http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/
Here are a couple of choice tidbits from LoaP's notes on the presentation:
Some are critical because they are concerned with the tone and method. Hard as it is to say we need to listen to them, though many of their accusations can be flat-out false. There is an ad hominem story about how apologists behave and they are wrong in many cases. Many people haven't even read the stuff. Still, it is never wrong to listen to your critics. And to the extent that tone has gotten into what we wanted to say, we need to improve in that area.
Who knew that, at last, DCP would admit that the FARMS Review suffers from a "tone" problem? Good for you, Professor P.! I knew you could do it!
Next, check out this passage, where The Good Professor compares apologists to doctors who've taken the Hippocratic Oath:
The first rule must be: "First do no harm." If we do good it is icing on the cake, Peterson says. Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope, but do it with gentleness and respect. Message boards can be pretty strong, pretty argumentetive. There is a lot of testosterone involved in that area.
Ah, right. I'm sure that was exactly what DCP was thinking when he published Bill Hamblin's "Quinn is a bad historian" article, or in his exchange with James White.
The difference between apologists and historians is that the first attack the opponent and the latter want to take them to lunch. "What I like to do is to have the enemy for lunch," Peterson said. He doesn't see the distinction so distinctly.
Oh, really? And when can I expect my invitation to Cougareat?
Anyways: kudos to LoaP for the notes, and, at base, I do have to applaud DCP for at least trying to address the "tone" problem which is everywhere in LDS apologetics. On another thread, there is talk about the many horrible posts of Pahoran. One can only hope that The Good Professor will see this as part of the same problem he addressed in his FAIR Conference talk.
