Jason Bourne wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:Really? SHIELDS still updates their site from time-to-time? I thought they were completely defunct.
They are nearly defunct, but not quite. They seem to be hanging on by little more than a thread. Personally, I hope they hang on, as their site is a rich source of Mopologetic material. I do think, however, that SHIELDS, along with ZLMB, is indicative of a larger trend in LDS apologetics---namely, that they are undergoing a slow retreat. Truly, the best apologetics (for what it's worth) that you will find are being put out principally by one driving force:
FARMS Review editor Daniel C. Peterson. This is why I have been saying for a while that he exceeds Hugh Nibley in terms of his significance in the history of Mopologetics.
Another note. SHIELDS seems to be a part time effort by some that are mere hobby apologists.
Hi, Jason. That seems to be the reality, but the fact is that the site's operators, as it were, boast about how much work they are just on the verge of producing. Further, as I noted in my OP, one of the original founders is now an ex-Mormon.
As I think through your comments I find them rather condescending. Certainly you do not know too much of the history of the site when you got it so clearly wrong that it comes after FAIR.
Huh? I noted above that it sprang from the same basic raw materials as FAIR. Nowhere have I claimed to be an "expert" on the history of SHIELDS. I merely felt that it would be worthwhile to re-examine SHIELDS, and what it has become. At one point, after all, it was apparently quite an active site. Not so anymore.
As I noted, it does not. Next, if the arguments are so easily dismissed take them and do so. Your post, which is more and more typical, seems just a chance to belittle.
I'm not sure why you think this, Jason. I offered up my honest assessment of SHIELDS. Nowhere in my post did I say "the arguments are so easily dismissed." Moreover, as Infymus has indicated, the bulk of "arguing" done on SHIELDS is smearing of critics. [/quote]
And how do you know the site is defunct? Maybe the owners are just busy living life and feeding their family. You may had an abundant of time to nit pick and belittle. Others may have more important duties to attend.
I did not claim it was "defunct." I said it was
nearly defunct. My evidence for this, which I posted in my OP, is the fact that they have only added four updates in all of 2007, whereas elsewhere on the site, Stan Barker and et. al. boast about adding new content
every day.by the way, I have seent he site and visited it. While there are things not complete there are items on there that are helpful and beneficial to those seeking for answers to some questions.
That's terrific, Jason.