Kishkumen wrote:Seems to me like one of our MDB friends has decided to comment at Sic et Non.
Someone ought to post the relevant excerpts from his email to Gerald Bradford. That will more or less lay the matter to rest w/r/t to his "resignation."
Kishkumen wrote:Seems to me like one of our MDB friends has decided to comment at Sic et Non.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Kishkumen wrote:Seems to me like one of our MDB friends has decided to comment at Sic et Non.
Someone ought to post the relevant excerpts from his email to Gerald Bradford. That will more or less lay the matter to rest w/r/t to his "resignation."
Smoot wrote:Palmer’s book was a travesty, and he rightly deserved to be humbled by these excellent scholars.
Gadianton wrote:Good eye, Reverend.Smoot wrote:Palmer’s book was a travesty, and he rightly deserved to be humbled by these excellent scholars.
At least he's honest. It had little less to do with reviewing Palmer and more with five dudes banding together and "humbling" him [kicking his ass].
Doctor Scratch wrote:It's interesting to see the up-and-comers coming out of the woodwork. A while back, MsJack and Aristotlle and others were making persuasive predictions about how Mopologetics would wither away and die because there were no youngsters waiting in the wings. Well, we can now see that there are at least a few young acolytes who are willing to carry on the cause. It remains to be seen whether or not they will get marginalized and/or pressured away from their worst impulses by the Mormon Studies movement.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Boy, the "Comments" section over there has really exploded. I believe this blog entry has garnered more "Comments" than any other of Dr. Peterson's postings. What's interesting is that they are in near-meltdown mode now that Bob Jones has suggested that he has "intel" concerning orders for DCP's dismissal being given by the Brethren. DCP has said, in response, that he "knows for a fact" that this isn't true, and yet he's demanding that Jones provide his "intel." Well, if Jones is going to cough up the goods, isn't it reasonable to ask also that Prof. P. also tell us about this supposed "context" that would change our minds about this whole MI kerfuffle?
3sheets2thewind wrote:Can it be rightly stated that the Brethren approve of Bradfords action, though they may not have ordered it.
Is refusal of a superior to reverse a subordinate's action, approval of the subordinate's action?
Can it be rightly stated that the Brethren approve of Bradfords action, though they may not have ordered it.