There was a swift backlash against yesterday’s Meridian Magazine blog post which attacked liberal Mormons. By mid-day, Meridian had removed it from their website.
A number of my friends and associates have mentioned that they were glad that it was taken down. I think it was unfortunate. I thought that the post was an opportunity to respond and discuss what being a liberal Mormon means to me. Hence, I posted a response.
The post by Joni Hilton was not offensive to me. I disagreed with nearly every word and sentence. I felt that it cast aspersions on people like myself. It was a poor argument riddled with generalizations and faulty assumptions. All of those things made the post more silly than offensive.I think Meridian should have left the post up. Instead of removing it, maybe counter-arguments could have been invited to join in the conversation. We live in a pluralistic world and there also exists a pluralism within Mormonism. Part of that pluralism is people like Joni Hilton.
Additionally, I did not find what Hilton wrote to be all that different from what often appears on the website of Meridian magazine. I am at a loss to figure out why this post would be taken done when it is really not all that different in message and/or tone from what is often written by editor-in-chief of Meridian Magazine Maurine Jensen Proctor.
(BTW, I was well aware that Hilton was talking about religious liberals and not political liberals.)
I think there are sometimes good reasons to take down a post. Strong disagreement is not one of them. If the reason for removing the post was over confusion about how Hilton used the term liberal, a follow-up post clarifying her point would have been much more useful and interesting than just making it go away.