Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:First off.. Liz does a great job as Mod.
Secondly, the "Review" really needs to go away. People know the deal.
Thirdly, if Mr. Peterson is truly a "Middle Eastern Scholar" then he just needs to focus on his field and stop with all this nonsense.
- VRDRC
I can't help but see Dan's sacking as an indicator that Mr Oaks' purge of bad apologetics is really starting to bite. And that this is a progressive move in improving the work the institute does in being a resource for members with difficult questions.
“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
Drifting wrote:I can't help but see Dan's sacking as an indicator that Mr Oaks' purge of bad apologetics is really starting to bite. And that this is a progressive move in improving the work the institute does in being a resource for members with difficult questions.
Dan wasn't sacked; he resigned.
What does Oaks have to do with this? Are you saying the Oaks faction has now won a considerable victory over the Packer faction?
The Institute is supposed to translate the METI. How is Dan's removal as editor of the Review going to effect the METI?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen.
It's a fake. Scratchy needs just a little something to justify his:
In effect, his multidecade "reign of terror" has come to an end. The Powers-that-Be at the Maxwell Institute have finally had enough of the polemics and smear campaigns, and thus DCP and Company are being kicked to the curb.
I think it highly unlikely that Bradford would be so insulting.
Drifting wrote:I can't help but see Dan's sacking as an indicator that Mr Oaks' purge of bad apologetics is really starting to bite. And that this is a progressive move in improving the work the institute does in being a resource for members with difficult questions.
Dan wasn't sacked; he resigned.
Dan was summarily removed as editor of the Review against his will.
What else would you call it?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen.
It's a fake. Scratchy needs just a little something to justify his:
In effect, his multidecade "reign of terror" has come to an end. The Powers-that-Be at the Maxwell Institute have finally had enough of the polemics and smear campaigns, and thus DCP and Company are being kicked to the curb.
I think it highly unlikely that Bradford would be so insulting.
You don't seem to be paying attention here, my friend. If you are paying attention, then you are demonstrating very poor evidence evaluation and judgement skills.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:You don't seem to be paying attention here, my friend. If you are paying attention, then you are demonstrating very poor evidence evaluation and judgement skills.
He is only applying the logic skills he he's developed while viewing the world through Mormon tinted goggles (similar to wearing beer goggles) where the world magically changes to fit your needs. The only difference is beer goggles wear off as you sober up.
You don't seem to be paying attention here, my friend. If you are paying attention, then you are demonstrating very poor evidence evaluation and judgement skills.
So what authenticates the OP other than you think it sounds like Bradford?
Dan was summarily removed as editor of the Review against his will.
What else would you call it?
Indeed a textbook case of "you can't fire me I quit!".
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Drifting wrote:I can't help but see Dan's sacking as an indicator that Mr Oaks' purge of bad apologetics is really starting to bite. And that this is a progressive move in improving the work the institute does in being a resource for members with difficult questions.
Dan wasn't sacked; he resigned.
What does Oaks have to do with this? Are you saying the Oaks faction has now won a considerable victory over the Packer faction?
The Institute is supposed to translate the METI. How is Dan's removal as editor of the Review going to effect the METI?
Harmony, do you think Dan's 'removal' is a good move or a bad move and why?
“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
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:43 AM, [M. Gerald Bradford] <xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Dear Dan:
I trust all goes well with your travels. I was hoping to hear from you on the Review before you left. Given how far behind it is, we need to decide its future and address our breach of expectations with its subscribers. Our front office staff are even now soliciting subscription renewals for a periodical that is now two issues behind schedule. And I'm unwilling to publish 23:2 as it stands.
-------
Please let me hear from you in the next week or so. I’ll make the announcement sometime around the first of the month.