Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In offering to take scratch to lunch I hoped to see the better side of scratch, that quite honestly, I've never seen. I'm glad to see so many folks who seem to really care about scratch specifically call him out like this in hopes to make things better.

[_Ray A]

So, in answer to your earlier question, I don't have a problem with YOU. I have a problem with you pursuing this topic for the reasons I stated earlier.

And one of the main reasons this topic has been kept alive, Liz, is because Dan continues to take Scratch seriously, even when he calls Scratch a "loon". By doing this, he actually gives Scratch credibility not afforded to Kevin.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

i think repeated and seemingly documented (though faulty) accusations of tax fraud deserve comment.

[_Ray A]

i think repeated and seemingly documented (though faulty) accusations of tax fraud deserve comment.

So do I. But it's not just about tax fraud. It's also about the nature of apologetics which Scratch dislikes. Very ordinary members of the Church vehemently disagreed with the way Dan, Louis Midgley, et.al were pursuing apologetics in the '90s.

Scratch isn't breaking Artic ice here. He's actually reflecting long-held concerns about apologetics that "ordinary members" have voiced since the beginning of the FARMS Review.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

i think repeated and seemingly documented (though faulty) accusations of tax fraud deserve comment.

So do I. But it's not just about tax fraud. It's also about the nature of apologetics which Scratch dislikes. Very ordinary members of the Church vehemently disagreed with the way Dan, Louis Midgley, et.al were pursuing apologetics in the '90s.

Scratch isn't breaking Artic ice here. He's actually reflecting long-held concerns about apologetics that "ordinary members" have voiced since the beginning of the FARMS Review.

the weird thing is that most people have moved on.

[_Yoda]

Very ordinary members of the Church vehemently disagreed with the way Dan, Louis Midgley, et.al were pursuing apologetics in the '90s.

Scratch isn't breaking Artic ice here. He's actually reflecting long-held concerns about apologetics that "ordinary members" have voiced since the beginning of the FARMS Review.

Here's a question. Has that approach changed or evolved? My guess would be that it has.

[_Ray A]

the weird thing is that most people have moved on.

I'm not sure. On the FAIR blog some time ago, when I posted, a [female] member of the Church said she was more turned off Louis Midgley's apologetics than the anti-Mormons who were posting on the same thread. I tried to explain why Louis and others felt this way, and that they were subjected to constant attacks on the Church, and their characters. And they have been to a degree I find unacceptable. She was not aware of the content of RFM, and the natural responses that would come from those under attack. I think her concern was: Should followers of Christ respond this way?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

the weird thing is that most people have moved on.

I'm not sure. On the FAIR blog some time ago, when I posted, a [female] member of the Church said she was more turned off Louis Midgley's apologetics than the anti-Mormons who were posting on the same thread. I tried to explain why Louis and others felt this way, and that they were subjected to constant attacks on the Church, and their characters. And they have been to a degree I find unacceptable. She was not aware of the content of RFM, and the natural responses that would come from those under attack. I think her concern was: Should followers of Christ respond this way?

I've talked to people who said the same thing about Lou. None of them, however, had actually read anything Midgley had written. Plenty of well-poisoning, though. And in trashing Midgley people often wind up doing just what they accuse him of doing. It's odd to watch.

[_Ray A]

Very ordinary members of the Church vehemently disagreed with the way Dan, Louis Midgley, et.al were pursuing apologetics in the '90s.

Scratch isn't breaking Artic ice here. He's actually reflecting long-held concerns about apologetics that "ordinary members" have voiced since the beginning of the FARMS Review.

Here's a question. Has that approach changed or evolved? My guess would be that it has.

The "war" between apologists and critics/anti-Mormons hasn't essentially changed. I definitely think there's more civility, for example, in the Dan Vogel/Dan Peterson exchanges on FAIR, and Dan's expression that he actually likes Dan Vogel as a person. Dan seems to have engaged in some "tactful/respectful" replies contrary to his early Review editorials, which, in line with Robinson's "I like my anti-Mormons upfront" statement, is the contrast I note. I think they are less prepared to so blatantly assign critics like Vogel to being in "Outer Darkness", and slaves of Korihor.

In that sense, I think it has changed.

[_Ray A]

I've talked to people who said the same thing about Lou. None of them, however, had actually read anything Midgley had written. Plenty of well-poisoning, though. And in trashing Midgley people often wind up doing just what they accuse him of doing. It's odd to watch.

I do suspect that when members become "more informed", they will understand why Lou Midgley is the way he is. I understood where he was coming from. You can't expect anyone to take a severe beating and "turn the other cheek", in "real life" anyway. But, in the "ordinary member's mind", this isn't necessary. Fast and Testimony meeting has far more meaning to them. They don't understand why someone has to become "so nasty" to defend what they "know" by the "witness of the Spirit". That, in a nutshell, is why they don't understand apologetics. Why do we need to "prove" what we have had confirmed to us by the Spirit? To them it's all a waste of time trying to prove "obvious truth".