DCP makes this board

[_LifeOnaPlate]

People don't do that anymore, if they ever did. People don't have time to read books and long drawn out articles.

I do. And I work full time and attend school full time, and volunteer, and attend concerts and shows, walk my dog, and stuff too.

People don't have time or money to attend conferences. Your colleagues are sitting in ivory towers, while you and a valiant few others are in the trenches occasionally, putting your own name and thoughts in the battle.

Olivewood Books? An ivory tower? Ok.

Also, every single LDS scholar I have personally contacted has personally contacted me in return or spent time talking with me on the phone. I've never been ignored. Ultimately, though, I take personal responsibility for learning. I have access to a lot of what the so-called "scholars" do. Where they have pointed me in helpful directions, I would be loathe to believe I must rely on them ultimately.

Mine is: use apologetics to defend the church now, to show the members and potential members that what the critics say isn't the way things are or were, or at least give some clear insight instead of murking things up where the people are now. Now. No insistence that books and articles and conferences are not just nice if the person has access and time and money, but addressing people where they are now. Insisting that the only way or even the best way to defend the church is through a few scholars taking pot shots at each other over a lengthy period of time via mediums few if anyone accesses isn't productive, while the rest of the world logs on and hears the roar of the critics via blog, chat room, and message boards.

If you really think the "rest of the world" is getting their information on a few message boards including this one I strongly disagree. I know of precisely no members of the church who are aware of this board (other than those I met here.)

You need help, and your scholarly friends, for the most part, are sitting on their hands. And the result is people walking away from the church or not joining in the first place.

This coming from a person who wasn't even aware of the Joseph Smith Papers project.

While y'all are busily writing scholarly tomes to each other, we're bleeding people. There is no ability to react to current events as they happen, unless and until you get some help from your fellow apologists here on the internet.

I have found it remarkably easy to access scholarly material, archives, researchers, professors, teachers, books, articles, etc.

Where's the book responding to the fallout from Prop 8? Is it ready to print? Reports are coming in about good LDS people leaving the church over this. Lots of them. Where's the response?

The response provided by FAIR has been viewed literally thousands of times in a matter of a few weeks.

Instead of addressing current issues now, today, your colleagues are worried about stuff that has no bearing on the lives of the members... stuff like keeping Quinn from presenting at a conference. Good grief.

I doubt anyone can be all things to all people. After a time, one can learn who to ask about what issue.

And all you can do is write books? Present at conferences few even know exist? Edit a magazine that few people read? Meanwhile, 160,000 hits a day on one anti-LDS website alone... 160,000!

LDS.org gets a substantially larger number of hits per day.

You aren't Superman, Daniel. Get some help. Any of those people on your list would be a help. All or most of them would have an impact.

He doesn't believe he is. I've spoken with many people on his list. It was easy. I didn't need them to track me down on some random website full of people who spend their days complaining about the church and acting melodramatic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

People don't have time to read books and long drawn out articles.

And yet people do.

People don't have time or money to attend conferences.

And yet they do.

use apologetics to defend the church now, to show the members and potential members that what the critics say isn't the way things are or were, or at least give some clear insight instead of murking things up where the people are now. Now. No insistence that books and articles and conferences are not just nice if the person has access and time and money, but addressing people where they are now. Insisting that the only way or even the best way to defend the church is through a few scholars taking pot shots at each other over a lengthy period of time via mediums few if anyone accesses isn't productive, while the rest of the world logs on and hears the roar of the critics via blog, chat room, and message boards.

We're using firesides. We're using books. We're using lectures. We're using CDs. We're using conferences and symposia. We're using journals and magazines. We're using the internet. We're using films. (Have you seen either of the Journey of Faith DVDs?) We're using television. We're using radio. We're using international satellite broadcasts. We're translating materials into major world languages.

You imagine that we're sitting on our hands, but we're not. (I'm being filmed for a new multi-part television documentary from 8-10:30 on Monday morning.)

Even when apologists use the internet, y'all just don't get it. When all KA has to do is send people to websites affiliated with you (FAIR and MI and MADB), and then 18 people walk away from the church because apologetic answers provide smoke and mirrors hidden within thinly disguised personal attacks... that's a problem. Multiply that by the thousands of ex-LDS out there, and that's a meltdown.

I can't say whether such stories are true or false or maybe partially true, but I can tell you that I and others regularly receive notes and verbal comments from people who have been helped by things produced by the Maxwell Institute and at FAIR, and even, yes, by things at MADB (which has little if any connection with FAIR these days and never had any at all with the Maxwell Institute).

And all you can do is write books? Present at conferences few even know exist? Edit a magazine that few people read?

Harmony, you need to realize that, simply because you're unware of things, that doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't happening.

Meanwhile, 160,000 hits a day on one anti-LDS website alone... 160,000!

If you're talking about the so-called "Recovery" board, I readily acknowledge that that's a high number. But I think you're still talking about a much smaller number of actual posters, and that the "hits" typically represent the reading or the writing of a one-liner or a short comment. In other words, little if anything by way of serious conversation or genuine engagement with substantive issues. So it's quite a bit less impressive than it initially sounds.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think the point here is simple: Harmony wishes to point out that the messageboards have a legitimate impact, while DCP and LoaP want to insist that they are basically irrelevant, and that books and journals are far more important---be it in terms of scholarship, rhetorical heft, or impact on membership numbers.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how, in purely "popular" terms, something like the FARMS Review is more important than, say, RfM. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily say that MDB is "more important" than, e.g., the new Church-funded MMM book. These are different media. They are both important, and they feed off of one another. People such and John Gee, J. Tvedtnes, and DCP have all utilized the messageboards, and things related to them, in their published works. Heck, DCP has quoted me verbatim in at least two (that I am aware of) of his editorials, without any attribution. Also, recall how the folks at the recent FAIR conference kept carrying on about the discussing of Mopologetic finances that had been going on here. The fact of the matter is that even a small MB such as this one can have a powerful impact. And it does.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I think the point here is simple: Harmony wishes to point out that the messageboards have a legitimate impact, while DCP and LoaP want to insist that they are basically irrelevant, and that books and journals are far more important---be it in terms of scholarship, rhetorical heft, or impact on membership numbers.

Importance depends on purpose, goals, effects, and many other factors. My argument is that the claims made here about the impact of RFM or this website are very overinflated and self-important. Nothing of quality discussion actually occurs at RFM. It is 100 times more dogmatic than the MAD board. You toe the party line or you get deleted, and quickly. Even when respectfully engaging or correcting or positing. My approach is so much more nuanced than you allow, but I understand how you enjoy characterizing people into neat little packages.

Also, recall how the folks at the recent FAIR conference kept carrying on about the discussing of Mopologetic finances that had been going on here. The fact of the matter is that even a small MB such as this one can have a powerful impact. And it does.

The navel gazing here is remarkable. To believe you have made a big splash would be a very big claim, one I believe is entirely unsubstantiated. I doubt anyone who went to the FAIR conference even remembers anything about "mopologetic finance discussion" on this website ever being referred to. It played a ten second part of a video Kerry Shirts shot. It was a joke. That was literally it. I wouldn't even remember it were it not brought up so often here.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The fact of the matter is that even a small MB such as this one can have a powerful impact. And it does.

Anything that resonates with an individual can have a powerful impact. Some people are powerfully impacted by NASCAR. I don't understand why.

But Harmony wants all of these scholars to spend their every minute trolling websites to make sure no question goes unanswered. This is simply ludicrous. Knowing how busy some people are I am greatly appreciated that they publish what they do, and that a few of them come online to regular websites and are available for discussion. Obviously there are benefits and shortcomings to different approaches. There is no "catch-all" however because different methods appeal to different people, at different times, in different situations, regarding different subjects!

This whole subject has been discussed on this site before. (A site that talks more about itself and Dan Peterson than anything else sadly.) Earlier this year DCP noted:

I'm sure [apologists, scholars, teachers etc.] are not helping everybody who needs or wants help. That's one of the reasons why I give this matter on-going thought. I know that our efforts have helped more than a few; I've heard from them. But I don't believe that any one approach will help everybody. The response that allays all concerns of Worrier A may well offend Worrier B, or leave him unsatisfied, or even suggest new reasons for doubt. I've seen it happen. Ideally, the approach would be tailored to each individual. Unfortunately, that simply isn't possible in every way.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 98#p182098


Further, even if DCP and the list he named could reach every person here or on rfm or wherever it still would not overcome the principle of agency. I am free to welcome or dismiss their arguments. I am free to read further, to check sources, to improve my understanding of the nature of historical inquiry or religious thinking, theology, botany, journalism, the rise of the new media, or utah jazz basketball. No one can replace my own drive and desire, my own thoughts, my own conclusions. I get to make choices, research, learn, and have faith.

[_antishock8]

I wonder how many "converts" the Recovery board ever year? I also wonder what that means in real value to the Mormon church, ie, money? Perhaps attrition is overcome by BIC Mormons who go on to offset the financial losses of the Internet. It'd be an interesting thesis if someone were to do a hard study of the numbers...

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I wonder how many "converts" the Recovery board ever year? I also wonder what that means in real value to the Mormon church, ie, money? Perhaps attrition is overcome by BIC Mormons who go on to offset the financial losses of the Internet. It'd be an interesting thesis if someone were to do a hard study of the numbers...

No doubt. Where are all the critic apologists on this one? Metcalfe? Vogel? Mister Scratch? Spikey118776? If only they'd come down from those ivory towers and help us.

[_antishock8]

I wonder how many "converts" the Recovery board ever year? I also wonder what that means in real value to the Mormon church, ie, money? Perhaps attrition is overcome by BIC Mormons who go on to offset the financial losses of the Internet. It'd be an interesting thesis if someone were to do a hard study of the numbers...

No doubt. Where are all the critic apologists on this one? Metcalfe? Vogel? Mister Scratch? Spikey118776? If only they'd come down from those ivory towers and help us.

My typos aside, what you just posted makes no sense as usual. Elaborate?

[_Mister Scratch]

Importance depends on purpose, goals, effects, and many other factors. My argument is that the claims made here about the impact of RFM or this website are very overinflated and self-important.

Are they? Feel free to actually explain.

Nothing of quality discussion actually occurs at RFM.

That isn't exactly true. DCP used to haunt that board, posting under a variety of aliases and getting booted off multiple times. Likewise, Bill Hamblin once revealed his true colors by posting a highly inflammatory and offensive anti-Semitic rant on the site. Furthermore, some interesting pieces by Tal Bachman, Steven Benson, and Bob McCue have all appeared on RfM.

It is 100 times more dogmatic than the MAD board. You toe the party line or you get deleted, and quickly.

"100 times"? I think the two sites are more similar than you are willing to admit, probably due to your own dogmatism.

Even when respectfully engaging or correcting or positing. My approach is so much more nuanced than you allow, but I understand how you enjoy characterizing people into neat little packages.

Your "approach" isn't very nuanced at all. You can festoon it in all manner of superficial booklearning, joking, and screwing around, but the basic fact remains that your "approach" is little more than an extension of your missionary love for "bashing."

Also, recall how the folks at the recent FAIR conference kept carrying on about the discussing of Mopologetic finances that had been going on here. The fact of the matter is that even a small MB such as this one can have a powerful impact. And it does.

The navel gazing here is remarkable. To believe you have made a big splash would be a very big claim, one I believe is entirely unsubstantiated.

Hmmm. Looking at the above, I don't see the claim of a "big splash" anywhere. It seems you are engaging in hyperbole and spin. I have to ask: can you be trusted to accurately represent anything I say?

I doubt anyone who went to the FAIR conference even remembers anything about "mopologetic finance discussion" on this website ever being referred to.

More distortion. It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

It played a ten second part of a video Kerry Shirts shot. It was a joke. That was literally it. I wouldn't even remember it were it not brought up so often here.

But now you *do* remember it. And it pains you. It bothers you. It is a thorn in your side.

[_wenglund]

In an effort to make the point that apologists should be actively engaged at online discussion boards, harmony and others have pointed to the number of daily hits at RFM.

It should be remembered, though, that: 1) LDS apologist are disallowed from doing apologetics on at RFM; and 2) LDS apologists are typically banned from RFM. And, this doesn't even speak to the nominal chance of having a rational and indepth discussion there.

So, using RFM actually mitigates against your point. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-