EAllusion wrote:Beaten and bloodied obviously is hyperbole. But it also is more than unconvincing. People can be awfully meanspirited in their approach. If all you think of Pahoran-style writing is that it is "unconvincing" then you just have a blindspot.
I freely concede that some LDS message board participants can be mean-spirited in their dealings with critics—and with their fellow Mormons. But it doesn't follow from this that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, as organizations, routinely abuse and otherwise "harm" struggling members. They don't.
I'd really like to know what you're using as the measuring stick for this comment. How do you know who they harm and who they don't? Do you have access to statistics? Or is this just your gut feeling?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
sock puppet wrote:Critic: someone who likes people, does not like the construct that the institution imposes.
Defender: someone who will dump on 'some' unnamed individuals, but defend the institution (here, FAIR and NAMIRS). Here, Nevo demonstrates his defender cred. He's making bc-"the Church"-space proud.
Are you serious? That is your definition of critic? My gosh, where have you been? Now let me tell you a secret, are you ready? Critics can be critiqued by defenders. If a critic writes a piece or does a podcast, he or she is open game for critique. As Frank Sinatra would say, That's life.
But critics are not known for their liking the chruch and its leaders. Nor having respect for its members.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Kevin Graham wrote: Yes they do, as the evidence shows. You're ignoring the evidence and attacking Dehlin based on your own ignorance and need to believe as a loyalist to a certain tribe of rabid apologists.
Was John attacked? I haven't seen the piece? Have you read the piece or are you just blowing stream? Are you basing your above post on ignorance? I think so.
John's podcasts are open game whether people wish to write a critique or a compliment about them. Why are you being so rabid in your posts?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: Are you serious? That is your definition of critic? My gosh, where have you been? Now let me tell you a secret, are you ready? Critics can be critiqued by defenders. If a critic writes a piece or does a podcast, he or she is open game for critique. As Frank Sinatra would say, That's life.
But critics are not known for their liking the chruch and its leaders. Nor having respect for its members.
this does not help your cause, whyme.
If critics are open game for critique, so is the church... so are the apologists.
Stalemate is the best that can be hoped for. (and we seriously need a new batch of apologists that have some connection to reality).
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Kishkumen wrote: Uh, because he wrote a book purporting to be a work of history? I mean, that is the purpose for having a review of books, right? To review books? Like Grant Palmer's book?
Uh...the title of the book is misleading. He is not an Insider.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
harmony wrote: this does not help your cause, whyme.
If critics are open game for critique, so is the church... so are the apologists.
Stalemate is the best that can be hoped for. (and we seriously need a new batch of apologists that have some connection to reality).
Our friend gave a very benign definition of critic. That was my point. Our friend was playing the I am more righteous than thou routine. The critic rule of the game is simple: the lds church can be critiqued or attack, its leaders can be critiqued or attacked but apologists and supporters of the lds church cannot attack or critique the critic statements. Or if they do so, they must do it with the holy spirit inside them and be kind, generous, full of faith and love.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
harmony wrote:Might want to rethink a couple of those... they've been closely associated with William, a more "mean-spirited" individual would be difficult to find. (and I'm pretty sure I can say that, since I'm one of his favorite targets)
Oh dear. And I thought this list would be uncontroversial. Which names should I strike from the list? Skousen? Hauglid? Are they the two that you think have been compromised by the soul-sucking dementor calling himself William Schryver? (I guess that also explains my own recent loss of integrity and basic human decency, since I've also received a couple of emails from this malignant presence. LOL.)
You said that you wished that FAIR would get rid of certain people. Why won't you name them? You're more than happy to attack John Dehlin, so why won't you name the people that you think should be excluded from FAIR?
ETA: Re: your list, Nevo---I have to admit that, the more I hear about him, the more I admire Jerry Bradford.
"[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
Scratch wrote:Also: I can think of at least a couple of instances off the top of my head where Dr. Peterson has been dismissive or rude to people asking sincere questions. One was here on this board, up in the Celestial Forum, when Liz asked him about blood atonement. He basically just blew her off, as I recall.
Actually, Dan didn't blow me off. He simply answered my question via email.
Oh! Well, I'm glad he finally got back to you. I remember you saying to me that you were very interested to see his response. I remember, too, that he never replied here, and that you wound up having to ask him a second time over at The Cafeteria. Regardless, I'm glad that he finally gave you an answer.
"[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
Kishkumen wrote: Uh, because he wrote a book purporting to be a work of history? I mean, that is the purpose for having a review of books, right? To review books? Like Grant Palmer's book?
Uh...the title of the book is misleading. He is not an Insider.
Of course he was. He was an employee of CES. This means, for those who aren't lexically impaired, that he was inside, rather than outside, the organization. Simple.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Are you serious? That is your definition of critic? 
My gosh, where have you been? Now let me tell you a secret, are you ready? Critics can be critiqued by defenders. If a critic writes a piece or does a podcast, he or she is open game for critique. As Frank Sinatra would say, That's life.