DesNews: Maxwell Institute Will Still Do Apologetics

[_RayAgostini]

I'm not so optimistic. I love me some David Bokovoy, but he was already involved with the old Maxwell Institute publications in that he was willing to publish there. Yet those publications still had the problems with tone and name-calling that they did.

I'll forego judgment on the new Interpreter until they release their first volume. But for Bokovoy to release a paper with them doesn't really reassure me that this won't just be The FARMS Review v. 2.0.

So you're basically saying that David condoned "name-calling", because he decided to make scholarly contributions to MI publications, of which TFR is only one section?

And you've apparently welcomed him on WWE, but you're suspicious of his motives for contributing to the MI? So it's okay if he contributes to WWE, but not okay if he contributed to the MI, and should be regarded with some reservations because of those contributions?

Even more bad news for you.

Thank you, Will. That means a lot. I have no doubt that the editors would love to receive an article from you on the KEP, and I for one hope that your work will appear in print via this and other venues. I'm glad we're friends again.

He should be condemned forthwith for calling a "proven misogynist", his "friend".

Am I PC-Tuned?

[_MsJack]

So you're basically saying that David condoned "name-calling", because he decided to make scholarly contributions to MI publications, of which TFR is only one section?

No, Ray. That is not what I'm saying, and I can't even begin to fathom how you jumped to that conclusion.

I'm saying that David's presence in articles at the Interpreter would not mean that its editors have amended their old ways. That is all.

you're suspicious of his motives for contributing to the MI?

No.

So it's okay if he contributes to WWE, but not okay if he contributed to the MI, and should be regarded with some reservations because of those contributions?

David can contribute wherever the hell he pleases. I'm not his mother.

Even more bad news for you.

Why is this bad news for me?

Am I PC-Tuned?

You need to give the schlocky Willpologetics a rest, Ray. You're starting to sound like you have an ax to grind, and it's leading you to argue all kinds of nonsense.

[_why me]

Yes, I have noted as much, and discussed my hopes, but it should also be noted that Peterson has mentioned that reviews will be published there, which suggests to me that there may be slams like the Compton piece or the scuttled Dehlin "review." We will just have to see.

Most Reviews in an academic journal do critique other academic work. It is the academic process. All academics know this. If Compton writes a book, it will be reviewed and critiqued if necessary. Now as far as Greg's piece, it should be published and John can respond if he wishes.

[_why me]

And does publishing something online count as publishing in the academic world?

Yes. Journals are going online because this is where people are reading material. Now it is true that quite a few journals do have a paper edition and an online edition. But most online reading depends on a subscription if it is from a private publisher. They do have to make money.

In this case, the goal of the journal is simple: to reach a broad interested audience in Mormon studies and in LDS apologetics. And hopefully donations will be coming in.

[_RayAgostini]

You need to give the schlocky Willpologetics a rest, Ray. You're starting to sound like you have an ax to grind, and it's leading you to argue all kinds of nonsense.

My ax isn't sharp enough, or daring enough in the sense of fools go where angels fear to tread, to judge someone's character on 0.001% of what they've contributed to an Internet forum, and invite total public ridicule upon them because of this.

I guess you think it's smart to invent terms like "Willpologetics", but hey, if you're into sarcasm and demonisation - you're on the right side, which says it's okay to be sarcastic and dismissive if you're a critic, but not okay if you're an apologist.

[_why me]

But, unless the "classic-FARMS" guys can rein in their tendencies, it's not going to matter, because their antics will drag the whole entire thing down.

Maybe not. There will always be a role for hard-hitting apologetics against people who seek to mislead and destroy the LDS church. However, there will also be a role for pieces like david. David was chosen to lead off because he wrote a good piece and it deserved to be publish online. Now it was wonderful of david to publish his piece with the Interpreter since at the moment it doesn't have a huge readership. But it will be archived on the site and it could be read by interested parties years from now.

The goal of the journal will be to build up an archive of good articles that can be read by a wide range of people. David's article is the first but it will not be the last article to appear. Hats off to all involved with the Interpreter. I am sure that the Maxwell Institute will take notice.

[Guest]

Ray ~ What I'm into is men not engaging the women they disagree with by sexualizing them. I don't care what % of a person's posts such instances comprise; I will speak out against it when I see it. The fact that I can't do that without being decried as an "anti-Mormon," "feminazi," "extreme feminist," "female supremacist," "conscienceless," "spiteful" and "outright man-hater" is pretty telling.

The fact that you take me to task for "demonisation" and then sit around on your derrière while your new BFFs say all of the above about me is also telling.

Also, this thing you do where you take threads which have absolutely nothing to do with William Schryver and try to make them about William Schryver? Not a fan.

[_bcspace]

Interesting. So, why is Dr. Peterson going out of his way to contradict representatives from the Lord's University?

I notice that the MI website still lists him as a board member:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/administration.php

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray's history with women is, needless to say, "checkered." I don't know why he would wander into a conversation like this without seriously reviewing his own history.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray ~ What I'm into is men not engaging the women they disagree with by sexualizing them. I don't care what % of a person's posts such instances comprise; I will speak out against it when I see it. The fact that I can't do that without being decried as an "anti-Mormon," "feminazi," "extreme feminist," "female supremacist," "conscienceless," "spiteful" and "outright man-hater" is pretty telling.

The fact that you take me to task for "demonisation" and then sit around on your derrière while your new BFFs say all of the above about me is also telling.

You need to become more objective. Your Schryver post here was spiteful, and revengeful. It was totally unnecessary, considering the vast majority of transgressions that have occurred here not only in regard to misogyny, and wiping some females off as "common sluts", which was, admittedly, before your time.

You chose the wrong venue.

While most here may not know the history of this place, "old timers" like me do. But go ahead, Jack, and stand on your soap box, winning the approval and adoration of the very people you might otherwise despise, if you knew the truth.