Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In my opinion the article is simple to access. Become a member of SMPT.

"In [your] opinion"? C'mon, LoaP. That doesn't seem very honest at all. "Simple to access" on the messageboards means that you give readers a link. You know that, just the same as every one of us knows that.

It's 100% honest because it is 100% my opinion. And I did provide a link.

http://www.smpt.org/membership.html

You might be asking for a link directly to the article, though. In that case all I can say is you can try emailing the folks from SMPT to see if they can send you a copy of that article. I already have my copy. (It is one of the issues that is missing one article, hence the reprint.) I know there is a certain sense of entitlement where we want everything for free and whatnot, but even the free stuff doesn't often get read.

[_Gadianton]

"In [your] opinion"? C'mon, LoaP. That doesn't seem very honest at all. "Simple to access" on the messageboards means that you give readers a link. You know that, just the same as every one of us knows that.

I think you raise an important point Doctor. Had the point of "simple to access" been made in a publication, no one would question it because the default expectation is that to follow up on information would require access to "hardcopy". The expectation on a informal forum online is a link, as you say.

I find it interesting though how deeply this grain of "easy to access" runs through apologetics. Recall how the apologists are fond of saying "warts and all" information about the church has always been "easy to access" and lay the blame at the feet of the victim.

[_EAllusion]

But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a torch."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

[_Gadianton]

lol.

EA may or may not remember this is my favorite illustration of the apologetic information MO.

Unlike most of the "bridge building" we think of when we hear the phrase, the bridges of the apologists first and foremost come equipped with a toll booth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never said a word about "Mopologetic bridge buildng." As usual, that's a figment of Scratch's fertile, malignant, and endlessly spinning imagination, and now he demands that I account for it.

Mopologetics is his word, not mine.

It's true, of course, that I do apologetics. I also do bridge-building. They're seldom if ever the same thing. I've never claimed that they were the same thing.

I do Qur’anic studies, and I do Islamic philosophy. Which doesn't mean in any way that Qur’anic studies and Islamic philosophy are the same thing.

A carpenter may use a saw and he may use a sander, A Scratchite might demand that the carpenter provide an example of sanding with a saw. A carpenter would probably respond by ignoring the imperious Scratchite.

Incidentally, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Twain that the Nu'uanu Pali Overlook is perhaps the finest view on the planet. Every time I see it, I'm stunned all over again.


.

[_Pokatator]

I've never said a word about "Mopologetic bridge building."

Of course you haven't, why would someone that doesn't post "substance" post anything about the OP or use the title of the thread in their posts?

[_Joey]

A carpenter may use a saw and he may use a sander, A Scratchite might demand that the carpenter provide an example of sanding with a saw. A carpenter would probably respond by ignoring the imperious Scratchite.

Equally:

A Mormon scholar may use accepted academic intellect and he may use emotional Mormon reasoning. A person with common sense might ask where such Mormon scholar's academic works based on Mormon reasoning have been accepted. Such Mormon scholar would probably respond by showing the ignored works published at FARMS!!!

Only in Provo folks, only in Provo.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've never said a word about "Mopologetic bridge buildng."

You mentioned "bridge building" in the context of interaction with folks who have traditionally been critics of the Church. Would you care to explain to me how that's *NOT* Mopologetic on some level?

It's true, of course, that I do apologetics. I also do bridge-building. They're seldom if ever the same thing.

Yes, that does sort of seem to be the case. You aren't interested in legitimate "bridge-building" with critics (contra your claims about your article, and contra your comments in "Humble Apologetics"). It turns out, in the end, that your purpose all along has been to put on a big show for the TBMs, saying to them, in effect, "Hey, look at how nice I am to critics! See how I'm extending the olive branch to these non-LDS Christians? What a charming, bridge-building guy I am!" Then, when they disagree with your propositions, such as some on this very thread have done, you get to turn around and slam them and characterize them as dumb/lazy/malign, etc.

A carpenter may use a saw and he may use a sander, A Scratchite might demand that the carpenter provide an example of sanding with a saw. A carpenter would probably respond by ignoring the imperious Scratchite.

A pretty poor analogy. On MAD, you titled your thread, "An Attempt at Bridge Building," and then you proceeded to call Markk "Markkk" and whatnot, and to generally treat him with a great deal of nastiness. So, you yourself provided an example of "using a saw." The proof is in the pudding, Prof. P.: your method of "bridge building" really sucks.

Further: I never asked you to provide an example of "bridge building" with Islamic folks, because, as I've pointed out, Muslims have not been traditional critics of the Church---thus, there really isn't any need for a "bridge."

[_Ray A]

If there's going to be any "bridge-building" it will have to be done by a moderate Mormon, yet one who still lives and believes Mormonism. In reflecting on this subject I went back to re-read the story of an old hero of mine, Anwar Sadat. Now there's a good example of bridge building, but he paid the price for this, being assassinated by Muslim radicals. Three former US presidents attended his funeral (Nixon, Carter and Ford), but no Arab heads of state attended. He was seen by many radicals as a "traitor", because extreme elements will have no compromise.

So here's a relevant quote attributed to Sadat:

"There can be hope only for a society which acts as one big family, not as many separate ones."

As long as there's division based on religious ideology and elements of extremism (on both sides), it's going to be a thorny pathway.

[_Daniel Peterson]

On MAD, you titled your thread, "An Attempt at Bridge Building," and then you proceeded to call Markk "Markkk" and whatnot, and to generally treat him with a great deal of nastiness. So, you yourself provided an example of "using a saw." The proof is in the pudding, Prof. P.

Deftly done!

One who hadn't actually seen the thread would imagine that I had entitled it "An Attempt at Bridge Building" and then immediately, out of the blue, launched into an unprovoked, sustained, nonsubstantive attack on Markk.

In fact, of course, "An Attempt at Bridge Building" is the thread's subtitle. The title is a reference to my article in Element: "Mormonism and the Trinity." Markk entered the thread, summarily dismissing the article without having ever laid eyes on it, without even attempting to see it, and engaging repeatedly in the most basic and transparently obvious of logical fallacies. I don't see that sort of response as intellectually serious, I don't see such a person as a serious dialogue partner, and I'm willing to say so.

your method of "bridge building" really sucks.

When you have any actual knowledge of my efforts at interfaith dialogue, you'll be in a position to attempt a substantial critique. (I have no doubt that, if you actually possessed any such knowledge, your first and irresistible instinct would be to criticize.)

Do you have anything to offer on my article "Mormonism and the Trinity"? Any suggestions for the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy? Any contributions to interfaith discussion? Have you made any effort in this area? Do you have any experience with it from which we might learn?