Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I consider most of this as clarification. Not hard code, in your face apologetics.Anything that is written in defense of a position is apologetics. You need to add qualifiers specifying what you mean to avoid confusion.
why me Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I believe this is the true that apologetics (as practiced by the old MI) did nothing to enhance BYU's or the Church's reputation. In fact, I think the converse could be argued. Anyway, the die has been cast, and BYU has moved on. BYU and the church is no longer in the apologetics business.Actually, this is not so. The essays are a case in point and also the JSP. Both give the church's point of view to counter the critics. However, now that the church is involved in apologetics, there would be no need for the old MI. And this is the difference between the lds church and the catholics. The catholic church needs catholic answers to defend it. The lds church is now defending itself. Sidebar to save posts: Since Dan left, I forgot all about the maxwell institute. Is it doing anything these days? Edited September 10, 2015 by why me
stemelbow Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 No, you are missing the point. Bradford wasn't the decision maker here. He was merely the messenger. Yes, he could have delivered the "you're fired!" message better (Likewise, the previous regime could have handled the changes with a lot more class). But be that as it may, what "angered a good portion of our audience" and "made enemies of out our former faithful employees" was the decision to get out of the apologetics business in the first place. That decision shouldn't be blamed on Bradford because Bradford didn't make that decision. It's not that I'm missing the point. It's that I'm disagreeing with you. The problem was not getting out of apologetics. the problem is with how it was handled, which appears to be under the direction of Bradford. I"d think Dan Peterson, for instance, might be disappointed if all Bradford did was get out of apologetics but he wouldn't feel personally disrespected if it was handled with some modicum of professionalism. It's clear to me the way it was handled was the problem far moreso than getting out of apologetics. 1
Bob Crockett Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Hey, Bob, you need to quit casting shadows at Blair. He is a great guy, open and easy to talk to. Indeed, it looks as though the only way a secular Mormon Studies program can get into BYU is through the back door. Only the Bradford could have done it, all the while being comforted by the very right-wing Religious Education people at BYU who were the natural enemies of FARMS. Conquest by misdirection. Brilliant !! I think it is "casting aspersions." I'll try to suspend judgment.
ERayR Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 He has stoically taken it without comment. Taking the criticism without explaining himself is evidence that he’d rather be hated and misunderstood than allow the people above him to be hated. Such loyalty really should be commended. Approached in the proper manner, with some respect for those he was deposing, there need not have been any "hatred or misunderstanding". It was the bull in a china shop process that caused the backlash and criticism. 3
diahman Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Approached in the proper manner, with some respect for those he was deposing, there need not have been any "hatred or misunderstanding". It was the bull in a china shop process that caused the backlash and criticism. Out of curiosity, how would "the proper manner" of "deposing" Dan have looked?
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Out of curiosity, how would "the proper manner" of "deposing" Dan have looked? Doing it in person might have helped. That said, we only have one side of the story, and I have no idea what the relationship between Dan and Jerry was leading up to Dan's dismissal. I'm sure there is a lot we will never know about it. Still, firing someone by email kind of sucks, to put it mildly. 3
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Does anyone else find it odd that just a couple of months ago, Hamblin was assuring Philip Jenkins that BYU took Ancient Book of Mormon Studies so seriously that it integrated it into several disciplines, such as anthropology, archaeology, and religious education. Now he's complaining that ABMS has been systematically banished from campus over the last 30 years. Which is it?
Analytics Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Does anyone else find it odd that just a couple of months ago, Hamblin was assuring Philip Jenkins that BYU took Ancient Book of Mormon Studies so seriously that it integrated it into several disciplines, such as anthropology, archaeology, and religious education. Now he's complaining that ABMS has been systematically banished from campus over the last 30 years. Which is it? It depends upon which argument you are trying to win.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Does anyone else find it odd that just a couple of months ago, Hamblin was assuring Philip Jenkins that BYU took Ancient Book of Mormon Studies so seriously that it integrated it into several disciplines, such as anthropology, archaeology, and religious education. Now he's complaining that ABMS has been systematically banished from campus over the last 30 years. Which is it? Bill didn't nuance his description?
Robert F. Smith Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 I think it is "casting aspersions." I'll try to suspend judgment.No, I was remembering a favorite Billy Joel lyric, "throw shadows at you," with a similar meaning, as in this song:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI3MwwWYC3Q .
Recommended Posts