Popular Post William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 22, 2012 So he's a journalist of sorts. That's not apologetics.I've always believed him best characterized as an "apostate evangelist". He's an evangelist for apostasy, in his own cunning way. He provides "struggling Saints" with all the material reasons and psychological rationalizations to disaffect from Mormonism; he consoles them during the rough transition period from believer to non-believer; then he helps them justify themselves once they've fully arrived at the state of unfaith. It started out as a cottage-industry-on-a-shoestring, but it has now grown into quite the apostate factory. 5
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 An interesting juxtaposition is this: when the MI targeted John Dehlin, John had GA friends who could and did nix it. When the MI targeted Dan Peterson, no GA has nor will emerge to nix it. I’ve long held that Peterson’s editorial style is unbecoming of the Church, and it appears the Church now agrees with me.I support the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church in these decisions. That makes me an enemy? An enemy of whom?You support the diluted mission of the MI to no longer serve as a counter to enemies and critics of the Church.There is absolutely no evidence that the "Church now agrees" with you concerning Dan. You take great liberties with reality in making some kind of assertion that the Church "agrees" with you.It doesn't.The rest of your conjecture concerning GA involvement is just that - speculation on your part. Hardly the basis of anything concrete to justify your personal attacks on Dan and others.Your posting history gives a very clear picture of where you stand when it concerns the Church and members of the Church who defend it. The fact that you support the efforts of someone who specifically wants to move away from the apologetic orientation of the MI, that you support the firing of Dan, that you mischaracterize him and others who defend the Church and its mission, and that you're really not that concerned with the issue of a mole within MI feeding anti-Mormons material, or the sleazy way that the person you support dismissed Dan are all additional and very consistent indications of where you stand.The fact is, you don't support the Church, and you're not neutral about the Church. What does that leave? 3
David T Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) This flatly contradicts your earlier plea for tolerance of "alternative understandings".Only if you remove it from the context of the rest of what I've been saying. My comments concerning the M.I. are in the context of work established and supported by a Church-affiliated institution.It appears that you're perfectly fine with the authors drawing conclusions- so long as those conclusions are palatable to your avante garde tendencies.This is not at all my position. Elsewhere in Mormon Message Board Land, I was just lambasted for defending someone's right to present speculative concepts that I fully and flatly disagreed with. I feel the same way in publications, and more so. Again, the distinction where such speculative conclusions becomes uncomfortable to me is in a professed scholastic publication supported by a Church-affiliated institution.That's your opinion. Others of good conscience are free to disagree.Of course.The problems with this position are legion, First and foremost, most "peer-reviewed" journals are heavily biased toward nautral humanism, and won't touch our material with a ten meter cattle-prod."Peer -review" has long been the critic's favorite hobby horse for exactly that reason.Ignoring, of course, the spectacular peer-reviewed historical work in periodicals such as the Journal of Mormon History, and the secular imprimatur of National Historic Publications and Records Commission for the rigor and standards of the Joseph Smith Papers Project.If not there- then where?There are several fantastic independent periodicals expressing Alternate Understandings in Mormonism, funded by subscribers and donors. Clearly, such a resource can exist without being attached to BYU. FAIR does solely online.I think MrMandias hit the nail on the head when he said that this entire kerfuffle- and Bradford's decision- are all about being more accepted in the faculty cocktail circuit, rather than teaching the truth about the LDS faith.Good scholarship helps reveal and clarify truth. As I said before, much great scholarship can also have an apologetic effect without needing to become polemical as part of its very nature. A call for a lessening of polemical apologetics-as-such does not include removal of Scholarship that is beneficial to the Church or its cause. Much of the best Mormon Studies Scholarship out there, while not polemical nor making interpretive faith claims (one way or another) have highly served as faith-promoting to myself. They have served an apologetic role without being created as Apologetics.I think that's a key thing many are mis-reading in what I've been saying. Edited June 22, 2012 by David T 1
selek1 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Who are you? What names have you posted with on other boards in the past, in order that we might have a sense of the context within which you approach these things? (I hate it when these new sock puppets spring up like mushrooms after a summer rain ...)Indeed. LDS Toronto showed up and was re-banned shortly thereafter.I wonder who else will resurface like last night's extra-spicy-jalapeno-and-chili-cheese dog with double saurkraut.... Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1
Popular Post William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 22, 2012 When the Church publishes the mean-spirited personal attacks like the ones of Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson, Russell McGregor, it does more harm to itself than any critic could possibly do.This is the BIG lie. All of the apostates have agreed to make it their number one talking point, but it is a LIE.And it is the lie they are using in their attempt to silence what has been an extraordinarily effective body of LDS apologists and apologetics. 8
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 As I noted previously, when enemies of the church applaud what the MI is doing, then the MI is making a mistake.QFT.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 An interesting juxtaposition is this: when the MI targeted John Dehlin, John had GA friends who could and did nix it. When the MI targeted Dan Peterson, no GA has nor will emerge to nix it. I’ve long held that Peterson’s editorial style is unbecoming of the Church, and it appears the Church now agrees with me.You don't know what you're talking about. What evidence do you have that John Dehlin has "GA friends" that "nixed" anything? What evidence do you have that the Church agrees with your assessment of Dan Peterson's editorial style? (Hint: they don't.)I support the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church in these decisions. That makes me an enemy?Indubitably. 1
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You don't know what you're talking about. What evidence do you have that John Dehlin has "GA friends" that "nixed" anything?What evidence do you have that the Church agrees with your assessment of Dan Peterson's editorial style? (Hint: they don't.)Indubitably.Those who support the Church are your enemy?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Those who support the Church are your enemy?Um?
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You don't know what you're talking about. What evidence do you have that John Dehlin has "GA friends" that "nixed" anything?I know that John called a GA friend, which set into motion a series of events that resulted in the article not being published.What evidence do you have that the Church agrees with your assessment of Dan Peterson's editorial style? (Hint: they don't.)My main piece of evidence is the fact that they fired him as editor.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) This is the BIG lie. All of the apostates have agreed to make it their number one talking point, but it is a LIE.And it is the lie they are using in their attempt to silence what has been an extraordinarily effective body of LDS apologists and apologetics.In what way is this allegedly "extraordinarily effective" body of LDS apologists and apologetics being silenced? You guys are totally free to say anything you want. It isn't like the Church has a monopoly on the printing press.The Church distancing itself from you and your ilk doesn't equate with you being silenced. Edited June 22, 2012 by Analytics
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 If BYU didn't want to support apologetics, then it seems strange that it asked FARMS to come under its wing in the first place.Is there any evidence that this particular choice of shutting down apologetics is anything besides a personal choice by the person currently at the head of the MI?What is most concerning is the leaking of the documents directly to the "other side". We can discuss academically what is best for BYU or the MI or apologetics ad infinitum, but the bottom line is that very clearly this was a personal attack on Peterson, using his known enemies who are also clearly enemies of the church. Whoever did it has used anti-Mormons to eliminate not only Dr Peterson but a significant apologetic institution of the church.I mean, who's side is this guy on? That is not good for BYU, nor is it good for the church, nor is it good for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and just based on the leaks alone, the person responsible for it must go. 4
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 My main piece of evidence is the fact that they fired him as editor."They??""They" is Jerry. Jerry is not the Church. And since the cowardly way Jerry did it is not something that is SOP for the Church, you hardly build any kind of a case that the Church condones this.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 What is most concerning is the leaking of the documents directly to the "other side".We can discuss academically what is best for BYU or the MI or apologetics ad infinitum, but the bottom line is that very clearly this was a personal attack on Peterson, using his known enemies who are also clearly enemies of the church.Whoever did it has used anti-Mormons to eliminate not only Dr Peterson but a significant apologetic institution of the church.I mean, who's side is this guy on?That is not good for BYU, nor is it good for the church, nor is it good for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and just based on the leaks alone, the person responsible for it must go.Absolutely.I've heard nothing about Bradford making this the primary purpose of his life at the moment. Given the way he dismissed Dan, and given his clear confusion on real priorities, it is evident that the MI is NOT in good hands at the moment.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I know that John called a GA friend, which set into motion a series of events that resulted in the article not being published.My main piece of evidence is the fact that they fired him as editor.There is a whole host of logical fallacies of causation present in your reply. You can read about them in this book.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 In what way is this allegedly "extraordinarily effective" body of LDS apologists and apologetics being silenced? You guys are totally free to say anything you want. It isn't like the Church has a monopoly on the printing press.The Church distancing itself from you and your ilk doesn't equate with you being silenced.The Church has not distanced itself from me and my "ilk".
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 That is not good for BYU, nor is it good for the church, nor is it good for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and just based on the leaks alone, the person responsible for it must go.I agree 100%.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 What is most concerning is the leaking of the documents directly to the "other side".We can discuss academically what is best for BYU or the MI or apologetics ad infinitum, but the bottom line is that very clearly this was a personal attack on Peterson, using his known enemies who are also clearly enemies of the church.Whoever did it has used anti-Mormons to eliminate not only Dr Peterson but a significant apologetic institution of the church.I mean, who's side is this guy on?That is not good for BYU, nor is it good for the church, nor is it good for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and just based on the leaks alone, the person responsible for it must go.Anyone that would feed info. to enemies of your church is obviously an apostate in hiding. To think anything different is foolishness. MI needs to expose this mole quickly. 3
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 "They??""They" is Jerry. Jerry is not the Church. And since the cowardly way Jerry did it is not something that is SOP for the Church, you hardly build any kind of a case that the Church condones this."The Church" had nothing to do with Jerry's decision. 1
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 ... it is evident that the MI is NOT in good hands at the moment.Emphasis on "at the moment". 1
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Anyone that would feed info. to enemies of your church is obviously an apostate in hiding. To think anything different is foolishness. MI needs to expose this mole quickly.The mole is merely the tip of the iceberg; the smoke to the fire.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 "They??""They" is Jerry. Jerry is not the Church. And since the cowardly way Jerry did it is not something that is SOP for the Church, you hardly build any kind of a case that the Church condones this.Jerry did not do this in isolation. There just isn't any way he would have done this without the full suport of the church. Regarding the way he did it, there are two sides of every story, and I'm not going to judge him until I hear his side. The most likely scenario is that after his long talk with Dan, Jerry talked with his superiors and they agreed that Dan forced their hand. They talked about if they should wait to tell him, and they decided that it would be better to let Dan know of their decision immediately.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Jerry did not do this in isolation. There just isn't any way he would have done this without the full suport of the church.You have no idea what you're talking about. 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Jerry did not do this in isolation. There just isn't any way he would have done this without the full suport of the church. Regarding the way he did it, there are two sides of every story, and I'm not going to judge him until I hear his side. The most likely scenario is that after his long talk with Dan, Jerry talked with his superiors and they agreed that Dan forced their hand. They talked about if they should wait to tell him, and they decided that it would be better to let Dan know of their decision immediately.I am sorry but you just cannot assert this. You simply don't know. 2
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I am sorry but you just cannot assert this. You simply don't know.Not only does he "simply [not] know," but he's wrong.
Recommended Posts