DiscussMormonism.com

Elder Maxwell's pronouncement is echoing in my mind: "no more uncontested slam dunks." Daniel Peterson included this quote in his letter to Dr. Bradford, the director of NAMIRS. According to Daniel, removing him as editor of the Review is an act that is sure to result in uncontested slam dunks.

Is he right?

Where is FAIR in his thinking? If he is not at the helm of the Review, will FAIR die on the vine? Will FAIR be unable to contest slam dunks?

More importantly, what do Daniel Peterson and his friends on the editorial board think this phrase means?

By my reading of the Review, at times it seems like they think it means:

"No enemy left standing";

Or, "No serious difference of opinion will be tolerated";

Or, "No questioning the boss."

Feel free to come up with your own.

My problem is not that I believe the basket should not be guarded. My problem is that they seemed to think this included knifing a guy on your own team for appearing too friendly with the players on the other team. Or, if you refuse to throw elbows, then you may catch one from your teammate. Etc.

Unfortunately, Daniel and his friends interpreted "no more uncontested slam dunks" far too broadly and aggressively, and fans in the stands were not infrequently either tainted by it or disgusted.

So, sure, I think a defense of the faith is a legitimate activity for the Maxwell Institute to continue to engage in. I am not criticizing Elder Maxwell's statement. I am not happy about the apparent past interpretations of it.

This whole discourse about slam dunks seems, I dunno, oblivious. The whole Book of Abraham thing is like, the greatest slam dunk I’ve ever seen against modern religion, right up there with Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses’ multiple failed predictions of the eschaton.

DCP et al. have been fighting an imaginary war. In DCP et al. heads' this war is no different than the war fought in heaven. To have no shot uncontested means you are to defend and in this context the defensive scheme appears to have no regards for sportsmanship. After all, this is a war and they must do whatever it takes.

For example, a poster may approach the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board with questions and even doubts. Instead of apologists from the humorously named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board providing support, folks such as Bill Schryver (Ousted Maxwell Institute Danites(OMID)) are more than willing to behead the inquiring/doubting poster even though this poster is one of their own. They would rather cut out the 'weak' for the sake of a preemptive strike in order to maintain some false sense of security. After all, the inquiring/doubting poster may be getting off uncontested shots.

MrStakhanovite wrote:This whole discourse about slam dunks seems, I dunno, oblivious. The whole Book of Abraham thing is like, the greatest slam dunk I’ve ever seen against modern religion, right up there with Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses’ multiple failed predictions of the eschaton.

Yes, Stak, but the point is that you have to at least field a team. Even if they are backbenchers and guys on the edge of retirement, they still put up the appearance of some effort to do something.

In this case you have guys who are seriously handicapped, so they start pulling out machetes and cutting up their opponents with them.

But I think you make an excellent point: there is something fundamental in the whole approach of "contesting" that they take which could use some serious rethinking.

What would an uncontested slam dunk look like?

lostindc wrote:DCP et al. have been fighting an imaginary war. In DCP et al. heads' this war is no different than the war fought in heaven. To have no shot uncontested means you are to defend and in this context the defensive scheme appears to have no regards for sportsmanship. After all, this is a war and they must do whatever it takes.

For example, a poster may approach the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board with questions and even doubts. Instead of apologists from the humorously named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board providing support, folks such as Bill Schryver (Ousted Maxwell Institute Danites(OMID)) are more than willing to behead the inquiring/doubting poster even though this poster is one of their own. They would rather cut out the 'weak' for the sake of a preemptive strike in order to maintain some false sense of security. After all, the inquiring/doubting poster may be getting off uncontested shots.

I think your point of "no sportsmanship" is key. There has been a serious lack of sportsmanship on a number of occasions. The guy on the other team broke out was heading to the basket, and so they whipped out a rock and flung it at the back of his head. Pretty shameful stuff.

By the way, on the other thread I proposed my own acronym for these guys: Wombats of Mass Distraction. But I guess you could say it is already taken. These guys are much easier to find than Saddam's WMDs.

harmony wrote:What would an uncontested slam dunk look like?

Maybe it means that no one is anywhere close to put up a challenge to the guy jumping up, arm extended, ready to slam that b-ball through the hoop.

Pffft, the whole Book of Abraham fiasco is a disaster of the Mormon Apologists own making. Instead of taking two seconds to think about it and seeking some inspiration from God, they start off with stupid assumptions like Joseph Smith could actualy read Egyptian Hieroglphics and it goes downhill from there with more and more bizarre theories.

As far as the new MI direction, that is the correct one. Scholarship has nothing to do with apologetics. And Mormon Apologetics is an exercise in futility. Mormonism is a revealed relgion. If the Apologists were really interested in the details like where Zarahemla is - why don't they ask God and stop speculating.

Tobin wrote:Pffft, the whole Book of Abraham fiasco is a disaster of the Mormon Apologists own making. Instead of taking two seconds to think about it and seeking some inspiration from God, they start off with stupid assumptions like Joseph Smith could actualy read Egyptian Hieroglphics and it goes downhill from there with more and more bizarre theories.

As far as the new MI direction, that is the correct one. Scholarship has nothing to do with apologetics. And Mormon Apologetics is an exercise in futility. Mormonism is a revealed relgion. If the Apologists were really interested in the details like where Zarahemla is - why don't they ask God and stop speculating.

I completely agree with your point about the Book of Abraham, Tobin. Paul O once did too. And I think there is room for a serious rethinking of apologetics.

Kishkumen wrote:

lostindc wrote:DCP et al. have been fighting an imaginary war. In DCP et al. heads' this war is no different than the war fought in heaven. To have no shot uncontested means you are to defend and in this context the defensive scheme appears to have no regards for sportsmanship. After all, this is a war and they must do whatever it takes.

For example, a poster may approach the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board with questions and even doubts. Instead of apologists from the humorously named Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board providing support, folks such as Bill Schryver (Ousted Maxwell Institute Danites(OMID)) are more than willing to behead the inquiring/doubting poster even though this poster is one of their own. They would rather cut out the 'weak' for the sake of a preemptive strike in order to maintain some false sense of security. After all, the inquiring/doubting poster may be getting off uncontested shots.

I think your point of "no sportsmanship" is key. There has been a serious lack of sportsmanship on a number of occasions. The guy on the other team broke out was heading to the basket, and so they whipped out a rock and flung it at the back of his head. Pretty shameful stuff.

By the way, on the other thread I proposed my own acronym for these guys: Wombats of Mass Distraction. But I guess you could say it is already taken. These guys are much easier to find than Saddam's WMDs.

I have yet to see any sportsmanship from the MI during my adult lifetime. I imagine a group of white men sitting in the basement of a BYU campus building laughing in regards to the Dehlin hit piece and the particular parts of the text written in order to drag Dehlin's personal life through the muck. Nothing but back patting and circle jerks. In no way do they, they being the MI, want to start a productive discourse with opposing viewpoints. To them, their is no reason to befriend the enemy.

I can think of so many academic journals that seek and subsequently publish dissenting viewpoints and even moreso these academic journals seek a vast variety of authors, whereas with the FARMS Review we find a buddy system. How many times can Midgley, Hauglid, Gardner and others achieve FARMS publication? Has the pool of authors become some stagnant?

As far as the acronym, I am continuing to work on one more suitable. I am hoping that a flash of insight can come to my mind and a great acronym will appear.