Mister Scratch wrote:If there's an actual transcript, I'd be glad to read it.
There isn't.
But it's really pretty funny to encounter someone who might seriously consider an internet response to somebody's internet account of a play that that person had seen to be a "review" of the play.
Mister Scratch wrote:All that said, I wrote up quite a lengthy response to your "The Witchcraft Paradigm." Perhaps you can find it via the Search feature.
Yeah. I know. That was kind of sad.
I was hoping that there was maybe something a bit better out there.
Oh well. Never mind. I'm sure you have other strengths.
Mister Scratch wrote:If there's an actual transcript, I'd be glad to read it.
There isn't.
But it's really pretty funny to encounter someone who might seriously consider an internet response to somebody's internet account of a play that that person had seen to be a "review" of the play.
Yes, I agree. It's almost as funny as encountering someone who thinks that LDS apologetics is in any way "scholarly."
Mister Scratch wrote:All that said, I wrote up quite a lengthy response to your "The Witchcraft Paradigm." Perhaps you can find it via the Search feature.
Yeah. I know. That was kind of sad.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. You have no idea how painful it was to tread through the tortured prose and tendentious spin-doctoring of "The Witchcraft Paradigm." The flailing about, the whining, the desperation of it alll..... Whew! It is really no wonder that a certain sadness would have crept into the "review".
I was hoping that there was maybe something a bit better out there.
Oh well. Never mind. I'm sure you have other strengths.
Yes, I really prefer to "review" Mopologetic ethics. You know, stuff like examining the ethics behind your smearing of Quinn & Ritner. Or evaluating Lou Midgley's verbal assault and harassment of Sandra Tanner, etc.
Mister Scratch wrote:It's almost as funny as encountering someone who thinks that LDS apologetics is in any way "scholarly."
Irrelevant silly insult duly noted.
Mister Scratch wrote:Yes, I really prefer to "review" Mopologetic ethics. You know, stuff like examining the ethics behind your smearing of Quinn & Ritner.
And don't forget my role in the assassination of President Eisenhower and the sinking of the Queen Elizabeth II.
Mister Scratch wrote:Or evaluating Lou Midgley's verbal assault and harassment of Sandra Tanner, etc.
LOL. I hope you're monitoring Lou at this very moment.
Get those earphones on! Break out the field glasses!
Mister Scratch wrote:It's almost as funny as encountering someone who thinks that LDS apologetics is in any way "scholarly."
Irrelevant silly insult duly noted.
You know, since this topic has come up, I should say that I am still waiting for you to provide one single example of an openly LDS BoM-historicity article which has been published in a peer-reviewed venue. LoaP threw in the towel some time back, finally admitting that no such articles exist. Are you ready to man up and do the same?
Mister Scratch wrote:You know, since this topic has come up, I should say that I am still waiting for you to provide one single example of an openly LDS BoM-historicity article which has been published in a peer-reviewed venue. LoaP threw in the towel some time back, finally admitting that no such articles exist. Are you ready to man up and do the same?
That's easy. Anything published by FARMS on the topic has been peer-reviewed.
TD: The brethren have specifically asked members, (think apologists), to stop being so nasty and start at least TRYING to represent the church well.
Dan: 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.
Either way the point is the same. I'm agreeing with you... yes it is sound advice and I think it will do well for the church.
TD: 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.
Dan: 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'm speaking generally... the point is, I think the church wants members to conduct themselves as good Representatives of the church. If non-members see the nastiness of some members, and see LDS believers as mean-spirited and cruel, they will not be interested in the church.
I don't see how anyone can really argue with this.
TD: I can't help but guess the LDS leaders are aware of this.
Dan: I've never heard anything to suggest that any of the General Authorities, let alone the Twelve and the First Presidency, follow message boards.
I'm in no way suggesting the GAs follow message boards. Of course they don't. I do however believe they must know the impact of the Internet and how it effects missionary work. My guess is they also know that non-members or investigators will be dismissive of the church if the members they encounter are mean-spirited and nasty.
TD: 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.
Dan: I hate to disappoint, but, on the whole, my remarks at FAIR were not a guilty plea.
I did not suggest they were. I am applauding you DCP. A simple thank you would have been fine. ;-)
Just to summarize since my point was evidently missed. I think the brethren's message is a good one. And kudos to Dan for trying to help.
td
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Mister Scratch wrote:You know, since this topic has come up, I should say that I am still waiting for you to provide one single example of an openly LDS BoM-historicity article which has been published in a peer-reviewed venue. LoaP threw in the towel some time back, finally admitting that no such articles exist. Are you ready to man up and do the same?
That's easy. Anything published by FARMS on the topic has been peer-reviewed.
You're it.
You should admit your position. There would be more dignity in it. Anyways, your response is flawed because:
1) You have never established that FARMS uses a legitimate peer review. Your "Witchcraft Paradigm" article merely reiterated what critics have long suspected: the reviewing is mostly done by LDS who are loyal to the Mopologetic agenda. In other words, reviewers are selected primarily for their loyalty to "the cause," and secondarily for their scholarly expertise. 2) You've failed to mention a non-FARMS historical publication which would establish credibility for Book of Mormon historicity arguments.
Why not admit defeat, as your brave acolyte LoaP was willing to do? There'd be more dignity in it.
Mister Scratch wrote:You have never established that FARMS uses a legitimate peer review.
Yes I have.
The standard I used, though, was "what would be persuasive to a reasonable reader," not "what would be persuasive to Master Scartch."
Mister Scratch wrote:You've failed to mention a non-FARMS historical publication which would establish credibility for Book of Mormon historicity arguments.
Moving the goal posts?
Mister Scratch wrote:Why not admit defeat. . . ? There'd be more dignity in it.