DiscussMormonism.com

Oh whow. I served in the North British Mission, which at the time was a combination of the North-East and North-West British missions. Our mission boundary encompassed Hull. Our mission was a slightly curved line drawn across the map from Liverpool on the West, to just below Sheffield, then slightly North-East to Grimsby.

I spent most of my mission in the West, mostly Liverpool and Manchester areas, I was never on the East Coast, except for a brief period of time in Newcastle. (Gateshead actually, overlooking the Tyne River).

I remember tracting row houses, and seeing where there was once a little iron fence and matching gate, and how it had all been cut off flush with the concrete, so the steel could be melted down and used in the war effort.

As I said, I didn't appreciate at the time the effects of trauma on the heart and soul. Now I would want to hug your Mum, and hold her tight and cry with her over the losses that she has seen and suffered. I'm so sorry for what she has been through.

I am embarrassed that America dithered, and did not come immediately to England's aid. I hope we have all learned from that experience, but I fear we have not.

Hug your Mum for me. I love her for her courage and indomitable spirit.

To Zadok, Chap, Quasimodo and Ludwigm: Thank you all for your font of knowledge!

by the way, do you think installing an incoming warning system might be beneficial for current the Maxwell Institute, perhaps with sensors at HQ, the COB, Meridian Magazine, the Deseret News, Patheos.com and the Orem Mall?

I finally checked out the article and skimmed it. There were only 5 comments when I looked at it and I wasn't convinced his readers understood what he was talking about. My advice to Ralph, as one of the foremost experts on Mopologetics in the entire world, is that he is not preaching to his buddies anymore (who probably just pretend they read it and agree) but to people who really have no idea what apologetics and the new MI is about, and he needs to cut that down to about 250 words.

Gadianton wrote:I finally checked out the article and skimmed it. There were only 5 comments when I looked at it and I wasn't convinced his readers understood what he was talking about. My advice to Ralph, as one of the foremost experts on Mopologetics in the entire world, is that he is not preaching to his buddies anymore (who probably just pretend they read it and agree) but to people who really have no idea what apologetics and the new MI is about, and he needs to cut that down to about 250 words.

No kidding. There were some of those sentences that seemed to stretch on from the top of my monitor to the bottom! I'm not joking.

If the Classic FARMS-ites are aiming their message towards the average joe LDS, I think they need to find a better spokesman than Too-Many-Words Hancock.

If the Classic FARMS-ites are aiming their message towards the average joe LDS, I think they need to find a better spokesman than Too-Many-Words Hancock.

Who would be your recommendation, Ludd? Scott Lloyd maybe? He has the right writing background. How about Will Schryver?

Chap wrote:You've seen the film Sink the Bismark, right? Because it was a UK production, the credit for the destruction of the Bismark was not miraculously transferred to the armed forces of another country.

Zadok wrote: I did see that movie, and what's more, I saw it in England while I was there trying to convince the local citizenry that the One True Church of Jesus Christ had been restored to the Earth.

The fixation that the British People had on the events of "Their Finest Hour" was always interesting to me. 20 years after the war and it was still almost all they could talk about. I was young then, naïve, and didn't understand then, like I do now, the effects of trauma on a mind and soul.

Quasimodo wrote:My family lived in a sea port town in England during the Blitz (Hull). Because of their location (in line with the Sheffield steel mills) the Germans would make it a secondary target as well. It often was bombed twice a night.

My mom is 94 and still starts many sentences when thinking back "before the war" or "after the war". The sound of sirens still makes her uncomfortable.

I have answered to this series of comments. My comments is fitting to the OP (Ralph Hancock Weighs in on "The New Maxwell Institute") as close as that three comments above.

NOW, You can read my comment on Outer Darkness (here), where no edits, no answers, no nothing exist.

Probably I crossed the threshold with the word Hungarian...

Gadianton wrote:

If the Classic FARMS-ites are aiming their message towards the average joe LDS, I think they need to find a better spokesman than Too-Many-Words Hancock.

Who would be your recommendation, Ludd? Scott Lloyd maybe? He has the right writing background. How about Will Schryver?

Recommendation?

I'm afraid you've mistaken me for someone who really cares when it comes to all of this. But I'll play along with you for a couple sentences. I don't know who Scott Lloyd is. The name sounds familiar, but I can't place where I've heard it. As for Will Schryver, I assume you are playing the "Ludd is a Schryver sockpuppet" game here. Otherwise your suggestion of Schryver as a spokesman for the Classic-FARMS-ites comes across as just ridiculous.

The FARMS-ites should probably stick with Peterson and Hamblin as their primary spokesmen. Hancock will just confuse people with his mega-long sentences.

Maybe someone should send Prof. Hancock a link to our thread:

Ralph Hancock wrote:I suppose I should be happy that no one has undertaken in any substantial way to dispute my reading of Benjamin Park’s review of worthy books by David Holland and Eran Shalev in the recent Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, or my analysis of the significance of this review in relation to interventions by David Holland and by Terryl Givens, and to an attempt at self-clarification by Mr. Park himself. I should be satisfied, no doubt, that the essence of my argument has not only withstood criticism, but in fact that it seems to have been judged to invulnerable by any who might have been inclined to gainsay it. So color me satisfied… up to a point.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Maybe someone should send Prof. Hancock a link to our thread:

Ralph Hancock wrote:I suppose I should be happy that no one has undertaken in any substantial way to dispute my reading of Benjamin Park’s review of worthy books by David Holland and Eran Shalev in the recent Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, or my analysis of the significance of this review in relation to interventions by David Holland and by Terryl Givens, and to an attempt at self-clarification by Mr. Park himself. I should be satisfied, no doubt, that the essence of my argument has not only withstood criticism, but in fact that it seems to have been judged to invulnerable by any who might have been inclined to gainsay it. So color me satisfied… up to a point.

Dr. Scratch,

Trust me, Ralph has already read this thread. He's choosing to ignore the excellent points you've made.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Dr. Scratch,

Trust me, Ralph has already read this thread. He's choosing to ignore the excellent points you've made.

You mean that Mormon apologists might choose not to ignore points made by people who disagree with them? Even if those points are cogent and substantive?

Surely that is impossible.