Kishkumen wrote:It seems this blog's authors have a real fixation on Joanna Brooks. Who knew that a female Mormon writer could be so threatening?
You know, I hadn't noticed that at first, but you're right. They seem to be comparing her to some kind of "witch" who reads "tea leaves":
Joanna Brooks is back to reading tea leaves at her Religion Dispatches column, indulging speculations that J. Willard Marriott and Jon Huntsman Sr. were released from their callings as general authorities as part of “the Church’s desire to underscore its non-involvement in the Huntsman and Romney campaigns.” After all, Brooks points out, the former candidate is Jon Huntsman Sr.’s son and the latter’s first name is Willard.
It's strange that they would lambaste Brooks like this. Wasn't she a contributor to MST, after all?
I also noticed what seems to be a lot of butt-kissing going on in regards to Elder Oaks. Once again, I have to wonder if my "informant's" tidbits about Oaks were true...
"[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
Doctor Scratch wrote:It's strange that they would lambaste Brooks like this. Wasn't she a contributor to MST, after all?
Maybe one of the all-male crew of contributors, say, Ralph Hancock, didn't care for her uppity attitude when she was editor of the Student Review at BYU.
Doctor Scratch wrote:I also noticed what seems to be a lot of butt-kissing going on in regards to Elder Oaks. Once again, I have to wonder if my "informant's" tidbits about Oaks were true...
Well, Oaks is politically conservative. This could be a fence-mending operation to recapture Oaks' patronage. Who knows?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
So a bunch of right-wing Mormon thinkers have formed their own nominal center and even added the name of an American President. So what?
This has no more power to bind the souls of all those who participate than did the triumvirate of Cleon Skousen, Ezra Taft Benson and Elder John Birch. It focused their sound and fury but could not draw glory.
The leadership of The John Adams Center consists of....wait for it....
Twelve White Males
Brant Bishop Ralph Hancock Peter Lawler Daniel Mahoney David Leavitt Louis A Horton Paul Seaton Marc Guerra James Ceaser Richard Sherlock Denial Peterson Mathew Holland
Not a woman nor a black in sight, makes you wonder...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Or is this again some american specialty? Or utahn one?
Anyway, I understand all of the words. And no sentences.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Drifting wrote:I think I have spotted a bizarre coincidence.
The leadership of The John Adams Center consists of....wait for it....
Twelve White Males
Brant Bishop Ralph Hancock Peter Lawler Daniel Mahoney David Leavitt Louis A Horton Paul Seaton Marc Guerra James Ceaser Richard Sherlock Denial Peterson Mathew Holland
Not a woman nor a black in sight, makes you wonder...
Mormon men have nothing but contempt for blacks and women.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
You are right to be confused. Something else that should be confusing is how will the JAC decide if they're succeeding or failing?
According to Stak's original quote, we need to know roughly how many people of faith are allowed to defend their views in the public square, roughly whether that number is increasing or decreasing, project how many people would have been enabled to defend their views in the public square absent the JAC, and then compare that number in the future to the actual number of people enabled to defend their faith. Since this data is going to be hard to obtain, the JAC has set themselves up with an unfalsifiable mission goal and will likely declare victory no matter what happens.
You are right to be confused. Something else that should be confusing is how will the JAC decide if they're succeeding or failing?
According to Stak's original quote, we need to know roughly how many people of faith are allowed to defend their views in the public square, roughly whether that number is increasing or decreasing, project how many people would have been enabled to defend their views in the public square absent the JAC, and then compare that number in the future to the actual number of people enabled to defend their faith. Since this data is going to be hard to obtain, the JAC has set themselves up with an unfalsifiable mission goal and will likely declare victory no matter what happens.
Yes, victory will be trumpeted regardless of the outcome. That is because victory was declared when they decided to form the JAC.
Check out this little nugget of inspired commentary:
Moral relativism, as Harry Jaffa has written, is a very troubling but defining part of American higher education. The university today, in theory and practice, wholeheartedly believes, teaches, and preaches, that there are no absolute and fundamental truths.