Were DCP and other BYU Apologists Ordered to "Tone it Down"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I haven't looked for a couple of hours, but, at last glance -- I'll look again, shortly -- nobody has shown even the slightest interest in it.

Check your emails thoroughly.

Frankly, Ray, I'll be surprised if he tells you. It's obvious that his mentioning of the quip was a moment of weakness. Just look at how he's scrambling to keep it a big secret: "I'll tell you, but I'm requiring that it be kept a secret!!!" What's DCP so afraid of?

[_Ray A]

Frankly, Ray, I'll be surprised if he tells you. It's obvious that his mentioning of the quip was a moment of weakness. Just look at how he's scrambling to keep it a big secret: "I'll tell you, but I'm requiring that it be kept a secret!!!" What's DCP so afraid of?

Dr.S, I do now have DCP's version, and it's consistent with my former observation that none of the GAs have been critical of FARMS/MI, nor specifically DCP. If a GA has been critical, or asked them to "tone it down", then hard evidence would be needed to show that. It's just the harsh reality. If I were to turn around and base my views on speculation, without evidence, I wouldn't think much of my own credibility.

So my view is that there was no request for a "toning down", unless something contrary to that can be shown. In the case of England, sure, we have his very own words from which to quote. Likewise in the cases of Paulson and Hatch.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ray now knows the Secret of the Ages, the world-historical saga of The Quip.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Frankly, Ray, I'll be surprised if he tells you. It's obvious that his mentioning of the quip was a moment of weakness. Just look at how he's scrambling to keep it a big secret: "I'll tell you, but I'm requiring that it be kept a secret!!!" What's DCP so afraid of?

Dr.S, I do now have DCP's version, and it's consistent with my former observation that none of the GAs have been critical of FARMS/MI, nor specifically DCP.

Well, then, I guess that means that the "quip" came from somebody in BYU administration.

If a GA has been critical, or asked them to "tone it down", then hard evidence would be needed to show that. It's just the harsh reality. If I were to turn around and base my views on speculation, without evidence, I wouldn't think much of my own credibility.

Oh, I agree, Ray, and wonder if one day some hard evidence will turn up. But, given the apologists' caginess over this issue, and their paranoid secrecy, I would guess that the information wouldn't "come along easily," as it were.

So my view is that there was no request for a "toning down", unless something contrary to that can be shown. In the case of England, sure, we have his very own words from which to quote. Likewise in the cases of Paulson and Hatch.

Well, Ray, did the quip subtly hint that the apologists were too harsh?

Edited to add: In any case, it doesn't matter. After reflecting on this a bit, I now realize that the more interesting issue here, Mopologetic-history-wise, is the fact that the "heavy hitter" apologists apparently severed their relationship with SHIELDS right around the time FARMS joined w/ BYU.

[_Trevor]

So my view is that there was no request for a "toning down", unless something contrary to that can be shown. In the case of England, sure, we have his very own words from which to quote. Likewise in the cases of Paulson and Hatch.

I am satisfied with Ray A's assessment of the situation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So my view is that there was no request for a "toning down", unless something contrary to that can be shown. In the case of England, sure, we have his very own words from which to quote. Likewise in the cases of Paulson and Hatch.

I am satisfied with Ray A's assessment of the situation.

Me too. Stand by for a new thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Me too. Stand by for a new thread.

Second verse.
Same as the first.