ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Is it a possibility that the church wants all of the apologetics to stop and just tell it like it is. Why are we now hearing so much about the JS Papers? There is alot there, is anyone apologising for any of it? Maybe they are aware that some things in the church were man made and they want to get on with the business of making this church entirely Christ centered. I think many in the 15 might have the same view that you think some anti's have. The truth exposed out in the light where it's able to free some of the so called antis, the antis that can't leave the church alone. The majority of antis are former faithful LDS to nth degree. It's the only way it's going to work eventually. If we have truth why do we need to apologise for it?Apologetic s is telling it like it is.
Teancum Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 The question also is who gets to determine which course is right and which defenses are good or not? The defenders, themselves, or the critics? As a long-time defender, I have serious doubts about whether the critics in general have a correct grasp of the restored gospel being defended, let alone what is a good defense or attack.Even still, it seems that some critics have been persuasive with some once defenders and admisinstrators. But, I think that says more about the once defenders and administrators than it does the critics. At least this is how I see it. To each there own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Well determining what is and is not a good and proper defense will be more in the eye of the beholder. I am watching much of the rhetoric on the topic of this thread from both sides. Being a miserable luke warm NOM type that I am these days it is intriguing for me to watch this, At least it allows me a more neutral stance, I hope. And it is even more so from those that are polar opposites. I have puzzled a long time over some of Dan Peterson's most ardent and hyperbolic critics. I just have not ever seen the man the way they do even though I don't always agree with him. Sure he can be biting on message boards at times. But he is witty and funny too. Most of what I have read by him in official written apologetic sources have seemed to get the the meat of the issue. Shoddy scholarship? I don't think so really. Cowardly? Well I think anyone who was as badgered as Dan was some message boards would be foolish to continue to post there. I often wonder why he was so active in the message board forum.My take is both side over state their position. For example, I just read a FAIR blog on this topic. I think the author way overstated things on the Dehlin side and is trying to control the narrative as much as he thinks Dehlin and others critical of the Church are. And I think he gets some things wrong about the letters, emails, etc. Who know what as far as the high ups in the Church being involved? I think it is all speculation. Mine is I doubt Bradford acted alone. How far up his decision goes I have no idea at all. Nor do I care. I think this will all blow over really. Dehlin will continue his out reach to disaffected members in the way he does it-good or bad. Dan and others will continue their apologetics in some other forum-good or bad. How much impact his all has on the majority of Church members? I am not sure about that either. Likely little. Even now very few people in my ward or stake know who Dan Peterson is, what FARMS was or what the Maxwell Institute does now. They no little to nothing about Mormon Stories. They mostly just try to be good Latter-day Saints. 1
Teancum Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Ever been to an anti-Mormon meeting where they got things roused up to a fever pitch about "them Mormons"?I have. I think Scott is spot on.Nope I never have. But I have posted on some critical boards. Some people can be savages. Some are here too. But most are not here or there really.
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 25, 2012 I still want to know how anti-Mormons took over an institute named after Neal Maxwell.Lest anyone think this is too dramatic, think about it.It is clear that the present leadership of the Maxwell institute, or whatever it is to be called, helped, or were aware of, or allowed, or were unable to prevent, confidential documents from being released to sources unquestionably hostile to both Doc Peterson and the church.Some threads here have called this "inter-office politics"! To call it that is to ignore how serious a breach of integrity this is for an organization which now is supposed to be known for academic integrity, and looking at all sides of an issue.From this evidence, clearly SOMEONE there is biased toward the "anti-Mormon" side.The facts are that someone in the upper echelons of the organization leaked those documents deliberately, and it seems that no one cares.How we are expected now to trust the academic integrity of an organization that would do that?? If they did that, they could lie about data, they could fabricate evidence, they could do about anything they wanted.HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TRUST THESE PEOPLE'S WORD FOR ANYTHING?And how is that representative of a university that supposedly espouses the gospel of Jesus Christ? It turns BYU into a joke, and the institute itself into a worse joke. They have fatally undermined their own integrity. 5
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Is it a possibility that the church wants all of the apologetics to stop and just tell it like it is. Why are we now hearing so much about the JS Papers? There is alot there, is anyone apologising for any of it? Maybe they are aware that some things in the church were man made and they want to get on with the business of making this church entirely Christ centered. I think many in the 15 might have the same view that you think some anti's have. The truth exposed out in the light where it's able to free some of the so called antis, the antis that can't leave the church alone. The majority of antis are former faithful LDS to nth degree. It's the only way it's going to work eventually. If we have truth why do we need to apologise for it?You appear to be unacquainted with the term "apologetics". It has nothing to do with apologizing for anything. Just google the word.
CASteinman Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I still want to know how anti-Mormons took over an institute named after Neal Maxwell.Funny question. Don't think its quite that bad, but there are obviously traitors and liars in the midst.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Funny question. Don't think its quite that bad, but there are obviously traitors and liars in the midst.See post 505 and then tell me if that changes anything.With liars and traitors, and obvious biases, will you read what they publish?
Tacenda Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 You appear to be unacquainted with the term "apologetics". It has nothing to do with apologizing for anything. Just google the word.Ok I will, tail between my legs.
ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Funny question. Don't think its quite that bad, but there are obviously traitors and liars in the midst.No, hold on for a minute. Sit back from your keyboard, flex your fingers and think about it for at least 5 minutes. mfbukowski, is absolutely right. I just don't think he covered it all. With the suppose Dehlin connection into the ranks of the GA's they have managed to cast mud on that too. Whether or not Dehlin has someone from those ranksactually protecting him is irrelevant, They have made it seem so, No mfbukowski is right. Not the first time in church history it has happened.
CASteinman Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 See post 505 and then tell me if that changes anything.With liars and traitors, and obvious biases, will you read what they publish?Oh.. I don't put incompetent management in the same boat with rebellion and trickery. As for trust -- well I am not sure that is an issue, as it seems like their goal and direction is to produce dry academic stuff for the erudite world, unrelated to apologetics. Even if I were to trust it, I would not probably read it.
ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Oh.. I don't put incompetent management in the same boat with rebellion and trickery. As for trust -- well I am not sure that is an issue, as it seems like their goal and direction is to produce dry academic stuff for the erudite world, unrelated to apologetics. Even if I were to trust it, I would not probably read it.And neutralize the effectiveness of MI
CASteinman Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 And neutralize the effectiveness of MIWell, yes, but again I do not consider incompetence, lack of foresight and an overall dryness in the air to be the same thing as apostasy.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) You appear to be unacquainted with the term "apologetics". It has nothing to do with apologizing for anything. Just google the word.I'll help out here. Apologetics is a Greek term that means "defense," in this case, defense of the faith of the Latter-day Saints against attacks from antagonists and critics. It means almost the opposite of what people think of as "apologizing" for something. In my teen years, there was a popular novel and movie called "Love Story." A catch phrase from it was "Love means never having to say you're sorry." We could adapt that and say apologetics does not mean having to say you're sorry. Edited June 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Well, yes, but again I do not consider incompetence, lack of foresight and an overall dryness in the air to be the same thing as apostasy.It is hard to fathom such incompetence at that level but then I seen some things before that make it a distinct possibility.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Oh.. I don't put incompetent management in the same boat with rebellion and trickery. I agree totally. That's why what they did was not just "incompetent management"
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 It is hard to fathom such incompetence at that level but then I seen some things before that make it a distinct possibility.But to leak it to who Peterson calls his "malevolent stalker"?? That is beyond incompetence. Why exactly to that person? The point is that it appears to be a several year long campaign to set Peterson up for the fall through continued harassment on the level that would cause anyone to react. When he did, it was deliberately twisted into making him look unreasonable and therefore incompetent.
wenglund Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 ...They mostly just try to be good Latter-day Saints....and that, my friend, is what it is all about! [thumbs up]Thanks, -Wade Englund-
ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 But to leak it to who Peterson calls his "malevolent stalker"?? That is beyond incompetence. Why exactly to that person?The point is that it appears to be a several year long campaign to set Peterson up for the fall through continued harassment on the level that would cause anyone to react. When he did, it was deliberately twisted into making him look unreasonable and therefore incompetent.I agree with completely(see my prior posts. I was just saying I could fathom such incompetence not that I believe it was. On Bradford's part maybe but somebody else is in that office who is a traitor to his employer and his professed church. 1
Calm Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 But to leak it to who Peterson calls his "malevolent stalker"?? That is beyond incompetence. Why exactly to that person?I have not been paying attention to that side of things. Was it actually leaked to him or did he receive it second or thirdhand like Dehlin received information about Greg Smith's article (as demonstrated by his report of an email from a friend passing on what his friend who was at the MI reported)? Is it known for sure it went directly to him?
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I have not been paying attention to that side of things. Was it actually leaked to him or did he receive it second or thirdhand like Dehlin received information about Greg Smith's article (as demonstrated by his report of an email from a friend passing on what his friend who was at the MI reported)? Is it known for sure it went directly to him?YES! That is what I have been trying to get people to notice.That is what he said at the trailer park, but of course he is a known liar so who knows. It appears from what Dan posted that this was the case.Edited to add:For the record, I did write the response that has been leaked. At least, I assume that what has been leaked accurately represents what I wrote from Jerusalem. I haven't really checked to see.Another thing I meant to mention: My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story, has usually been spectacularly wrong in his "intel." Some of it has been outright laughable. I think he has varying sources. One of them, I happen to know (though I don't know who s/he is), has been planting false but delicious stories with the Stalker, of the kind that the Stalker is known to love. He wolfs them down ravenously. This story, though, is more or less accurate -- though the spin that's being put upon it ranges from in the ballpark to completely absurd. Edited June 25, 2012 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) That is what he said at the trailer park...."My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story"....I had forgotten this.Okay, this definitely looks worse than the email just being passed around (which is bad enough but could have been just a lack of regard for someone's privacy) and eventually ending up there. My usual "willing to give the benefit of the doubt until more facts are known" stance has been altered by the "more facts" (though like you said, since he hasn't always been tight with the truth in the past I will leave open the possibility that my mind might change again....) Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I had forgotten this.Okay, this definitely looks worse than the email just being passed around (which is bad enough but could have been just a lack of regard for someone's privacy) and eventually ending up there. My usual "willing to give the benefit of the doubt until more facts are known" stance has been altered by the "more facts" (though like you said, since he hasn't always been tight with the truth in the past I will leave open the possibility that my mind might change again....)What is even more strange is that I am trying to find the thread at the tp in which the malev. s. posted DCP's leaked letter just before all this broke, and I can't find it. I think Will S actually linked to it, but I am sure those posts have been taken out of this thread already.
Calm Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 do a site search perhaps as in site:*****.com "some phrase of the email"?
Anakin7 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 The Biblical Archaeology Review has a book entitled : " Cancel My Subscription" which are letters to the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review about the subpar articles that were appearing in the BAR monthly periodical a # of years ago. I wonder if the same thing is going to happen at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute ?.In His Debt/GraceAnakin7LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Recommended Posts