What motivates a man like Gerald Bradford

[_Chap]

His focus seems to be living the gospel, instead of just talking about living the gospel.

One can't live the Gospel without knowing what the Gospel requires.

Notice how bcspace didn't pay any attention to the role of the word "just" in the sentence quoted?

[_Lucifer]

Doing good to others. Who knew?

This will never catch on.

\m/

[_moksha]

The fundamental problem for many Mormons with his approach, with which I agree, is that to focus on people and avoid all but the most basic of doctrines is to lose many of those unique aspects that separates Mormonism from the rest of Christianity.

Focusing on loving God and others is the crucible of importance. The rest is verbage.

[_Kishkumen]

Focusing on loving God and others is the crucible of importance. The rest is verbage.

Indeed. Look, is this about Mormon Studies? Yes! Is it about differing views of LDS ideals? Yes!

At the BYU, one presents both cases--the academic and the gospel.

[_harmony]

Focusing on loving God and others is the crucible of importance. The rest is verbage.

Indeed. Look, is this about Mormon Studies? Yes! Is it about differing views of LDS ideals? Yes!

At the BYU, one presents both cases--the academic and the gospel.

Makes ya wonder what took them so long. I mean... 20 years? really? Surely someone figured out that the tone wasn't quite... the ideal Mormon?

[_Kishkumen]

Makes ya wonder what took them so long. I mean... 20 years? really? Surely someone figured out that the tone wasn't quite... the ideal Mormon?

It takes a long time because there are differing views. This is a religious hierarchy that squabbles and competes in the midst of an avowed ideal of unity in the Quorum. And BYU politics are also involved. FARMS was only brought into BYU in the 90s. Doubtless reassurances were made at that time, deals struck. Over time, the currents shift and cut a new path for the river. One day, a river bed becomes a puddle that evaporates. It can indeed take time for institutional developments to occur.

[_RayAgostini]

This is a religious hierarchy that squabbles and competes in the midst of an avowed ideal of unity in the Quorum....

Welcome to Kish, the anti-Mormon. Check the archives and you'll find the truth.

[_RayAgostini]

Kish and Trevor are sometimes indistinguishable, not always, but sometimes, and that's because he/they often talks to himself in two different personalities, and they overlap:

Well, enough of that. Gee ends with his version of Pascal's wager, which has already been pointed out here. I would like to add one more tidbit on this. I think that indulging in faulty reasoning and believing in things that are not true does have a human cost. When the world is calling out for effective answers to real problems, it strikes me as cavalier to the point of dangerous irresponsibility to claim that dogged adherence to falsehoods, be they erroneous scientific or religious ideas, only means something in the next world. I live in this world, and if Mormonism is not true, I would prefer that people with the IQ of a John Gee devote their attentions to worthwhile problems whose solutions will bear real fruit in the here and now.

(Emphasis added)

So you think he's interested in "better" and "gentler apologetics"? Can I sell you some land at low tide?

[_Kishkumen]

This is a religious hierarchy that squabbles and competes in the midst of an avowed ideal of unity in the Quorum....

Welcome to Kish, the anti-Mormon. Check the archives and you'll find the truth.

I am sure there are wonderful times in the Quorum. Pointing out the obvious historical fact, from the days of Brigham Young, is not "anti-Mormon." To call this anti-Mormon is to call any historical fact about the LDS Church, which shows it falling short of its laudable ideals, anti-Mormon. At that point, the term becomes useless, except to stoke prejudice against the person it is aimed at.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish and Trevor are sometimes indistinguishable, not always, but sometimes, and that's because he/they often talks to himself in two different personalities, and they overlap:

Well, enough of that. Gee ends with his version of Pascal's wager, which has already been pointed out here. I would like to add one more tidbit on this. I think that indulging in faulty reasoning and believing in things that are not true does have a human cost. When the world is calling out for effective answers to real problems, it strikes me as cavalier to the point of dangerous irresponsibility to claim that dogged adherence to falsehoods, be they erroneous scientific or religious ideas, only means something in the next world. I live in this world, and if Mormonism is not true, I would prefer that people with the IQ of a John Gee devote their attentions to worthwhile problems whose solutions will bear real fruit in the here and now.

(Emphasis added)

So you think he's interested in "better" and "gentler apologetics"? Can I sell you some land at low tide?

Yes, you can comb through all the old material to find such nuggets. The next question is, how does Trevor feel about this today? I would not have written this today, because it does not reflect my thinking today. I am willing to say that I have been wrong about many things, both in the substance of my writing, and in the way I expressed myself.

As I said elsewhere recently, I am a work in progress, an insignificant, but human, rough stone rolling. And yes, I am interested in a better and gentler apologetics. Those who really know me, as I am today, do not doubt it. Those who comb the archives to find every moment I may have said something harsh or silly, can continue to believe as they like.

And I do get the point of what you are doing. But there is a big difference between writing something stupid and then admitting it was stupid, and writing something stupid and defending it to the bitter end.