Unless specific examples are posted as requested above and the off topic personal sparring is stopped, I will close the thread due to it being derailed.
Cal, you've had tons of examples posted by mercyandgrace, and we've posted additional examples here. I would appreciate it if you would either acknowledge this and address the examples, and/or admit that you were misguided in saying that critics have not point. I know you are personal friends with MsJack, so that alone suggests to me that you're capable of being decent and rational. Do the right thing here already. C'mon: I sided with you when the TBM males slammed the everliving crap out of you for wanting a more female-friendly Church. Be fair about this, would you?
"[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
Too late for your appeal Scratch. As I said, a thread like that was never intended to be taken seriously. They closed it despite the examples provided.
Kevin Graham wrote:Too late for your appeal Scratch. As I said, a thread like that was never intended to be taken seriously. They closed it despite the examples provided.
Indeed, aside from some notable individual exceptions, like mercyngrace, who seems to take the commandment to live a Christlike life seriously, I have seen very little by way of serious concern for this issue. Most of this has been little more than a show, Allen Wyatt's silly call for logical errors included.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I'm sitting at the SLC airport with my two kids as I write this, otherwise I'd give them PLENTY of examples to chew on. But obviously, this was just a prank of sorts. The first few comments on that thread were wade, MathewTandy and Pahoran, all of whom mocked anyone who had any intention of responding by suggesting our silence up to that point (twenty minutes?) proved we were all bluffing.
After Scratch released the Cracken on them, it was clearly time to close up shop and move on.
Kevin Graham wrote:Too late for your appeal Scratch. As I said, a thread like that was never intended to be taken seriously. They closed it despite the examples provided.
Indeed, aside from some notable individual exceptions, like mercyngrace, who seems to take the commandment to live a Christlike life seriously, I have seen very little by way of serious concern for this issue. Most of this has been little more than a show, Allen Wyatt's silly call for logical errors included.
I hope this proves to be premature, Kish. I've received PMs indicating that every issue raised here is being revisited. Just check back from time to time and see what changes have been made. I don't believe, given the tedium of rereading and revising articles as complaints arise, that updates will be public. But that doesn't mean your critiques have gone unnoticed.
As an example, earlier in this thread Willy Law cited an article and then the revision of that article. I'm told the revision was a direct response to Willy's original complaint about the article some time back.
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
Kevin Graham wrote:After Scratch released the Cracken on them, it was clearly time to close up shop and move on.
Well, we haven't closed up shop. No sir. Indeed, they have motivated me to continue to pursue this issue through various means. I think it is time for more people to get serious about the problem of properly addressing the needs of struggling members. John Dehlin can't bear such a burden on his shoulders all by himself, and it is clear that the apologists do not have the proper tools or training to address the problem.
Another approach is necessary, one that respects the emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of the problem, not just the question of horses in Ancient America and what have you.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 13, 2012 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kevin Graham wrote:After Scratch released the Cracken on them, it was clearly time to close up shop and move on.
Well, we haven't closed up shop. No sir. Indeed, they have motivated me to continue to pursue this issue through various means.I think it is time for more people to get serious about the problem of properly addressing the needs of struggling members. John Dehlin can't bear such a burden on his shoulders all by himself, and it is clear that the apologists do not have the proper tools or training to address the problem.
Another approach is necessary, one that respects the emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspect of the problem, not just the question of horses in Ancient America and what have you.
Thank you!
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
mercyngrace wrote:I hope this proves to be premature, Kish. I've received PMs indicating that every issue raised here is being revisited. Just check back from time to time and see what changes have been made. I don't believe, given the tedium of rereading and revising articles as complaints arise, that updates will be public. But that doesn't mean your critiques have gone unnoticed.
Thank you, mercyngrace. I acknowledge that articles have been edited, and I am pleased that they have been. Kudos to those who edited them.
At the same time, the root of the problem that I and others here are concerned about is the one where apologists think it appropriate and within their rights to write articles critical of fellow members of the LDS Church. These articles are not so much about their writings, as they are aimed at them as people.
The example I just got done briefly critiquing was Hamblin's epic-length review of Quinn's EMMWV, in which he opens by stating his intention to destroy Quinn's scholarly reputation as part of an ongoing spat with Pat Bagley. I think you of all people can see how wrongheaded that approach is for a disciple of Jesus Christ, not to mention inappropriate for an organization that operates under the auspices of Brigham Young University.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:At the same time, the root of the problem that I and others here are concerned about is the one where apologists think it appropriate and within their rights to write articles critical of fellow members of the LDS Church. These articles are not so much about their writings, as they are aimed at them as people.
The example I just got done briefly critiquing was Hamblin's epic-length review of Quinn's EMMWV, in which he opens by stating his intention to destroy Quinn's scholarly reputation as part of an ongoing spat with Pat Bagley. I think you of all people can see how wrongheaded that approach is for a disciple of Jesus Christ, not to mention inappropriate for an organization that operates under the auspices of Brigham Young University.
I do get it. If there is one point I've tried to make in my interactions on the board it is that the medium is the message.
If you can't be what you claim to believe, especially in an environment with a backspace button and an edit function, (or an editor and peer reviewers), you might as well step aside and be silent because you are doing more harm than good.
I've screwed up enough in life, on and off line, to recognize that if someone like me can learn a better way, anyone can. So please keep posting your critiques. Those good people working behind the scenes will keep reviewing them. I'll keep trying to be a voice for peace and moderation. And who knows, maybe we can be an influence for good in a meaningful way.
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
Years ago I followed the Tom Leykis radio show. Though I enjoyed his humor and insights, obviously, I could see why a great number of folks would find him offensive. One of his antics with angry or critical callers was to ask them, just as the FAIR folks are asking, what he has ever said that was offensive, and he would apologize for it. So where to begin? He can't be serious? Of course, his rule was the caller had to be very specific about the incident. So specific, that callers had a difficult time coming up with anything on the fly, and then if they could, there were always the usual questions about the facts surrounding the incident that were open to interpretation and thus I don't ever remember him being forced to ever apologize for anything.
So let's go down the path. The question was opened up on MDD, where most critics are banned in the first place. The apologists declare victory because no one can come up with anything right in that instant. However, rest assured, the moment anyone offers one of the many incidents Scratch has brought up over here, and there are countless others, heck, just read the FAIR blog; the key apologists on the thread will dispute the facts surrounding the incident, the "asked and answered" policy will be invoked, and if the critic doesn't either shut up or admit that the apologists are right, the critic will be suspended. It also helps that because offenses get personal, a critic may show some outrage and feel emotion while responding, all of which will be interpreted by the mods as unruly behavior and lead to the suspension faster.
I'm not going to waste by breath fulfilling the request over here, I'll talk about these kinds of incidents at my own leisure. Suffice it to say, if someone affiliated with FAIR for over a decade can't think of a single thing FAIR or FARMS has said that is hurtful, this person isn't seriously looking for an answer, s/he is trolling.