Reflections on the ?????Apology Letter?????

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I certainly don't see what The Midge is grousing about. I have to agree with IHAQ, in that it appears to be a weird rameumptom-apology mean to both flatter someone while also trying to weasel his way into the next phase of the MI. Like. You could literally picture and hear a Jimmy Swaggart type, with tears streaming down his cheeks, tearfully plead into the camera while reciting these words.

Just bizarre stuff all around.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

I apologize for having such a suspicious mind, and I also apologize if this seems a little obvious to those in the know, but without revealing anything inappropriate, can someone confirm that the “author“ of the letter has personally and specifically verified that they did indeed write it?

[_Kishkumen]

I apologize for having such a suspicious mind, and I also apologize if this seems a little obvious to those in the know, but without revealing anything inappropriate, can someone confirm that the “author“ of the letter has personally and specifically verified that they did indeed write it?

I can attest to the authenticity of the letter.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thanks for those remarks, Reverend: I agree with just about everything you said. I have a couple of things to add. First, the author of this originally *wanted* it published. The letter—as I understand it—was sent as an email attachment, and the text of the email said:

"Here’s something that came out of my Easter reflections. Do you think this would be suitable for the MI Blog, or should I find somewhere else to post it?"

So: I am interested in knowing who wrote this, because that would help us to better understand the full range of intentions behind this. I will say that the two bits I omitted above were: (1) that the author apparently views DCP as “mentor”; and (2) that this person is apparently from a country other than the US.

I think that, in keeping with your observations, Revered, that whoever wrote it probably had to walk a thin line. The Mopologists have a decades-long reputation for destroying other people and getting them excommunicated. (Just look at the trepidation in David’s letter.) So, even if this author *did* think that the smears needed to stop, it probably wasn’t the case that s/he could just come out and say so. If they’d done that, Midgley et al. would have immediately accused them of being sympathetic to critics like us, which would open up the letter-writer to accusations of apostasy, etc. So, for my part, I tend to sympathize with the way this was worded. I don’t know if we can treat it as being a 100% sincere reflection of the author’s views.

[_Kishkumen]

I am not going to say anything about the identity of the author as I still feel bound by my promises to the person who sent me an un-redacted copy of the letter.

[_Gadianton]

Midgley's fantasy has been utterly decimated, lol. No wonder he's going off the handle as of late on the B.H. Roberts Chair!

I really don't see what the fuss is about. Organization had become toxic and divided. Leader had a choice to own that outcome and re-earn the right to remain in charge, or be replaced. Seems whoever this is chose the former. Good job. Nothing too specific should be read into any of the details, because it all just boils up to "the buck stops here" in words designed to appeal to as many as possible in the organization.

Also, a letter such as this one isn't an end to itself. It's just one part of the beginning of a change management process.

Writing letters like this is painstaking work, but not nearly as hard as coming to a realization that the letter needs to be written in the first place.

Right. A couple of points. First, it's very likely that many LDS won't be comfortable with the new MI and want a more traditional defense of the Fund. That says nothing about a desire to see Old Guard Mopologetics rise from the ashes.

Second, to Professor Moore's point, what we're seeing here in the behavior of the apologists is in fact, a metaphor for the essential nature of Mopologetics. The apologists hang their salvation on scraps of evidence, whether it's "NHM" from the ancient world or a figment of cultural imagination -- the imaginary Second Watson letter. if three letters prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, if a memo supplied by a mid-level corporate staff member proves the Brethren agree with the LGT, then obviously one email with an apology proves their entire cause was just from the beginning.

As the professor said, this stuff happens all the time in the real world, nobody makes it their life's work to show a company re-org was evil.

And finally...j/k! lol!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I am going to go ahead and say that I believe the author of the letter is Kristian Heal, which, if true, definitely colors my reading of the “apology.” I have no doubt that he regrets the way things happened, but I’m also quite confident that he took/takes very serious issue with attack-minded Mopologetics. Thus, this would be a case of him trying to avoid taking any sides. Heal, along with Davis and Carl Griffin likely were the “3 Wisemen” that Midgley considers traitors.

[_moksha]

The letter seems to me to mean that the Maxwell should return to being a bastion for Apologetics and lying for the Lord should be mandated, potentially to honor Neal Maxwell, but, more importantly, to earn their keep at BYU rather than engaging in neutral academic studies like all those so-called "other" universities.

To make recompense, BYU should erect a bronze statue of Dr. Peterson sitting on a world globe with a placard declaring, "Adventuring with Apologetics".

[_I have a question]

I am going to go ahead and say that I believe the author of the letter is Kristian Heal, which, if true, definitely colors my reading of the “apology.” I have no doubt that he regrets the way things happened, but I’m also quite confident that he took/takes very serious issue with attack-minded Mopologetics. Thus, this would be a case of him trying to avoid taking any sides. Heal, along with Davis and Carl Griffin likely were the “3 Wisemen” that Midgley considers traitors.

In what way would he have been a person of significance in the removal of non-Christlike apologetics from the MI in 2012? Would he have had any influence on the decision making chain that led to the Ousting of undesirables?

[_WMLdeWette]

The letter seems to me to mean that the Maxwell should return to being a bastion for Apologetics and lying for the Lord should be mandated, potentially to honor Neal Maxwell, but, more importantly, to earn their keep at BYU rather than engaging in neutral academic studies like all those so-called "other" universities.

To make recompense, BYU should erect a bronze statue of Dr. Peterson sitting on a world globe with a placard declaring, "Adventuring with Apologetics".

Re-read the letter right after re-reading Morgan Davis's. That lens should provide reliable further insight.