

  26. Now I guess I’m Canadian–your last comment really confused me, Greg!

  27. Bob Caswell says:


    Does “peace out” signal your exit from the discussion? I’m just wondering, as I mean no harm. I’ve enjoyed your comments. For the record, I’m not sure that I misunderstood you. I actually agree with what you are saying (especially in your last comment) but just have my little bit to add that the more I look into the topic, the more phrases like “the Church discourages things like Dialogue” are just a fabricated perception arising from isolated incidents well in the past. It’s a shame.


    Please don’t make me dig through archives to prove my point, but I believe this is the third or fourth time I’ve seen you openly ask for GA approval on something that otherwise may be perceived as questionable. You seem cautious in general and that’s admirable.

  28. Davis Bell says:


    It is true that I like to find out what’s been said by the GAs on a given topic. This enables me to try to discern where the Brethren stand on a given issue, which holds a lot of sway with me as I try to figure out how I feel and think about the issue. More than anything, I do it because I’m not interested in finding out what Mormon culture says about a given topic, or what a GA’s personal opinion is; as you say, there is a lot of “rumors, hearsay, and straight up gossip,” about most issues, and it’s important to cut straight to what has actually been said and done, rather than what President Monson said about it at a zone conference. That’s my two-cents worth.

  29. Well, Davis, you’re entitled to personal revelation. Why wait for a GA to voice an opinion when you can do as Joseph did. Seek and ye shall find.

  30. I paid my for my three year subscription two months ago. If I’d have known I could have saved 50%, I would have waited. Oh, well.

    I enjoy Dialogue, and I have as long as I’ve read it. I find the content to be far better than, say, the New Yorker, which I only pick up every couple of years to remind myself why I don’t read it. Last time I picked it up was several months ago. The first article I turned to was on the Scottish enlightenment–it had more errors than I could count on both hands in the first 4 paragraphs alone. It was really awful stuff, and it depended entirely on readers’ ignorance of the views of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Francis Hutcheson. This type of thing always happens when I venture to read it, because (like NPR) the New Yorker is designed to allow people who otherwise know very little about something to make cocktail party conversation as though they did. At any rate, Dialogue does contain lousy poetry, and I’ve only ever ventured to read one piece of fiction in it (I didn’t like it). But I sometimes find the essays and articles to be very good. Even when I don’t think that the articles are very good or well informed, I don’t feel like they’re trying to dupe me into being stupid about something without my knowing it. Thus, I’d recommend Dialogue to anyone.

  31. Davis Bell says:


    I’m inclined to think that finding out what the GAs have said falls into the “study it out” part of the equation.

  32. So is reading it enough that you don’t get it mixed up with other publications, I would venture to guess.

  33. Davis, a hypothetical: Let’s say that you went on your mission before 1978, and some of the missionaries were having a discussion about blacks and the priesthood. On one side, there was the Mark E. Peterson/Bruce R. McConkie point of view that blacks were very probably less valiant in pre-mortality. Thus, black men will not gain the priesthood and black men & women will not be allowed to do temple ordinances until after everyone has their chance (per the implication in Abraham). On the other side, you have “liberal” mormons who think that’s b*llshit.

    Which side do you take? Do you reverse yourself when McConkie says something to the effect of, “disregard everything I said about blacks and the priesthood”? Do you still believe to this day that the priesthood was withheld from black men for some divine purpose?

  34. DKL- The 50% off deal is for a one year subscription not a 3 year. I will give you a discount on our DVD if you’d like one! I don’t want you to feel cheated or buyer’s remorse.

  35. Elisabeth says:

    DKL: you crack me up. The New Yorker may be a tad pretentious, but staff writers like Seymour Hersh (who uncovered the Abu Grahib abuses) and some of the fiction pieces make reading the New Yorker worthwhile (not to mention the occasional cartoon). NPR drives me batty at times, but it’s better than listening to Matty in the Morning.

    Bob: I don’t really have anything else to add to the conversation, but thanks for your comment. “Peace out” was just a silly way of trying to address some of the testiness that, depending on the interpretation, may or may not have emanated from my comments. I’m feeling a bit paranoid as of late about offending people on the bloggernacle. Maybe I’ll start finishing all my sentences with a smiley face :)

    P.S. For those who are interested in reading what the GAs think about all of this, Pres. Hinckley gave a good talk called “Be Ye Not Deceived” printed in the Nov. 1983 Ensign that speaks to some of the issues raised here.

  36. Elisabeth says:

    Oops. I meant “Abu Ghraib” and “Be Not Deceived”.

  37. Thanks, lori. I don’t feel cheated. Though it seemed like just yesterday when I had my opportunistic knee-jerk reaction, on further reflection, I recall that I bought it at the MHA conference, which was, of course, more than a few months ago (I bought the DVD, then too. The content is great, though the pdx index file does not work with Adobe Acrobat on Mac OS, so that it takes several minutes to search it. I’ve had to install Lucene and use PDFbox to write an indexing program to search the content using the web server on my machine.) And you can take my opinions on fiction with a grain of salt. I hate the fiction and poetry in the Atlantic Monthly, too, but they seem to be doing something right.

  38. Elisabeth, if you thought Abu Ghraib was bad, check out this horrifying nightmare.

  39. I just subscribed for a year.

    I have actually been reading articles in Dialog online for some time now- the most interesting one I recently read was an older article detailing the apostasy in the French Mission during the late 1950s (“The Trial of the French Mission”, Autumn 1988 issue). Very interesting stuff- I’m looking forward to receiving the quarterly.

    I was not aware of any 50% discount, however.

  40. DKL- The second version (which came out after MHA) works much better than the first. I would like to replace your copy. Email me your info and I’ll send it right out. Don’t worry about the Fiction comments. Everyone agrees with you except the very few-who like the fiction. REgardless, Levi says we will keep the Fiction and Poetry so they are represented.

  41. Eric Russell says:

    DKL, I’ve been laughing for about five minutes solid now. Thanks.

  42. Davis Bell says:


    Reading what? Dialogue? I’m confused.


    Here’s the way I think I would have reacted; I would try to study up on what was out there on the topic, giving privilege to the canon and the words of the living prophet. I’d also try to see what had been said by the living apostles and past prophets. I’d try to come to a conclusion. Then I’d pray about it. Rinse and repeat. I don’t know what answer that would have yielded, so it’s hard to say how I would have reacted to McConkie’s reversal. Do I believe the priesthood was withheld from black men for some divine purpose? I don’t know. I doubt it, but I couldn’t say with certainty.

  43. Congradulations, Bob. You won’t regret subscribing to Dialogue. I wrote about some of my personal experiences with it here.

  44. Marc Bohn says:

    Subscribing to Dialogue Bob?!! If only the good members of the Heatheridge First Ward could see you now… sliding down that slippery slope ;)

  45. Jonathan Maltz says:

    G’day from Melbourne, Australia.
    I have to say I agree with the comments about Dialogue and the boring poetry but remain very glad of the former’s continued existence. I only wish that there were more members here and in my native U.K. who would subscribe to it!

  46. Bob Caswell says:


    LRC does have a point to a certain degree. You are seeking eternal evidence to understand something that has plenty of internal evidence that more directly would facilitate your best chance of understanding in this case. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make sure the GAs are ok with what you’re doing… But the fact that you don’t know anything about either publication (as you’ve already admittedly confused the two), sort of hints to the idea that any interest on your part has little to do with a desire to understand what’s contained in the publication, as the logical first step would be to read it and seek approval from the Spirit rather than to dig up limited evidence from past conference talks that don’t even specifically say anything about any specific publication.

    You say things like “it’s important to cut straight to what has actually been said and done, rather than what President Monson said about it at a zone conference.” and then you do the opposite. “What has actually been said and done” in this case would be what has been published in Dialogue, which you presumably haven’t read. “What President Monson said about it at a zone conference” is what you’re trying to find first.

  47. Bob Caswell says:

    Marc, don’t rat me out, o.k.? In due time, I’ll have to break the news to Heatheridge nice and easy… :-)

  48. Bob Caswell says:

    Uh, Davis, I wanted to see “external” evidence in that first sentence not “eternal”.

  49. Davis Bell says:


    You set up a scenario where what the GAs have said in conference equals the hearsay of a President Monson zone conference and what’s in Dialogue is the authentic stuff.

    My scenario is different. The President Monson zone conference is the various untrue and half-true things one hears about what the GAs have said about Dialogue. The authentic stuff consists of two things: what has actually been said by the GAs in GC (of which I was unaware until asking at T&S) as well as what’s actually in Dialogue. I’m not sure Dialogue must be consulted first or exclusively (vis-a-vis the GA comments on same).

    My preference (and what I’ve done) is to consult them simultaneously, as I consider them both to be germane to settling the issue of how I feel about Dialogue.

  50. Bob Caswell says:


    My scenario and your scenario are really not all that different. First of all, President Monson is President Monson. What he says at a zone conference on any particular subject and what he says at General Conference are not that far apart (Incidentally, I’ve always been puzzled by the standard Mormon-GA-talks-implied-rating-system. I constantly hear, “…but this was said in General Conference so that means…” as if it’s nearly canonized as opposed to a load of crap said anywhere else. I think the gap of what’s said in various atmospheres for GAs talks is extremely small.)

    Secondly, when you say, “I’m not sure Dialogue must be consulted first or exclusively” that’s like saying “I’m really interested in this book, but I’m not sure reading the book is my best way of understanding what type of content it has. I have this friend who read some excerpts from the book. I trust him. I’ll use him to understand the content of this book.” That’s fine, I guess (like you’ve mentioned, it’s your preference), though I can see why it could leave someone scratching his/her head wondering what you’re doing. If your goal was really to understand the content of the book, you’d just read it.

  51. Aaron Brown says:

    Bob — Check your email.

    Aaron B

  52. Bob Caswell says:

    Aaron — Check yours now!

  53. Davis Bell says:


    If I heard President Monson say something at a Zone Conference, it would count for a lot. I used that phrase as way to invoke the all of the hearsay and rumors that get spread around by well-meaning members of the Church. So, one big difference between what Pres. Monson supposedly says at a ZC and what he says at GC is the fact that I can verify the latter and not the former.

    The second difference between the two is that GAs, like the rest of us, certainly misspeak occasionally, saying things they wish they wouldn’t have said, expressing themselves unclearly or poorly, etc, all of which is several order of magnitude more likely to occurr at a zone conference than at a GC.

    And I think there is a fairly sizeable gap between what the GAs say in various settings. I heard GAs on my mission, both at the MTC and in the field, say things they would never say in GC, and two even acknowledged that fact as a preface to their remarks.

    Finally, “If your goal was really to understand the content of the book, you’d just read it.” True, unless, of course, you had a vague impression that the content of said book had been labelled dangerous and to-be-avoided by some apostles and maybe a prophet or two. Thus, trying to determine whether this vague impression had any basis in fact seems a reasonable step to take.

  54. Bob Caswell says:

    “And I think there is a fairly sizeable gap between what the GAs say in various settings.”


    In this case, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Of course GAs can share different tidbits in different settings as they deem appropriate. But the validity of what they are saying is not necessarily strengthened or weakened because of this (nor is the likelihood of mistake). That subconscious rating system in Mormonism, to me, is just a fabrication.

    But back to the original thought… I don’t know, Davis, for me, it still sounds like you’re watching the E channel to decide what you think about the acting quality of celebrities. And really, like I said in the original post, I feel like I’ve been doing this myself for quite a while.

  55. Davis Bell says:


    You don’t think that a GA is more likely to make a mistake when speaking extemporaneously to a group of 100 missionaries in Fresno than in a GC conference address he’s written down, perhaps even vetted with other GAs, and then read from a teleprompter? And you don’t think there’s any difference in validity and authority between a GA addressing the body of the Church, at a General Conference of the Church, than thoughts he shares with missionaries in Cochabamba?

    As for the original issue, allow me use a hypothetical: Let’s say you’ve never seen a broadway musical. Let’s say that for many years you’ve had a vague impression that in GC a few apostles, maybe a prophet, have condemend Broadway musicals as harmful, urging the Saints not to see them. You’re not entirely sure whether those things were ever said. Now, all of the sudden, a lot of people you know start talking about Broadway musicals. Would you:

    A. Just go see some Broadway musicals to determine whether you think they are harmful;

    B. Ask around, maybe do some research, to find out what, if anything, had been said about Broadway musicals by the GAs;

    C. Other

  56. Bob Caswell says:


    This is fun. Let me reply to all your questions:

    “You don’t think that a GA is more likely to make a mistake…then read from a teleprompter?”

    Maybe or maybe not, either way I’m not going to make that assumption, as I’d have to ignore a million other variables associated with each individual GA mistake in each given situation.

    The answer to your next question is most definitely (A). And for the record, I have seen both Chicago the movie and Chicago on Broadway, even though there was a rumor floating around that Pres. Hinckley publicly denounced it.

    Now let me give you a hypothetical:

    Let’s say you know a GA who read an article at T&S and based on that decided to make the recommendation that Mormons not blog. But you, an M* blogger, try to tell people that your blog is different somehow. But somehow for fifteen years, your blog gets a bad rap because of the impression a GA had based upon another blog. How would you feel when someone you approached fifteen years later informed you that he/she would not read anything on your blog because of the incident in the past associated with a totally different blog (think author/editor here)? It gets even worse, how would you feel if the above person didn’t know any of that background info and just decided to not read anything on your blog because that one GA at one point a while ago said something against blogging?

  57. Davis Bell says:


    I would be annoyed at least and offended at most.

  58. I’d note that a lot of GAs speaking in more casual settings are pretty explicit now about what is or isn’t there opinion. Often they say, “now I don’t want to read this on the internet tomorrow…” So I think Davis has a point and most GAs acknowledge that point rhetorically. (At least most I’ve heard of late) Perhaps the internet is simply making the problem more apparent.

    Of course I do wish we could just hear GAs give their opinions without worrying if someone takes it as a divine utterance. I think we loose a lot of valuable blessings because of that. If only because GAs are so less willing to talk about a lot of things or express themselves.