static wrote:I'm glad you think it proper to equate hit piece with critique. I shall immediately inform Roger Ebert.
Let me ask you this, static. How many apologetic venues operate out of BYU? What are the potential social and religious ramifications of the critiques that come out of a source that is published under the BYU masthead, so to speak?
How does that possibly compare well with countless reviews of films in newspapers around the country? Are they organized by a single editor operating under the special authority of something identified as the Film Industry, Inc., which might excommunicate you based on the views promulgated in such publications?
Your analogy is ridiculous. We all know that a harsh critique in a BYU journal has potential consequences that are quite different from harsh reviews of a film coming from disparate voices published in countless newspapers across the land.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
This whole critic or hit piece is a don’t care, the fun part of this that some “article” was censored by an Apostle, where John won and some set of apologist lost.
Damn that must smart, the wolf getting preferential treatment over the warriors.
RockSlider wrote:This whole critic or hit piece is a don’t care, the fun part of this that some “article” was censored by an Apostle, where John won and some set of apologist lost.
Damn that must smart, the wolf getting preferential treatment over the warriors.
The war on mopologia is being waged from within. Oaks is frustrated that it isn't harder hitting and quicker, well...allegedly....
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Yes you. Now, come close to me and whisper what I want to hear in my ear. Whisper the name quietly so no one else hears it. Tell me the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. Tell me the name and I will reward you well.
Kishkumen wrote:Let me ask you this, static. How many apologetic venues operate out of BYU? What are the potential social and religious ramifications of the critiques that come out of a source that is published under the BYU masthead, so to speak?
How does that possibly compare well with countless reviews of films in newspapers around the country? Are they organized by a single editor operating under the special authority of something identified as the Film Industry, Inc., which might excommunicate you based on the views promulgated in such publications?
Your analogy is ridiculous. We all know that a harsh critique in a BYU journal has potential consequences that are quite different from harsh reviews of a film coming from disparate voices published in countless newspapers across the land.
I think you've hit on a very important idea. It is very easy to mock and criticize the church because of it organized nature. It is also extremely easy to mock and criticize LDS apologetic institutions because of their (mostly) organized nature. Critics of the church are much less organized. They are the movie reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes - disparate voices with varying levels of and approaches to criticism. I wish there were a fair playing ground, but as it stands, LDS apologetics is at a severe logistic disadvantage, which promotes forums like this one, and characters like you.
So, in the end, we can see that there is no evidence, aside from jaded hearsay, that there ever was a "hit piece" in the works, or that the dastardly DCP may have written a (gasp!) multi-page critique.
(No! Say it 'ain't so! Anything but a multi-page critique!)
static wrote: I think you've hit on a very important idea. It is very easy to mock and criticize the church because of it organized nature. It is also extremely easy to mock and criticize LDS apologetic institutions because of their (mostly) organized nature. Critics of the church are much less organized. They are the movie reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes - disparate voices with varying levels of and approaches to criticism. I wish there were a fair playing ground, but as it stands, LDS apologetics is at a severe logistic disadvantage, which promotes forums like this one, and characters like you.
So, in the end, we can see that there is no evidence, aside from jaded hearsay, that there ever was a "hit piece" in the works, or that the dastardly DCP may have written a (gasp!) multi-page critique.
(No! Say it 'ain't so! Anything but a multi-page critique!)
Mopologists are at a disadvantage because they're organized and well-funded? Are you sure that's the reason?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
mormonstories wrote:You guys are awesome. In my desire to respect the leaders of the church you claim to defend....you use that against me and claim plausible deniability. Classic.
I assume by "you guys" you include me in your complaint. I didn't claim anything of the sort. In truth I've asked some questions and in return have gotten nothing but whimpering and whining about me by some and then this post from you. Respect the leaders all you want. That's good. I did ask you if you had read the piece being spoken of here, but I see earlier you said you have not seen it. So here you all are complaining about a piece that no one here has seen. And yet, for that DCP and others are being maligned. Why? I don't get it, personally.
Just go ask Daniel Peterson if he was about to publish a multi-page, footnoted critique of me in the latest version of his journal.
Okay. Will do.
Here's his email address: daniel_peterson@BYU.edu. Go ask Greg Smith if he authored a lengthy article criticizing me and my work at Mormon Stories. Ask them if GA's got involved and shut the whole thing down.
All you have to do is ask them...then return...and report. If they deny it, they are lying.
But you won't. Predictable.
Oh stop pouting. I won't return and report here, most likely. People will take whatever it is and pounce all over the guy--talking about how pathetic he is and such as you do. No thanks.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
