To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

[_Kishkumen]

In other words: he's trying to appropriate the "liberal" affection for "diversity"--"See? We favor a diverse range of approaches! It's actually you liberal, secular closet-apostate 'New MI' people who are close-minded." The thing is, he calls for "honest scholarly methodology," and the flat-out fact of the matter is that gossip-mongering, smear campaigns, and ad hominem attack just aren't "scholarly."

Yes, tracking and smearing liberal Mormons sure would indeed bring more "variety" to the Maxwell Institute. And it would only make the Church look like a paranoid little sect and its university a Bob Jones of the West.

[_Kishkumen]

DCP reiterates his support for a variety of approaches.

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/01/let-a-hundred-flowers-blossom-some-observations-on-mormon-studies.html#ixzz3NhKl6KwR

On the contrary, I not only recognize that there are legitimate times, places, and venues for such endeavors, but I endorse them. Enthusiastically. I simply deny that they’re the only legitimate scholarly approaches to Mormonism (or Catholicism, or Evangelical Protestantism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or any other worldview). And I absolutely believe that, at Brigham Young University (of all places!) and in an Institute named after Elder Neal A. Maxwell (of all people!) overtly faithful scholarship, including apologetic defenses of the faith, should also have a valued place.

Do I still need to make my actual views any more plain?

I personally would find this plainer if he would contextualize and defend the necessity of singling out authors and personalities for misrepresentation in the pages of a journal run under the aegis of a major university.

Only an extreme form of relativism would include any species of discourse or publication at the university. Should BYU publish pornography? Attack-dog apologetics are the pornography of apologetic discourse, so should BYU publish pornography?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Having read a bit of Michael Coe's (whom I greatly respect) works, attack-dog academics and defense of one's position, using insults and personal attacks, seems rather common in some scientific disciplines which require a measure of qualified opinion.

I don't think Dialogue or MHA would ever publish anything like that, but Sunstone and Signature Books likely would, to match LDS apologetic output.

[_Kishkumen]

Having read a bit of Michael Coe's (whom I greatly respect) works, attack-dog academics and defense of one's position, using insults and personal attacks, seems rather common in some scientific disciplines which require a measure of qualified opinion.

I don't think Dialogue or MHA would ever publish anything like that, but Sunstone and Signature Books likely would, to match LDS apologetic output.

Your understanding of academics has always been unimpressive.

While it is true that academic writing can get very contentious at times, these clashes are usually in the form of back-and-forth exchanges between scholars on opposing sides of an issue of scholarship. It is not usually the case that one sees a university implicitly sponsoring partisan written attacks on members of a religious group absent any relevant academic argument. And, whether Sunstone or Signature Books would publish such material is, even if true, entirely irrelevant. The question has always been whether it was appropriate for BYU to do so. Sunstone and Signature Books do not operate on the campus of an LDS university.

Bot has always been the first in line to obfuscate the issue when it suits him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think what's problematic for the average member when reading an attack-style piece of Mopologia is that it comes off as very inquisition-y. It's also very unsettling for them because they may identify with the person being attacked, and thus feel doubly persecuted by the very people who are supposed to be assuaging their concerns. Instead, they get a very clear message of, "Fall in line or we'll turn on you, too.".

- Doc

[_Kishkumen]

I think what's problematic for the average member when reading an attack-style piece of Mopologia is that it comes off as very inquisition-y. It's also very unsettling for them because they may identify with the person being attacked, and thus feel doubly persecuted by the very people who are supposed to be assuaging their concerns. Instead, they get a very clear message of, "Fall in line or we'll turn on you, too.".

- Doc

Well said, Doc. Excellent point.

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP reiterates his support for a variety of approaches.

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/01/let-a-hundred-flowers-blossom-some-observations-on-mormon-studies.html#ixzz3NhKl6KwR

On the contrary, I not only recognize that there are legitimate times, places, and venues for such endeavors, but I endorse them. Enthusiastically. I simply deny that they’re the only legitimate scholarly approaches to Mormonism (or Catholicism, or Evangelical Protestantism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or any other worldview). And I absolutely believe that, at Brigham Young University (of all places!) and in an Institute named after Elder Neal A. Maxwell (of all people!) overtly faithful scholarship, including apologetic defenses of the faith, should also have a valued place.

Do I still need to make my actual views any more plain?

I personally would find this plainer if he would contextualize and defend the necessity of singling out authors and personalities for misrepresentation in the pages of a journal run under the aegis of a major university.

Only an extreme form of relativism would include any species of discourse or publication at the university. Should BYU publish pornography? Attack-dog apologetics are the pornography of apologetic discourse, so should BYU publish pornography?

Yeah, his argument is incredibly weak. E.g., does he think they should be doing FIRM/Meldrum-style Heartland apologetics? What about "Uranus Testifies of Christ"-type things? Should there be more articles dealing with divining rods and astrology? Should these all have a "valued place"?

[_Chap]

... DCP dishes out a lot of crap, but he also seems to have the strong fortitude to take it. I think in some cases, many cases actually, people are being overly sensitive about perceived "attacks," maybe time to quit whining and move on.

The word 'whining' seems to be used as a kind of last-ditch defense whenever the writer wants to rebut complaints made against the behavior of a group he or she favors, but can't think of a way to actually defend that behavior. Under such circumstances, the complainant is often said to 'whine'.

I wonder whether Water Dog could apply the same word to DCP's continual complaints about the circumstances that led to his resignation from the Maxwell Institute?

[_Gadianton]

Of all the things, Everybody Wang Chung has written here, this is, in my opinion, the best bit of all.

I totally agree. The lesson from our resident Bishop on the Book of Mathew was outstanding.

[_Kishkumen]

... DCP dishes out a lot of crap, but he also seems to have the strong fortitude to take it. I think in some cases, many cases actually, people are being overly sensitive about perceived "attacks," maybe time to quit whining and move on.

The word 'whining' seems to be used as a kind of last-ditch defense whenever the writer wants to rebut complaints made against the behavior of a group he or she favors, but can't think of a way to actually defend that behavior. Under such circumstances, the complainant is often said to 'whine'.

I wonder whether Water Dog could apply the same word to DCP's continual complaints about the circumstances that led to his resignation from the Maxwell Institute?

I detect a note of gender bias in Water Dog's post. Conservatives are "real men," so they aren't perceived as whining. A chauvinist will naturally feminize what he does not respect.