Evidence that OMIDs are resurrecting an independent FARMS?

[_Aristotle Smith]

What the hell is an OMID?

[_Tobin]

What the hell is an OMID?

I think they are like Amish, but with tanks and bazookas.

[_RockSlider]

This is not a repudiation of the activities per se.

There is hope it may be:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... he-church/

[_Dr. Shades]

What the hell is an OMID?

"Ousted Maxwell Institute Danite." It was coined by lostindc less than 24 hours ago; see this post and this post.

Practically speaking, this will include anyone who has been marginalized from, ostracized from, or censored by the Institute, as described by William Hamblin. We know that DCP and Hamblin himself are among them. We also know that William Schryver and now Gregory Smith are among their ranks, too. Considering the direction Dr. Bradford intends to take the Institute, we can guess that Louis Midgley is one, too, along with possibly Matt Roper. And, depending on what the impetus might have been for his move to SHIELDS, of all places, we can guess wildly that John Tvedtnes may be one of them, too.

Hamblin doesn't name names, so there are probably others. It also remains to be seen whether those FAIRites who are outraged with Dr. Bradford are honorary OMIDs or just OMID supporters.

[_Kishkumen]

This is not a repudiation of the activities per se.

There is hope it may be:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... he-church/

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing, Rockslider!

[_Kevin Graham]

I think these guys should go ahead and run a FARMS like organization separate from the Church. Why is this such a big deal?

Well, for starters, no matter what these guys produce in the future, what will always be hanging over their heads is the fact that the Church wanted nothing to do with their stated mission and agenda. Nothing they say can be tied to the Church in any way, They'll just be a bunch of disgruntled Mormon scholars who couldn't convince their own Church to support their aggressive approach to criticism. Given that fact, why should any believing Latter-Day Saint support them with funding? I bet funding probably skyrocketed when FARMS was taken over by the Church.

So these guys can go ahead and start their own organization if they want, but they'll probably have a hard time gaining credibility, even within Mormonism, now that the Church has dropped them like a bad habit.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is not a repudiation of the activities per se.

There is hope it may be:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... he-church/

Notice how Scott Lloyd's remarks reveal his dissatisfaction with the article:

I would point out that the article is about the anonymous author and how she is coping with the situation. It is nearly silent about the husband and his apostasy, whether or not he had a good reason for it. In fact, there is no informational basis given at all for evaluating it.

So what?

Scott doesn't seem to grasp the fact that none of this matters. It doesn't matter if you know why this man left the Church. It is none of your business. Scott provides an open window in the psyche of the old guard apologists who are constantly striving to find reasons to blame the apostate. The fact that he doesn't have enough information to pass JUDGMENT on this man, just frustrates him. But it is interesting that the Church article didn't feel the need to demonize this person, contrary to current approaches at FAIR/FARMS.

And as a loyal pupil of the bigot Daniel Peterson, Scott most certainly agrees with his previous argument that "there is never a good reason for leaving the Gospel." So why is he pretending more information would allow him to make an objective judgment on that? He's already passed judgment. They all have.

[_Kevin Graham]

That's a great thread at MAD, by the way. It is fun to watch the "apostates" completely outclass those LDS loyalists who are clearly upset that their own Church disagrees with them.

I'm also surprised that the mods have allowed the thread to stand.

[_Kishkumen]

So what?

Scott doesn't seem to grasp the fact that none of this matters. It doesn't matter if you know why this man left the Church. It is none of your business. Scott provides an open window in the psyche of the old guard apologists who are constantly striving to find reasons to blame the apostate. The fact that he doesn't have enough information to pass JUDGMENT on this man, just frustrates him. But it is interesting that the Church article didn't feel the need to demonize this person, contrary to current approaches at FAIR/FARMS.

Very revealing reaction on his part.

[_moksha]

And who will have the time necessary to do this as a volunteer? Will the church view this as these people thumbing their noses at the church?

Hey, many important movements have started small, from the obsessive windings of Madame Defarge to the rowdies in a Munich beer hall. Were there's a will, there's a way.