Jack Welch: A "dark, menacing presence"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Puppet: the scholars of Mopologetics owe you a debt of gratitude for your invaluable contributions on Prof. Welch. I'll have to repay you later at the Faculty Club. In the meantime, allow me to doff my deerslayer cap in your general direction.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The "big fish"? This indeed is an alarming description of a senior executive of the Mopologetic movement. The hair on the back of my neck stood up as I read this description. Like Jonah, Bagly was swallowed up ina campaign to silence legitimate scholarship.

I think it's probably true that the apologists weild a certain degree of power over the brethren.

I found the story disquieting, too, Dean Robbers. What is so upsetting is the basic fact that this power-grabbing faction is, by nature, so vicious, so attack-minded. It would be one thing if religion was being outsourced to the meek, and to the Salt of the Earth among the Saints. Instead, power in this regard has been forked over to arguably the most vicious and mean-spirited people in all of Mormondom.

[_Droopy]

Among academic types there is an assumption that people will be free and open with information, documents, etc.. Academics are not really used to controlling information, nor having it being controlled.

This is simply false. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ever heard of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, or James Hansen?

Academics can be just as closed and evasive about their data and information as can non-academics. The question is why this occurs, on a case by case basis, not that it does.

[_Droopy]

Curious Simon that you use the broadened 'movement' here rather than your beloved, specific LDS Church, which is the only part of the 'movement' that had a hand in MMM

Fortunately for Simon and all those here who may be educated beyond internet polemics regarding the MMM, the idea that the Church itself, or Brigham Young, had anything to do with that atrocity has been thoroughly debunked now for generations.

Only the truly and graspingly desperate cling with claw-like hands to such long discredited blood libels (yes, our Jewish brethren and sisters are not the only one's to have horrible well poisoning tales of deep, dark, macabre conspiracies and malevolent motives attached to both their religion and their culture) as the MMM, "blood atonement," perverted sexual rituals within the Temple, and other sensationalistic populist scaremongering leftover from the fringes of nineteenth century tabloid journalism.

[_Droopy]

I think it's probably true that the apologists weild a certain degree of power over the brethren. I've discussed this before when musing on City Creek. The brethren have really screwed up in sense, by detatching themselves from doctrine and scholarship and fully embracing business, law, and PR as their core expertise.

Prophets have always, in a plethora of settings, ages, and cultures, functioned in these capacities, at some point in their lives and ministries (up to and including warrior and military commander).

Nothing mysterious here at all...except to the Morlocks.

[_Simon Belmont]

I'll have to repay you later at the Faculty Club.

What is this "Faculty Club?" Is it like the Goddess Suite?

[_Simon Belmont]

I found the story disquieting, too, Dean Robbers. What is so upsetting is the basic fact that this power-grabbing faction is, by nature, so vicious, so attack-minded.

According to one side of the story. A side that is or was bothered that he did not get the materials he wanted. Is this side unbiased?

It would be one thing if religion was being outsourced to the meek, and to the Salt of the Earth among the Saints. Instead, power in this regard has been forked over to arguably the most vicious and mean-spirited people in all of Mormondom.

And yet, "the most vicious and mean-spirited people in all of Mormondom" are like Care Bears® compared to most anti-Mormons.

[_Joseph]

Interesting some would use 'anti-mormons' rather than 'those who have come to an understanding of the truth' or 'folks who recognize the scam'.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Simon, what good reason(s) can you come up with for denying Bagley access to the documents? Further, what reason(s)--if any--do you have for doubting his account?

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, what good reason(s) can you come up with for denying Bagley access to the documents? Further, what reason(s)--if any--do you have for doubting his account?

I am not discounting Bagley's account. All I am saying is it is one side of the story, a very biased side. In that respect, I hope you don't simply accept it because it casts LDS apologetics or the church in a negative light. I'd rather have the complete story before I make any judgement about it.

But, hypothetically, if I represented the church and Bagley asked me for access to highly sensetive documents, I would interrogate until I was satisfied with the answer. If the future author of something about the LDS church (which I represent, hypothetically) needed access to documents concerning a very controversial event I would need to know how the author intended to examine the evidence.