DCP's "Humble Apologetics"

[_Ray A]

If anyone can persuade me that Mormonism was worth another go - it would have to be Mok.

He embodies what I think most admirable about Mormons.

Okay, I'll shut my trap now. :)

[_Boaz & Lidia]

When you cease your obsessive personal crusade against me, publicly apologize for your continual attempts to blacken my character, and reveal my identity...

Oh there for a moment I thought it was GoodK speaking to DCP...

[_solomarineris]

I'm sure that was exactly what DCP was thinking when he published Bill Hamblin's "Quinn is a bad historian" article

I see nothing wrong with publishing negative reviews.

This is in a nutshell story of your life, in your worthless book about Mohammed you elevate him the stature of " Prophet of God",
Quinn takes the rap of a "misguided historian".
No wonder, I know of some "Village Idiots" who are treated with little more respect than you.
What I wonder is, how do you live with yourself day after day, knowing, most of what you write or say or believe are just pure rubbish, bunk...
You are almost as bad as PH Dunn, in your own way.

[_truth dancer]

The brethren have specifically asked members, (think apologists), to stop being so nasty and start at least TRYING to represent the church well.

I think it is wise counsel and if I were the PR director for the church I would absolutely ask members (think apologists) to start acting more decently.

My personal observation is that many members and investigators see what goes on on LDS boards and find it distasteful to put it mildly. I suppose, according to some apologists they are helping some people keep their testimonies, but I personally know there are those who are REALLY turned off by what they see as reflective of LDS members, and the LDS church.

I can't help but guess the LDS leaders are aware of this.

For an example, a woman investigating the church hears the missionary lessons then goes to the Internet to learn more and comes across MAD... well that about ends any further discussion.

I applaud DCP for doing what he can to support his leaders and their hope to clean up the apologetic scene.

Anything DCP or others have done in the past is in the past... we'll see how the future unfolds and who actually makes an effort to be a better Representative of the LDS church.

td

[_harmony]

Who knew that, at last, DCP would admit that the FARMS Review suffers from a "tone" problem?

Who knew that Master Scartch would, as he so often does, misrepresent what I said?

I did!

What was incorrect about his interpretation? Aside from the fact that Scratch made it, of course.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am just wondering if DCP's latest avatar "avoid[s] the very appearance of evil." I mean, I like it and all . . .

It's meant to reveal the true me, as perceived by certain people who don't know me but, it seems, missed by most if not all of those who do.

by the way, it still would be wonderful if you and Dr. Peterson could share a plate together and come to a meeting of the minds. . . .

Such posturing is a bit of an impediment to a peace making effort. I think just meeting and chatting in a nonthreatening and anonymous manner would be its own reward.

I'm more than happy to have lunch or dinner or otherwise meet with people who disagree with me. I've done so on several occasions. I had a nice visit with Dan Vogel and Michael Marquardt just the other day, have taken various prominent professional evangelical anti-Mormons out to eat, have had pleasant PM conversations with other critics on this board and elsewhere, etc.

Master Scartch doesn't simply disagree with me. He devotes relatively little time, in fact, to substantive issues. Instead, he has relentlessly sought, over the course of two or more years now, to defame me and to blacken my character by twisting and spinning and misrepresenting my actions and my words. I don't wish him ill, but I have absolutely no interest in ever meeting him.

When you cease your obsessive personal crusade against me, publicly apologize for your continual attempts to blacken my character, and reveal your identity...

Oh there for a moment I thought it was GoodK speaking to DCP...

I can see why you would imagine that, if you consider sending an e-link to a friend an "obsessive" and "continual" "crusade."

The brethren have specifically asked members, (think apologists), to stop being so nasty and start at least TRYING to represent the church well.

More precisely, they've encouraged people who seek to defend or explain Mormonism on the internet to comport themselves as disciples of Christ. This is sound advice.

I think it is wise counsel and if I were the PR director for the church I would absolutely ask members (think apologists) to start acting more decently.

My personal observation is that many members and investigators see what goes on on LDS boards and find it distasteful to put it mildly. I suppose, according to some apologists they are helping some people keep their testimonies, but I personally know there are those who are REALLY turned off by what they see as reflective of LDS members, and the LDS church.

It's a considerable mistake to equate what goes on on boards with "LDS apologetics," and to speak as if "LDS apologists," from the most recent anonymous pro-Mormon poster at RfM to the director of the Maxwell Institute and Jack Welch and Terryl Givens (who don't seem to appear on message boards at all), constituted a single, uniform community.

I can't help but guess the LDS leaders are aware of this.

I've never heard anything to suggest that any of the General Authorities, let alone the Twelve and the First Presidency, follow message boards.

For an example, a woman investigating the church hears the missionary lessons then goes to the Internet to learn more and comes across MAD... well that about ends any further discussion.

MADB is one thing. But the world of LDS apologetics -- including SHIELDS, FAIR, portions of the Maxwell Institute, etc. -- is vastly larger. FARMS alone has produced several significant films and published well over a hundred books, scores of periodicals, tens of thousands of pages of material -- the overwhelming majority of which cannot reasonably be described as polemical, let alone as harshly so.

I applaud DCP for doing what he can to support his leaders and their hope to clean up the apologetic scene.

Anything DCP or others have done in the past is in the past... we'll see how the future unfolds and who actually makes an effort to be a better Representative of the LDS church.

I hate to disappoint, but, on the whole, my remarks at FAIR were not a guilty plea.

What was incorrect about his interpretation? Aside from the fact that Scratch made it, of course.

I did not, and do not, grant Master Scartch's accusation regarding the tone of the FARMS Review. The Review has published thousands of pages of material. Serious, fair-minded inspection of a representative sample of those pages reveals his accusation to be false. It is, in fact, slanderous, and is a classic fallacious ad hominem designed to distract from the actual contents of the Review.

[_Mister Scratch]

Who knew that, at last, DCP would admit that the FARMS Review suffers from a "tone" problem?

Who knew that Master Scartch would, as he so often does, misrepresent what I said?

I did!

What "tone" problems were you referring to, Dr. P.?

I'm sure that was exactly what DCP was thinking when he published Bill Hamblin's "Quinn is a bad historian" article

I see nothing wrong with publishing negative reviews.

Oh, really? And when can I expect my invitation to Cougareat?

When you cease your obsessive personal crusade against me, publicly apologize for your continual attempts to blacken my character, and reveal your identity.

I see nothing wrong with publishing negative reviews.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What "tone" problems were you referring to, Dr. P.?

I had on-line arguments in mind, principally.

I see nothing wrong with publishing negative reviews.

Have you published any? Can you supply links or references? I might be interested to read one or two.

[_Mister Scratch]

What "tone" problems were you referring to, Dr. P.?

I had on-line arguments in mind, principally.

I see nothing wrong with publishing negative reviews.

Have you published any? Can you supply links or references? I might be interested to read one or two.

Why, yes! This very thread is a kind of "review" of your FAIR presentation!

[_Daniel Peterson]

This very thread is a kind of "review" of your FAIR presentation!

Which, presumably, you've neither heard nor read.

Typical Scartch.