John Larsen wrote:What is wrong is his over zealous and ill-informed opinion which is expressed in this thread with the intent of suppressing interest in the conference.
By the way, most ex-Mormons do not like Sunstone at all. I don't think you will find very many people who have resigned from the Church. The active post-Mormon community does not mix with the Sunstone crowd. The people who attend Sunstone tend to be NOM types and liberals. The only reason they are scene as unorthodox is because orthodoxy is defined so tightly. The kind of opinions expressed at Sunstone would be pretty common place at the symposia of those of other faiths.
I have this feeling that critics do like sunstone especially when it is attacked by the more conventional Mormons. I have no idea if the postmormon crowd mixes with sunstone or not but if sunstone comes out with something they can use, they use it. Likewise for critics. Any negative understandings or facts about the LDS church that sunstone may produce will be embraced by the exer or postmo crowd.
However, I do not find anything wrong with the magazine. I think that the LDS church needs a more liberal publication as sunstone. Maybe Bill has some residue from the early 1990's.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
John Larsen wrote:What is wrong is his over zealous and ill-informed opinion which is expressed in this thread with the intent of suppressing interest in the conference.
By the way, most ex-Mormons do not like Sunstone at all. I don't think you will find very many people who have resigned from the Church. The active post-Mormon community does not mix with the Sunstone crowd. The people who attend Sunstone tend to be NOM types and liberals. The only reason they are scene as unorthodox is because orthodoxy is defined so tightly. The kind of opinions expressed at Sunstone would be pretty common place at the symposia of those of other faiths.
I have this feeling that critics do like sunstone especially when it is attacked by the more conventional Mormons. I have no idea if the postmormon crowd mixes with sunstone or not but if sunstone comes out with something they can use, they use it. Likewise for critics. Any negative understandings or facts about the LDS church that sunstone may produce will be embraced by the exer or postmo crowd.
However, I do not find anything wrong with the magazine. I think that the LDS church needs a more liberal publication as sunstone. Maybe Bill has some residue from the early 1990's.
The magazine is very reflective of the tone of the conference. I feel sorry for Sunstone, really. It is squished between to strong personalities--that of the ex-Mormons and the Orthodoxy of the Church. It tries to carve out a niche, that is frankly easy to find in most organizations, and gets ridiculed and attacked. Bill's comments suggest that he does too much naval gazing since he doesn't realize Sunstone takes just as many jabs from the ex-Mos for being to appologetic.
Runtu wrote:Nope, nothing wrong with disliking it, but comparing Sunstone to a gathering of anti-Semites and neo-Nazis is beyond bizarre.
Who knew he was so bigoted against the Sunstone crowd?
I mean, it would be one thing to compare a Sunstone gathering to one of Reform Jews, but to anti-Semites? I think that indicates exactly how badly his biases twist his reasoning.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Mike Reed wrote:I explained to Hamblin that the most anti of anti-Mormons tend to view Sunstone just the opposite of how he does--ie. as being full of apologists, and critics who are too soft on the Church. His response to this point: a mere horse laugh.
Obviously you haven't spent much time around FARMs. You mistook the sound of a jackass for that of a horse.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Gee whiz, Hamblin is really out of control over there. His rant is reminiscent of his disgusting outburst on RfM some years back. And he really needs to change his analogy, since it doesn't account for the fact that his hatred for Sunstone stems from the "Metcalfe is Butthead" incident. Sure, he can go ahead and compare the Suntoners to "anti-Semites" all he wants, but he needs to remember that he was once one of them, attending their conferences and publishing in their journal.
"[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
I hadn't made a connection to the butthead incident until, I think it was Mike, mentioned it. It does seem to tie in. I knew he was not a great fan of "alternative voices", but he certainly made that more than clear on that thread.
BH:
At any rate, I've long maintained that the best way to redeem Sunstone is not for CES to forbid its teachers to attend, but to require them to attend. This would so flood Sunstone with devotional presentations that it would drive all the anti-Mormons away!
Well now we know he's obviously not interested in any sort of dialogue. Drive the anti-Mormons away and shut them up. It's no surprise he refuses to post here.
why me wrote:Sunstone has a reputation of being on the edge when it comes to Mormonism. However, I have the impression that bushman actually likes sunstone.
Actually, I don't think Bushman is a big fan of Sunstone. I don't think he's attended more than two or three times over the last twenty years—and then only when he or his wife has been invited to speak. I don't think he would say anything disparaging about it, but it's not really his thing.
