Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_karl61]

which builds bridges faster - trying to find something in common OR saying you were wrong.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Can I get a stronger definition of what apologetic bridge-building would include, if not the sort of things DCP has mentioned?

Well, LoaP, let's hope that DCP shows up to clarify. Personally, I'm not really sure how meetings with Jews and Muslims counts as "apologetic bridge building." You seem to think that it does, so perhaps you can explain? I.e., how is this sort of "bridge building" apologetic in nature?

Basically as I understand it, by establishing good will between different faith communities people hope to foster open and fruitful discussion. Ideally, this would help encourage peace between religions that have in the past fought against each other. The idea of "seeking first to understand, and then to be understood" seems to be one of the premises behind the meetings. There are, after all, some interesting points of agreement between differing religions along with the differences. By establishing some common ground it becomes easier to answer apologetically to criticism from others who oppose what particular groups hold in common. Also, noting differences in the beliefs of others has helped me understand my own beliefs in new and different ways. Moreover, considering the potential for religion to be used as a framework to encourage violence, this sort of bridge building is not just praise worthy, it is rather crucial.

I have a lot more to say on this but I think these few thoughts give a good start.

[_Gadianton]

Do you really think that Middle Eastern specialists shouldn't go to the Middle East?

no

Or that most don't?

no

Do you believe that chemists shouldn't enter laboratories?

no

That geologists shouldn't go on expeditions? That archaeologists should never dig?

no

That field botanists should never leave their offices?

no

I also don't believe that apologists shouldn't get paid vacations, or at least be able to use FFMs for vacations. I am not one who questions the free market on most matters.

But, i observe that while you are living it up on the beach, the rest of us down here can't really raise our heads "above the sugar cane" and get much more than a little time in on the internet. Compared to you, none of us really has a life. And you sure look big to the lurkers compared to us, with your ability to contrast the exquisitness of one exotic beach to another. You walk tall among us, as you do among the villagers who provide the feasts you share with the king.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, LoaP, let's hope that DCP shows up to clarify. Personally, I'm not really sure how meetings with Jews and Muslims counts as "apologetic bridge building." You seem to think that it does, so perhaps you can explain? I.e., how is this sort of "bridge building" apologetic in nature?

Basically as I understand it, by establishing good will between different faith communities people hope to foster open and fruitful discussion.

But, obviously, this sort of thing is not, by nature, "apologetic."

Ideally, this would help encourage peace between religions that have in the past fought against each other.

Muslims and Jews have "fought against" the LDS Church? Beyond the proxy baptisms for holocaust victims, I'm not quite sure what you have in mind. Could you expand on your point a bit?

The idea of "seeking first to understand, and then to be understood" seems to be one of the premises behind the meetings. There are, after all, some interesting points of agreement between differing religions along with the differences. By establishing some common ground it becomes easier to answer apologetically to criticism from others who oppose what particular groups hold in common.

Ah, well, here we go. It turns out that the meetings are not 'apologetic' at all. Rather, they are aimed at trying to build allies so that the real battles against---well, who? secular critics? EV anti-Mormons?---legit Church critics can go forth with an even larger army. The goal is not to "build bridges" or "break bread" with critics; it is to gather allies so that these more traditional critics can be stomped into the ground.

Also, noting differences in the beliefs of others has helped me understand my own beliefs in new and different ways.

Maybe so, but that is a different thing from "Mopologetic Bridge Building."

Moreover, considering the potential for religion to be used as a framework to encourage violence, this sort of bridge building is not just praise worthy, it is rather crucial.

I have a lot more to say on this but I think these few thoughts give a good start.

Well, by all means, feel free to elaborate. I'm still curious as to what the apologists see as constituting productive, proactive "Mopologetic Bridge Building." Personally, I put forth a set of axioms which I felt might help the apologists, but these seem to have fallen upon deaf ears.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

No need to elaborate further; you've already misinterpreted every sentence I already wrote. And I disagree and disown your interpretation of what I said.

But I've offered more opinion on it thus far than you have, even though the idea of "mopologetic bridge-building" wasn't introduced by Dan, but as a way to criticize Dan.

I remain interested in your explanation of what apologetic bridge-building or whatever you want to call it should consist of. Feel free to contribute some constructive thoughts with some specifics. Sort of like your 1-7 at the beginning of the thread, only ones that you, yourself, try to fulfill.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No need to elaborate further; you've already misinterpreted every sentence I already wrote. And I disagree and disown your interpretation of what I said.

No, actually you were the one who warped, twisted, and attempted to malign everything *I* said. Next time, I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder.

But I've offered more opinion on it thus far than you have, even though the idea of "mopologetic bridge-building" wasn't introduced by Dan, but as a way to criticize Dan.

Actually, it was implicitly introduced "by Dan." In his MADthread, he mentioned "bridge building," and he suggested that his (quite hard to access) article included bits of it. If his thread had been about "bridge building" generally, then I'm sure he probably would have been talking all about his various ambassador-esque, globetrotting adventures. Instead, he mentioned an item which has traditionally been a source of contention between Mopologists and Christian critics of the Church. He repeatedly mentioned Offenders For a Word, which is about as Mopologetic a work as one could imagine.

So, I hate to tell you this, LoaP, but it *was* indeed the apologists who raised the issue of "Mopologetic Bridge Building." If you can find some way to spin the original MAD thread so that it is actually referring to the kind of international, Muslim-Jew-Mormon interaction that DCP has only just now been discussing, I'll be impressed.

All that said, I kind of have to wonder why you automatically assume that an observational thread is somehow a "way to criticize Dan." I guess this is just you twisting and misinterpreting what I said. I disown your impression of my remarks.

I remain interested in your explanation of what apologetic bridge-building or whatever you want to call it should consist of.

I already gave some axioms in the OP.

Feel free to contribute some constructive thoughts with some specifics. Sort of like your 1-7 at the beginning of the thread, only ones that you, yourself, try to fulfill.

Why, LoaP? I already gave axioms, completely out of the generosity of my heart! Further, *I* am not the one who said I was interested in an "attempt at bridge-building." That was you guys. Remember? It seems to me that you guys are huffing and puffing now that your bluff has been called. It seems to me that you guys aren't interested in anything remotely resembling "bridge building." Just look at this thread: Jersey Girl, who has long been an ally of yours and DCP, seems to be getting the cold shoulder merely because she expressed a bit of disagreement with a doctrinal point. Why treat her that way, LoaP, if you guys are legitimately interested in "bridge building"?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Your response does not make sense to me.

You mentioned the article, which I have read and enjoyed, as being difficult to access. In my opinion the article is simple to access. Become a member of SMPT. It's 15 bucks and you get a few copies of Element, which is a really interesting publication. The money also supports the new and growing organization. People can sign up here:

http://www.smpt.org/membership.html

Benefits of membership include a subscription to the Society's printed journal, Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology and a "Members Only" login providing access to all past issues of Element (in PDF format) and recordings of select Conference presentations.

So for 15 bucks you get a bunch of free articles from Element, mp3s from the conferences, and new issues of Element.

Here are a few free articles:

http://www.smpt.org/element.html

[_Doctor Scratch]

LoaP:

Can people access the article without paying the $15.00? Could people access the article back when DCP first announced it?

The great, hilarious irony here is that article was supposedly an attempt at "bridge building," and yet, CKSalmon and others had to send email after email just to learn that it had been sent back to the printer! LOL!

In my opinion the article is simple to access. Become a member of SMPT.

"In [your] opinion"? C'mon, LoaP. That doesn't seem very honest at all. "Simple to access" on the messageboards means that you give readers a link. You know that, just the same as every one of us knows that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just look at this thread: Jersey Girl, who has long been an ally of yours and DCP, seems to be getting the cold shoulder merely because she expressed a bit of disagreement with a doctrinal point. Why treat her that way, LoaP, if you guys are legitimately interested in "bridge building"?

Ally? Cold shoulder? It's a frickin' message board. Give it a rest already.

[_Jersey Girl]

Your response does not make sense to me.

You mentioned the article, which I have read and enjoyed, as being difficult to access. In my opinion the article is simple to access. Become a member of SMPT. It's 15 bucks and you get a few copies of Element, which is a really interesting publication. The money also supports the new and growing organization. People can sign up here:

http://www.smpt.org/membership.html

I'm guessing that membership is the way to read the Trinity article? I appreciate the links, LoaP, but I won't be spending $15 on membership to read it. I already give hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to the benefit of your church.