DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.johnadamscenter.com/2012/05/ ... o-critics/

This controversy with Ralph Hancock who is Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University and his going after Joanna Brooks has been under the radar compared to the Maxwell Institute's unpublished hit piece on John Dehlin.

What I find interesting about this situation is how closely it resembles the more popular story with John and MI. I think there may be a retrenchment going on among the conservative Mormon scholars and they want to nip the move towards a more centrist type of Mormonism in the bud.

This might be one of those watershed moments in Mormon history. From my limited observation, it seems BYU has moved quite a bit further to the right since I attended in the early 1980s. But then most of America has become reactionary.

As a prophet, I see the conservatives winning this battle.

Nope. We haven't missed this nugget. In fact I referenced it as being part of a coordinated initiative against liberal Mormons. Thanks for giving it its own thread though.

His articles seems to be a long drawn out way of saying, 'Joanna Brooks doesn't agree with all the church teaches.'

I also found the ending to be a little bizarre.

I worry that, if we do not learn to subordinate our notions of political and social equality to the promise of the distinct eternal blessings of manhood and womanhood, if we spend this time of probation envying the perceived privileges of the other sex, then the earth, as far as we are concerned, will be “utterly wasted at His coming.”

An election cycle probably wasn't the best time to start infighting between the orthodox and the unorthodox members of the church.

Kishkumen wrote:Nope. We haven't missed this nugget. In fact I referenced it as being part of a coordinated initiative against liberal Mormons. Thanks for giving it its own thread though.

Thanks Kish. I should have realized the folks here never miss anything!

JoeGeisner wrote:http://www.johnadamscenter.com/2012/05/ ... o-critics/

Thank God they have no women on their board because that would be wrong.

lulu wrote:

JoeGeisner wrote:http://www.johnadamscenter.com/2012/05/ ... o-critics/

Thank God they have no women on their board because that would be wrong.

I just hope that no woman envies them their foundation, because that would be wrong too, but for reasons that entirely escape Ralph "The Weenie" Hancock.

This review is one of the most God-awful, poorly written messes I have read in a long time.

I will give a more thorough critique a little later, after I get ready for work.

I thought the following comment was the unintentional highlight of the whole page:

Mike B.:
May 13, 2012 at 10:29 am
Bro. Hancock, my wife and I thought this was just really good. Thank you.

I guess Mike was presiding over his wife's keyboard use. You gonna cut her meat for her too there Cal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiUhh8Xv--E

As I stated earlier, this is the most poorly written, God-awful mess of a review I have read in a long time. Hancock should be utterly embarrassed. It reads like he had a thesaurus sitting next to him, and was consulting it for exactly how many "big words" he could cram into a given paragraph.

As man of you here know, grammatically incorrect writing affects me like nails on a chalkboard. I am not as much of a stickler as Shades, particularly when it comes to message board content. However, in formal, published writing, there is absolutely no excuse.

Let me just get the most glaring mistake out of my system, and then I will begin a commentary on the content:

Hancock wrote:I have to say I had hoped for more substantive discussion from such sites; but my recent experience suggests that, although surely not all principals on these blogs are fully committed lifestyle liberals, they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the “hard left” among their associates and readers.

(bold emphasis mine)

Really, Hancock? You don't know the difference between a principal and a principle? You or your editor couldn't have caught that one?

liz3564 wrote:Let me just get the most glaring mistake out of my system, and then I will begin a commentary on the content:

Hancock wrote:I have to say I had hoped for more substantive discussion from such sites; but my recent experience suggests that, although surely not all principals on these blogs are fully committed lifestyle liberals, they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the “hard left” among their associates and readers.

(bold emphasis mine)

Really, Hancock? You don't know the difference between a principal and a principle? You or your editor couldn't have caught that one?

Pardon my intrusion, liz, but wouldn't the principal author of a blog be a "principal" and not a "principle"? Ralph "The Weenie" Hancock may be wrong about many things, but I don't think this is one of them.