Senator Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Something about "if the shoe fits...".Wonderful!Many eyes are getting a shinning example of the Gospel of Jesus Christ via apologia in action right now.No wonder that many have "the vision" to excise it from church institutions.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Wonderful!Many eyes are getting a shinning example of the Gospel of Jesus Christ via apologia in action right now.No wonder that many have "the vision" to excise it from church institutions.One of the problems that caused this conflict imo is assuming that apologetics is a one sized fits all approach. That is like condemning all medicine because some doctors are promoting some ineffective alternative treatments or some obgyns deliver all their babies by c-sections. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Knock yourself out, jwhitlock!Not even close. I happen to believe that the end doesn't justify the means. Society is rife with examples of people who act like Bradford, and anyone who wants to open their mind a bit would see that.And I agree that the mole issue is perhaps just as troubling, and needs to be addressed quickly.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You have read the same material I have and from what I have read, there is no evidence that Bradford is acting alone. He is the director, it is his mandate to determine the direction of the institute. If not him, who exactly do you suppose should it be?There's no evidence that he isn't acting alone.However, if for some idiotic reason a group of people at BYU made the decision to can Dan in this manner, and are simultaneously not doing anything about the leaking to anti-Mormons, then it's even more egregious.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 There's no evidence that he isn't acting alone.However, if for some idiotic reason a group of people at BYU made the decision to can Dan in this manner, and are simultaneously not doing anything about the leaking to anti-Mormons, then it's even more egregious.There was only this in Stack's article:Bradford declined to speak to The Salt Lake Tribune, but BYU spokesman Joe Hadfield confirmed that the institute is changing course.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 There was only this in Stack's article:Not very encouraging.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Not even close. I happen to believe that the end doesn't justify the means. Society is rife with examples of people who act like Bradford, and anyone who wants to open their mind a bit would see that.And I agree that the mole issue is perhaps just as troubling, and needs to be addressed quickly.The question is what do we now know that we didn't know before? Think about it. If you get stumped and need a little help in understanding the implications of what has happened over the course of the past week, just wander over to the apostate message board and read what they have said and will yet be saying about it. I guarantee you, they understood perfectly well what the stakes were. And they know precisely what's been won.the narrator [Loyd Ericson, editor of the Claremont Mormon Studies Journal]:I doubt that The Brethren™ had much to do with pushing Peterson out. FARMS used to be the darling of Mormon scholarship, but has fallen into irrelevance with the rise of Mormon studies as a growing scholarly field. The Maxwell Institute--and especially the Review--had become a joke among many, if not most, Mormon studies scholars. (That the Review was newly Christian The Mormon Studies Review was especially frustrating to many who wished to see Mormon studies recognized as a genuine academic field and not merely a cover for apologetics). Bradford and some of his colleagues at the MI were quite aware of this and wanted to take the MI away from petty apologetics and into contemporary scholarly and academic dialogue. As long as Peterson was heading the MSR, it would be a hindrance to this goal. As such, Peterson had to go in order to legitimize the MI.The Dehlin fiasco was merely, perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back. If it had not happened, Peterson would have been let go eventually either way.LinkAristotle Smith:The liberals have won. There has been a ongoing fight between more liberal Mormons who populate the bloggernacle vs. the more conservative Mormons who populate discussion boards and FARMS/NAMIRS for the heart and soul of Internet Mormons. DCP's firing is a clear indication that the former group has won, and my guess is they have won decisively. Someone sympathetic to their cause will be appointed to helm NAMIRS and edit the Mormon Studies Review (formerly known as FARMS Review of Books). The change in journal name clearly signals the change in direction. NAMIRS will become a clearinghouse for Mormon Studies and will very quickly jettison the old style FARMS Mopologetics. This group will be more politically correct and academically respectable and I predict their Mormon Studies Review will be seen as academically respectable within the next five years, at least among those who care about Mormon Studies, which is something the new NAMIRS crew is sure to wildly overestimate.... in pursuit of academic respectability NAMIRS will not do any apologetics. Contributing further to the lack of desire to do apologetics will be the fact that the new NAMIRS crew will likely be mostly sympathetic to secular criticisms of LDS history and doctrine. Thus they won't see any need to respond to things they largely agree with. Link (emphasis mine)Now do you see it, my friends? Now? Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver 1
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The question is what do we now know that we didn't know before? Think about it. If you get stumped and need a little help in understanding the implications of what has happened over the course of the past week, just wander over to the apostate message board and read what they have said and will yet be saying about it. I guarantee you, they understood perfectly well what the stakes were. And they know precisely what's been won.Now do you see it, my friends? Now?Yes I have seen it almost from the first post on this but what is even more troubling to me and I ask you now was there a general authority protecting Dehlin to the extent that he would be a party to something like this?
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Yes I have seen it almost from the first post on this but what is even more troubling to me and I ask you now was there a general authority protecting Dehlin to the extent that he would be a party to something like this?From what I understand, Dehlin is greatly overstating the nature of the influence exerted by a general authority to have Greg's paper censored, just as the MDB propaganda piece about me had little real influence in my paper being censored last year. They are merely examples of the convenient, propitious excuses exploited by managers and bureaucrats and party members throughout history to mask true motivations.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 From what I understand, Dehlin is greatly overstating the nature of the influence exerted by a general authority to have Greg's paper censored, just as the MDB propaganda piece about me had little real influence in my paper being censored last year. They are merely examples of the convenient, propitious excuses exploited by managers and bureaucrats and party members throughout history to mask true motivations.Glad to hear that it is not likely that any general authority would be playing politics to run interference for the liberal faction. I don't doubt that it occasionally happens but would not like to see it at this level. That would cause some great concern.
KevinG Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 How is it legally actionable? I don't see it.Leaking private correspondence or performance information to a third party. Like I said "If"
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 On days like these I just love to sit back and think "thank goodness I am not a mod!"Perhaps thou doth protest too much! ;-)
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Perhaps thou doth protest too much! ;-)Don't be an idiot. This is one thing I will never 'protest too much'. My life began again when I stopped being a mod. Edited June 23, 2012 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Now do you see it, my friends? Now?Thanks. Sometimes you just want to shake people.
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Don't be an idiot. This is one thing I will never 'protest too much'. My life began again when I stopped being a mod. I know, but we have to keep the rumor going don't we?
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I know, but we have to keep the rumor going don't we? So you're the one!
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I know, but we have to keep the rumor going don't we? Golly. I didn't know that about Cal...
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 :rofl: Oh, wait. You weren't serious??Does anyone know how to retract e-mails, by any chance?
Teancum Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I respectfully request the moderators to not permit these off-topic posts on this thread. I don't want to see another round of the "Schryver is a Vulgar Misogynist" talking points happening on this thread. My response, as ever, is as follows:I simply responded to Pahoran's twisted reference to this event and I see a few pages up from your pleading above that you reference this as well. If you don't want it the embarassing situation up stop bringing it up ( as if you were being persecuted) and request your friends to do the same.
SeattleGhostWriter Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Honestly, I never fully understood why FARMS changed over to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and was a bit taken back when I tried to go to the FARMS website years ago - only to be directed toward the MI Website. I never investigated as to why this occurred, just accepted it and enjoyed most of the articles that came out of the Maxwell Institute. Having relied on both MI and FAIR, I came to a greater appreciation for the nature of modern Mormon Apologetics. Especially since one of the Articles published at MI by Russell Ball on 3 Nephi and the Destruction recorded helped bring me out of Apostasy and reconsidering the evidence of the Church and the Book of Mormon.Now, I am left wondering if there is going to be a new direction in Mormon Apologetics to counter the onslaught of LDS Criticism and Anti-Mormon Sentiment. It seems that a very minute group of our Critics are applauding this move and hope to see an end to "Mopologetics". In reality, if there is a demise of "Mopologetics" where will that leave our critics when the song and dance and celebritory victory is experienced? They would no longer have anything to complain about and the Anti-Mopologists would become just as dead and silent as they hope their nemesis Mopologetics would become.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Honestly, I never fully understood why FARMS changed over to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and was a bit taken back when I tried to go to the FARMS website years ago - only to be directed toward the MI Website. I never investigated as to why this occurred, just accepted it and enjoyed most of the articles that came out of the Maxwell Institute. Having relied on both MI and FAIR, I came to a greater appreciation for the nature of modern Mormon Apologetics. Especially since one of the Articles published at MI by Russell Ball on 3 Nephi and the Destruction recorded helped bring me out of Apostasy and reconsidering the evidence of the Church and the Book of Mormon.Now, I am left wondering if there is going to be a new direction in Mormon Apologetics to counter the onslaught of LDS Criticism and Anti-Mormon Sentiment. It seems that a very minute group of our Critics are applauding this move and hope to see an end to "Mopologetics". In reality, if there is a demise of "Mopologetics" where will that leave our critics when the song and dance and celebritory victory is experienced? They would no longer have anything to complain about and the Anti-Mopologists would become just as dead and silent as they hope their nemesis Mopologetics would become.They would simply turn their unrestrained savagery on the Church and the restored gospel.There always has to be defense of the faith, whether one chooses to call it apologetics or something else, such as advocacy. Otherwise, we're back to the condition of "uncontested slam dunks" that Elder Maxwell decried. Edited June 25, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 For insight into Gerald Bradford's position, I strongly recommend reading this. Many questions are answered.But many questions are raised.http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=19&num=1&id=640Bernard
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 For insight into Gerald Bradford's position, I strongly recommend reading this. Many questions are answered.But many questions are raised.http://mimobile.byu....19&num=1&id=640BernardInteresting article. It seems Mr. Bradford is in the wrong position; what he seems to want to function in the capacity of the Dean of Religion at BYU. There is a disconnect between the role of the Department of Religion and the Maxwell Institute. This would point to a confusion among those leaders to whom Bradford reports. This is becoming like Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby story; everytime we try to grasp it, it becomes a bigger mess. It is time for someone above Bradford to step forward and take hold of this situation. It stinks and is getting worse by the day. As someone that has contributed a relatively substantial amount to BYU, I am becoming very concerned. I will not be contacting any GA's as Dehlin is want to do ( a logical choice since I don't know the real story; another thing that others seem prepared to forgo), but answers need to be provided. I will wait for a few weeks to see what comes forward, but the story has got to be really good to clean up this litter of terrible decisions.
Recommended Posts