Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.
You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.
That's unfortunate.
Hi Dan--
No, I don't believe that "mopologists" are inherently (or even by external historical necessity) dishonest. I don't think that, frankly. I just don't.
You might be getting that from the F. Michael Watson reference. I just thought that was sort of funny. And not true (as I hope I made clear).
You suggested earlier (if I'm remembering correctly) that, if someone at the Maxwell Institute hadn't responded to an email request within a reasonable amount of time (and I think you suggested that such would be a day or so), then you'd put the request to someone personally.
I think that, in light of that, 14 days (two weeks) is quite a reasonable amount of time within which to expect some sort of response.
That doesn't mean I distrust "mopologists." At a very fundamental level, I share a common worldview with LDS: i.e., immanent theism. It just means that I'd like to have some sort of (at least)
potential access to the material to which the responder to this particular Q&A has access. Admittedly, that is a partisan concern on my part.
I do hope to have some response. I will gladly and forthrightly post any and all responses I receive from the Maxwell Institute on this issue. Whether or not said responses support my own personal worldview is, to my mind, utterly inconsequential to an honest relaying of material fact(s).
Mine is a sincere request for information. Not an indulgence in "gotcha-ism."
Such is the confusion of MB's. I'm on your side, in some ways. And I'm on the side of LDS critics in others. ?
Best.
CKS