Gadianton wrote:What a treat! A superb article, Doctor Scratch, you are a great asset to our school. After 15 years, it's a little over due, and as the Reverand said, it's really not the incident but the maneuvering, the evading, the apologetics .
Thank you, Dr. Robbers. I was wondering: what did you make of this passage?:
Capo Midgley wrote:The fact that, when it was discovered, a very serious effort was made to suppress it, shows the good intentions of all involved in the publication of the Review.
I think we can both agree that "suppress" is, to say the least, a very interesting choice of words. Do you think it is indicative of larger trends in Mopologetics?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I think we can both agree that "suppress" is, to say the least, a very interesting choice of words. Do you think it is indicative of larger trends in Mopologetics?
Nice catch, Doctor. Suppression is, after all, the name of the game. What the First Presidency Vault can't hide, the apologist must explain away. This means suppression by means of rationalization, such that the suppressing going on here is the suppressing of the inquisitiveness of the average member. If one can lay on the verbiage and footnotes thickly enough, then the rank and file can rest assured that the problem has been adequately addressed, no matter what it may be.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor Scratch wrote:Thank you, Dr. Robbers. I was wondering: what did you make of this passage?:
Capo Midgley wrote:The fact that, when it was discovered, a very serious effort was made to suppress it, shows the good intentions of all involved in the publication of the Review.
I think we can both agree that "suppress" is, to say the least, a very interesting choice of words. Do you think it is indicative of larger trends in Mopologetics?
Well, what it shows, doctor, is that the apologetic paradigm aligns supression and cover-ups with the best of intentions. So, if the leaders of our nation are to follow the example of the righteous apologists, then if there is any evidence that they had engaged in torture campaigns, every effort should be made to cover it up, to stop the American people from finding out.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Doctor Scratch wrote:I think we can both agree that "suppress" is, to say the least, a very interesting choice of words. Do you think it is indicative of larger trends in Mopologetics?
Nice catch, Doctor. Suppression is, after all, the name of the game. What the First Presidency Vault can't hide, the apologist must explain away. This means suppression by means of rationalization, such that the suppressing going on here is the suppressing of the inquisitiveness of the average member. If one can lay on the verbiage and footnotes thickly enough, then the rank and file can rest assured that the problem has been adequately addressed, no matter what it may be.
Well said, Reverend. Except, in this case, it seems that the "suppression" went far beyond semantics and verbal legerdemain. I wonder if it would be fair to label as "suppression" whatever happened to the 2nd Watson Letter....
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I wonder if it would be fair to label as "suppression" whatever happened to the 2nd Watson Letter....
I am wondering, Doctor Scratch, if you believe the second Watson letter to be a complete invention of whatever FARMS writer (Hamblin?) first quoted it. I, like you, think it's a real shame the letter has vanished into the ether, but I suspect it existed and said what Hamblin (or whoever) said it did.
Anyway, just curious. Sorry for the tangent.
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:I wonder if it would be fair to label as "suppression" whatever happened to the 2nd Watson Letter....
I am wondering, Doctor Scratch, if you believe the second Watson letter to be a complete invention of whatever FARMS writer (Hamblin?) first quoted it. I, like you, think it's a real shame the letter has vanished into the ether, but I suspect it existed and said what Hamblin (or whoever) said it did.
I don't know, Dwight. I do more or less "suspect" that it "existed," as you say, but I am very, very skeptical as to whether the apologists are representing its contents in a totally forthright way. And besides: I'm actually far more interested in what Hamblin's letter to Watson said. That is: I'm more interested in whatever it was Hamblin said that convinced this high-ranking Church bureaucrat to dismiss decades of Church doctrine.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:That is: I'm more interested in whatever it was Hamblin said that convinced this high-ranking Church bureaucrat to dismiss decades of Church doctrine.
Dear Bro. Watson,
The jig is up. We need a lie, and we need it fast.
Sincerely,
Ramblin' Hamblin
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor Scratch wrote:I wonder if it would be fair to label as "suppression" whatever happened to the 2nd Watson Letter....
I am wondering, Doctor Scratch, if you believe the second Watson letter to be a complete invention of whatever FARMS writer (Hamblin?) first quoted it. I, like you, think it's a real shame the letter has vanished into the ether, but I suspect it existed and said what Hamblin (or whoever) said it did.
Anyway, just curious. Sorry for the tangent.
Here is my take on it...
Lets say there was a letter and it was lost.
OK, it would take a two minute phone call to Watson from Hamblin or DCP to ask for another one. If there was a letter, Watson probably has it on his computer, or has a copy right there in his office. If not it would take about fifteen minutes to write another one, which may not be identical but would confirm there was a letter no?
Hamblin or DCP could ask Watson to write a letter confirming he had written the original letter as well. The two minutes it would take to do this would put the matter to rest.
I mean seriously, in this computer age to suggest a letter is lost and there is no way to confirm the letter exists or get a new one, or replicate the information is rather nonsensical in my opinion.
Just sayin..
~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
truth dancer wrote:OK, it would take a two minute phone call to Watson from Hamblin or DCP to ask for another one. If there was a letter, Watson probably has it on his computer, or has a copy right there in his office. If not it would take about fifteen minutes to write another one, which may not be identical but would confirm there was a letter no?
Hamblin or DCP could ask Watson to write a letter confirming he had written the original letter as well. The two minutes it would take to do this would put the matter to rest.
I think you underestimate two things. First, the hierarchical nature of the LDS Church. These guys don't want to bug the men in power, who repeatedly tell the members they don't want to be bothered with details. It is one thing to request the original letter in the cause of soul saving, and quite another to get a copy of the letter once sent.
Second, the apologists are not going to bug the powers that be for our benefit. We are viewed with contempt by the apologetic community. Face it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist