New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[Johnnie Cake]

No surprise...Yet another thread where the posters of MD&D choose to attack the person who wrote the paper on Historical and Doctrinal issues...despite the OP's specific request that we not do so...instead of arguing the merits of the paper itself.  Honestly this ad hominem gets old.

If believers took note of Bill Reel's approach...which I personally feel is a more honest and reasoned approach than the one that the church itself has chosen to take...you might learn something.  At least his approach is honest.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No surprise...Yet another thread where the posters of MD&D choose to attack the person who wrote the paper on Historical and Doctrinal issues...despite the OP's specific request that we not do so...instead of arguing the merits of the paper itself.  Honestly this ad hominem gets old.

If believers took note of Bill Reel's approach...which I personally feel is a more honest and reasoned approach than the one that the church itself has chosen to take...you might learn something.  At least his approach is honest.

Thank you Johnnie

Edited May 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Apologetic view? Progressive view? Critic view? Really?

It is impossible to get past that. Anything with a goal to present complicated issues by dividing them up into broad brush stereotypes rather than presenting data and conclusions is highly suspect. 

I'm surprised you have said this Juliann....Have you read the Missionary Discussions recently?

[DBMormon]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm surprised you have said this Juliann....Have you read the Missionary Discussions recently?

now thats funny

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Thank you Johnnie

It probably doesn't help you in the eyes of the MD&D posters for me to side with you Bill....and for that I am sorry....I'm probably the most hated and maligned poster on MD&D...but this continued habit of attacking posters instead of their argument does get rather old.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It probably doesn't help you in the eyes of the MD&D posters for me to side with you Bill....and for that I am sorry....I'm probably the most hated and maligned poster on MD&D...but this continued habit of attacking posters instead of their argument does get rather old.

I thought Calm's edited post at the beginning was rather focused on the material rather than Bill - I know your team wants to make it only about Bill and ignore any actual critiques - why is that? Bill, why not actually address Calm's comments?  They continue to be ignored and a number of individuals want to present that it is about you, Bill, rather than the material itself.  

Gads, do any of you hear yourself or ever read your comments?  The comments most often come across as self-centered whining and patting oneself on the back.  

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm surprised you have said this Juliann....Have you read the Missionary Discussions recently?

 The missionary lessons have always claimed to do exactly what Bill is doing so it is the perfect comparison.   

 

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It probably doesn't help you in the eyes of the MD&D posters for me to side with you Bill....and for that I am sorry....I'm probably the most hated and maligned poster on MD&D...but this continued habit of attacking posters instead of their argument does get rather old.

Yet here you are. 

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No surprise...Yet another thread where the posters of MD&D choose to attack the person who wrote the paper on Historical and Doctrinal issues...despite the OP's specific request that we not do so...instead of arguing the merits of the paper itself.  Honestly this ad hominem gets old.

If believers took note of Bill Reel's approach...which I personally feel is a more honest and reasoned approach than the one that the church itself has chosen to take...you might learn something.  At least his approach is honest.

What gets old is people who don't have a clue what ad hominem means.

But we do appreciate your primal need to teach us stupid unreasonable Mormons and limit our dishonesty.  

 

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It probably doesn't help you in the eyes of the MD&D posters for me to side with you Bill....and for that I am sorry....I'm probably the most hated and maligned poster on MD&D...but this continued habit of attacking posters instead of their argument does get rather old.

 

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Gads, do any of you hear yourself or ever read your comments?  The comments most often come across as self-centered whining and patting oneself on the back.

 

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

What gets old is people who don't have a clue what ad hominem means.

But we do appreciate your primal need to teach us stupid unreasonable Mormons and limit our dishonesty.

 

Seriously, can we not manage to discuss any doctrine and history without taking personal digs at each other?  Seems like that's all that's on every thread lately.  It's getting kind of old.
It doesn't matter what side of an issue is presented, the response seems to be a dig a the person disagreed with instead of addressing the issues.
(Look, now you've got me board nannying...going to get myself in trouble with the Mods).
 

• 3 Nephi 11:29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
  30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

Edited May 1, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

No one has apparently yet quoted my edited analysis of Reel's article providing a few specific examples of problems.  Instead we get claims the person is attacked rather than his work addressed.  Even my unedited comment was about the nature of his past work, with an example given, not the man.

I appreciate Hope's engagement with other posts I made.  Perhaps someone else did something besides tell me I was attacking Reel rather than his work, I am sorry if I have forgotten.  Hopefully I responded when I first read it even if I have forgotten already. 45 minutes of sleep last night plays havoc with my memory.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No surprise...Yet another thread where the posters of MD&D choose to attack the person who wrote the paper on Historical and Doctrinal issues...despite the OP's specific request that we not do so...instead of arguing the merits of the paper itself.  Honestly this ad hominem gets old.

If believers took note of Bill Reel's approach...which I personally feel is a more honest and reasoned approach than the one that the church itself has chosen to take...you might learn something.  At least his approach is honest.

So are you just going to rag on the posters here or did you read the document and have something to say about it?

 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for posting this HHW!  I'm reading through it right now and I think it's excellent and balanced (love the variety of resources for the reader to continue with if they want to research a topic further).

There's new material here too (at least for me) and I'm finding it to be extremely interesting.

I tend to agree with you JulieM.  This type of middle ground approach is what I feel will most help the church move forward and deal with its problematic history,

[MormonVideoGame]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 Honestly this ad hominem gets old.

In defense of Calm, sometimes it is necessary to point to the lack of credibility of someone. Real research requires hundreds or thousands of hours, time that most of us don't have.  I am not saying Bill Reel shouldn't be trusted, he sounds honest in my opinion, but instead of pulling the "ad hominem" card, why not give us reasons why he is a credible researcher?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

No one has apparently yet quoted my edited analysis of Reel's article providing a few specific examples of problems.  Instead we get claims the person is attacked rather than his work addressed.

I just defended you.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I thought Calm's edited post at the beginning was rather focused on the material rather than Bill - I know your team wants to make it only about Bill and ignore any actual critiques - why is that? Bill, why not actually address Calm's comments?  They continue to be ignored and a number of individuals want to present that it is about you, Bill, rather than the material itself.  

Gads, do any of you hear yourself or ever read your comments?  The comments most often come across as self-centered whining and patting oneself on the back.  

So now we're divided into different teams?

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

What gets old is people who don't have a clue what ad hominem means.

But we do appreciate your primal need to teach us stupid unreasonable Mormons and limit our dishonesty.  

 

Your words not mine...nor would I ever use those words against a fellow MD&D poster

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So are you just going to rag on the posters here or did you read the document and have something to say about it?

 

Did you even read what I said in the second paragraph of the quote of mine you just posted?

Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

In defense of Calm, sometimes it is necessary to point to the lack of credibility of someone. Real research requires hundreds or thousands of hours, time that most of us don't have.  I am not saying Bill Reel shouldn't be trusted, he sounds honest in my opinion, but instead of pulling the "ad hominem" card, why not give us reasons why he is a credible researcher?

I just defended you.  

 I appreciate that.

[rodheadlee]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you even read what I said in the second paragraph of mine you just quoted?

Yeah, you said Bill was more honest than the Church. Which is basically ad hominem, kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, you said Bill was more honest than the Church. Which is basically ad hominem, kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

I stand by what I said...the church is on the record for admitting that they have made mistakes...ad hominem is to use personal attacks to discredit the argument of an individual...not an organization plus I haven't attacked the church nor any argument they've presented here...so I honestly don't know what you're talking about 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I tend to agree with you JulieM.  This type of middle ground approach is what I feel will most help the church move forward and deal with its problematic history,

The history isn't necessarily problematic.
Whether the problem is with the history or with how people handle the history require two different approaches.

[6EQUJ5]

I have always seen Bill as a genuine and sincere guy.  Misguided?  Yeah, but his heart is in the right place.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It probably doesn't help you in the eyes of the MD&D posters for me to side with you Bill....and for that I am sorry....I'm probably the most hated and maligned poster on MD&D...but this continued habit of attacking posters instead of their argument does get rather old.

 

4 hours ago, juliann said:

What gets old is people who don't have a clue what ad hominem means.

But we do appreciate your primal need to teach us stupid unreasonable Mormons and limit our dishonesty.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I stand by what I said...the church is on the record for admitting that they have made mistakes...ad hominem is to use personal attacks to discredit the argument of an individual...not an organization plus I haven't attacked the church nor any argument they've presented here...so I honestly don't know what you're talking about 

Calm did not make ad hominem attacks against Bill. She criticized the content of his paper at some length actually. The most "ad hominem" it got was to point to this effort and his historical  pieces to dismember his credibility. While I'm sure that feels kind of personal, it definitely is not ad hominem attacks. It is exactly what HJW asked for - criticism of the paper and suggestions for improvement. Just because DB feels it stings doesn't make it ad hominem. I am with Juliann. I feel DB just wants us to do his editing for him. Nevertheless, I don't see a whole lot of value in this effort. For it to have value, it invariably will have to get into a lot more detail than I think DB wants at this point. In this regard I believe that FAIR for instance is much more useful. i honestly feel that DB wants something that serves his progressive viewpoint as the preferential viewpoint in the end - maybe I'm wrong - I hope I'm wrong - but I feel that is the driving impetus for this effort so far. If I get to where I don't feel this way, I think Bill will have gotten closer to his stated purpose for this paper. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I have always seen Bill as a genuine and sincere guy.  Misguided?  Yeah, but his heart is in the right place.

I believe the same thing.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

to point to this effort and his historical  pieces to dismember his credibility....

My intent was not to dismember his credibility, but to present reasons including past work to be cautious about his current conclusions and his paraphrases/summaries (iow check originals for yourself, which is always wise, but a necessity with many and in this case, let believers of all stripes as well as critics tell their own story).

I find him quite credible for relating certain stories, less capable of keeping bias from creating unintentional misrepresentations in other cases.

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

 

Calm did not make ad hominem attacks against Bill. She criticized the content of his paper at some length actually. The most "ad hominem" it got was to point to this effort and his historical  pieces to dismember his credibility. While I'm sure that feels kind of personal, it definitely is not ad hominem attacks. It is exactly what HJW asked for - criticism of the paper and suggestions for improvement. Just because DB feels it stings doesn't make it ad hominem. I am with Juliann. I feel DB just wants us to do his editing for him. Nevertheless, I don't see a whole lot of value in this effort. For it to have value, it invariably will have to get into a lot more detail than I think DB wants at this point. In this regard I believe that FAIR for instance is much more useful. i honestly feel that DB wants something that serves his progressive viewpoint as the preferential viewpoint in the end - maybe I'm wrong - I hope I'm wrong - but I feel that is the driving impetus for this effort so far. If I get to where I don't feel this way, I think Bill will have gotten closer to his stated purpose for this paper. 

My post was not directed at any single poster but was a general statement at the disintegrating tone of this thread and the boards personal attacks directed towards Bill Reel