Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_Jersey Girl]

When you have any actual knowledge of my efforts at interfaith dialogue, you'll be in a position to attempt a substantial critique.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to make an effort at interfaith dialogue on the thread!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to make an effort at interfaith dialogue on the thread!

I realize you're joking a bit here.

But, just to be clear, I don't see this place as a serious venue for interfaith dialogue.

If you want a serious exchange on interfaith issues, I'd be willing to exchange e-mails, or to find another venue.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

That isn't quite accurate. You posted the final line from the article and suggested that it provided an example of your "bridge building." Markk disagreed---quite politely, I might add---with your premise, and you proceeded to call him all kinds of names. And yes: all of this took place in a thread which you yourself subtitled "An Attempt at Bridge Building."

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.

Well, hey: maybe he saw your attempt at "bridge building" as not "intellectually serious."

your method of "bridge building" really sucks.

When you have any actual knowledge of my efforts at interfaith dialogue,

I do have "actual knowledge." I've read over the pages upon pages of your "interfaith dialogue" on SHIELDS. Or does that "not count" somehow?

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.)

How do you think folks should react to your SHIELDS interfaith dialogues? Look: I applaud the fact that you've declared your interest in "bridge building." I hope that, despite some of the things you've said in this thread, that you include "Mopologetic bridge building" within that more general declaration. All of that is great: I applaud you.

But, I have a hard time understanding why you are getting so bristly over what are really some pretty reasonable criticisms. If you're legitimately interested in Mopologetic bridge building, then you should listen to the good advice that people are dispensing for you.

Do you have anything to offer on my article "Mormonism and the Trinity"?

Yes; I think you should make it easier for us to access. Also, I disagree with the last line.

Any suggestions for the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy?

Don't participate until you've fully reformed your ways.

Any contributions to interfaith discussion?

Yes; I offered up a set of axioms in the OP.

Have you made any effort in this area? Do you have any experience with it from which we might learn?

Well, I've spent quite a bit of time interacting with you, but, then again, we come from the same faith community. I posted once on CARM and got along with the folks there just fine. Really, I have never encountered the same kinds of conflicts with people of other faith that you have. I guess I must be doing something right.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to make an effort at interfaith dialogue on the thread!

I realize you're joking a bit here.

But, just to be clear, I don't see this place as a serious venue for interfaith dialogue.

If you want a serious exchange on interfaith issues, I'd be willing to exchange e-mails, or to find another venue.

I really wasn't joking, Daniel. I really don't want to engage in dialogue via email. What about the Celestial Forum?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I really wasn't joking, Daniel. I really don't want to engage in dialogue via email. What about the Celestial Forum?

That's a possibility. I'll consider it.

Though I must say that this board, as a whole, is not a place where I'm interested in discussing things that I regard as sacred.

[_Roger]

DCP wrote:

But, just to be clear, I don't see this place as a serious venue for interfaith dialogue.

Oddly, that's exactly how I feel at MADB.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oddly, that's exactly how I feel at MADB.

I likely wouldn't do it there, either.

Completely open message boards are problematic places, on several levels.

[_Gadianton]

I get the feeling that "bridge building" in mopologetics is more accurately "bridge crossing". If the other side builds a bridge first, suitable to the mopologetic liking, then the apologists may bestow their favor by crossing the bridge.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I get the feeling that "bridge building" in mopologetics is more accurately "bridge crossing". If the other side builds a bridge first, suitable to the mopologetic liking, then the apologists may bestow their favor by crossing the bridge.

What is "mopologetics"?

What is "'bridge building' in mopologetics"? Has anybody actually claimed to be doing it?

And, finally, on the basis of what set of data do you draw your conclusions? (Were you there in Graz and Jerusalem and Tehran and elsewhere in the same sense that you were there in Claremont?)

[_Trevor]

What is "mopologetics"?

Discourses on the study of mops.

What is "'bridge building' in mopologetics"? Has anybody actually claimed to be doing it?

There was a raging debate over whether the Scooba qualified as a mop or not. Clearly someone needs to bring peace so that all mopologists of different views can renew the discourse. The conversation, at present, has totally ceased.