Uncle Dale wrote:Either I'm totally missing their subtle slings and arrows -- or others are imagining them.
Comments?
Dale R. Broadhurst
The Thinking Mormon's Anti-Mormon
Hi there, Dale. For one thing, I think your tongue-in-cheek "title" (i.e., "The Thinking Mormon's Anti-Mormon") is actually pretty accurate. You aren't seen as a threat to "the cause" at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your main "anti-Mormon" area of study the Spalding Theory? If so, DCP has summarily dismissed it is "silly nonsense," or something to that effect. The bottom line is that the apologists aren't the least bit worried about the Spalding theory affecting anyone's testimony. They are far more concerned---as is probably obvious---with critiques aimed at the Book of Abraham, ala Metcalfe's work.
Also: you've never been LDS, right? Folks like Infymus, Metcalfe, Steve Benson, and Mike Quinn all *were* LDS at one time, so apologists treat them with a lot more hostility and venom. Finally: you tend to be a very calm poster. Even if you were being provoked, I rather doubt that you'd finally wind up using profanity, and thus the apologists don't have that sort of "dirt" to sling at you.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14