Bob Crockett defends Bradford

[_lulu]

1. Apologetics doesn't necessarily mean Danite nastiness, Crockett seems to think that they equal each other.

2. Everybody's different, but for me, if you support an institution you support it. Saying that you support it but you are going to stop giving it money is the sort of thing that goes against my grain. By hey, I recognize that it's "my" grain and not someone else's. And it is Crockett's money and not mine.

lulu - scared sh!tl@$$ that he's in agreement with why me

[_Kishkumen]

1. Apologetics doesn't necessarily mean Danite nastiness, Crockett seems to think that they equal each other.

2. Everybody's different, but for me, if you support an institution you support it. Saying that you support it but you are going to stop giving it money is the sort of thing that goes against my grain. By hey, I recognize that it's "my" grain and not someone else's. And it is Crockett's money and not mine.

lulu - scared sh!tl@$$ that he's in agreement with why me

1. Look at Bob's own writing. He can be pretty rough. He admits that he enjoys reading and writing "rants."

2. MI does more than apologetics. Bob, however, was interested in supporting the apologetics. With Daniel gone from the Review, there may be no point in sending money to MI in support of apologetics.

[_lulu]

1. Apologetics doesn't necessarily mean Danite nastiness, Crockett seems to think that they equal each other.

2. Everybody's different, but for me, if you support an institution you support it. Saying that you support it but you are going to stop giving it money is the sort of thing that goes against my grain. By hey, I recognize that it's "my" grain and not someone else's. And it is Crockett's money and not mine.

lulu - scared sh!tl@$$ that he's in agreement with why me

1. Look at Bob's own writing. He can be pretty rough. He admits that he enjoys reading and writing "rants."

2. MI does more than apologetics. Bob, however, was interested in supporting the apologetics. With Daniel gone from the Review, there may be no point in sending money to MI in support of apologetics.

So Crockett will only fund nastiness?

lulu - gaining insights about himself on MD

[_Eric]

The OP might consider changing the title of this thread.

Given what we know about Bob Crockett, it sort of implies that Bradford might be involved in some cult that is being sued over the sexual abuse of a child.

http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/2 ... s.html?m=1

[_Kevin Graham]

Kudos to you Bob.

Not only for defending Bradford, but for being honest enough to admit that you enjoy the kind of apologetic sniping that the Old Guard is trying to maintain. At least you're honest and not in denial, like the William Schryvers who can never allow themselves to admit their side has done anything wrong.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Kudos to you Bob.

Let me, too, jump on the Bob-bandwagon. Well done and well said!

[_CaliforniaKid]

The emails repeatedly refer to the fact that the Mormon Studies Review had been delayed for several months, and Dan's latest draft of the issue was not ready for publication. I wonder if this means Dan refused to change the issue after Bradford ordered him to pull the Dehlin article. In that case, Bradford's action would be perfectly understandable.

I can understand why Bradford has avoided making a public statement about this whole affair, since he doesn't want to play in the mud, and a man in his position really doesn't have to explain his action to anyone. However, it appears that Bradford is going to lose the war of public opinion-- and probably a bunch of donors-- if he doesn't give his side of the story. I seriously doubt that Bradford wants to put an end to all apologetics. I expect JBMORS and MSR will remain faith-affirming, but simply will no longer engage in direct polemics or controversy with particular critics. That, frankly, is likely to be a more productive apologetic model anyway. In allowing Hamblin and others to define his agenda for the public, he's allowing any such nuance to be lost and ignored.

[_Fence Sitter]

At the beginning of Hamblin's post he explains that he has chosen to post on the other forum "In order to provide a reality check and quell some of the more wild and brazen speculations of apostates and anti-Mormons on the fringes of Mormondom". 22 pages later what we see is that wild and brazen speculation is okay as long it is not from apostates and anti-Mormons.

[_Kishkumen]

I can understand why Bradford has avoided making a public statement about this whole affair, since he doesn't want to play in the mud, and a man in his position really doesn't have to explain his action to anyone. However, it appears that Bradford is going to lose the war of public opinion-- and probably a bunch of donors-- if he doesn't give his side of the story. I seriously doubt that Bradford wants to put an end to all apologetics. I expect JBMORS and MSR will remain faith-affirming, but simply will no longer engage in direct polemics or controversy with particular critics. That, frankly, is likely to be a more productive apologetic model anyway. In allowing Hamblin and others to define his agenda for the public, he's allowing any such nuance to be lost and ignored.

Maybe a certain thoughtful outsider in Utah should drop by for a chat over caffeine-free diet Coke.

[_Kishkumen]

22 pages later what we see is that wild and brazen speculation is okay as long it is not from apostates and anti-Mormons.

When has that not been the case?