"Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

[Gadianton]

Massimo Introvigne?

Good guess but no. The Massman was also promoted a lot. This guy had better credentials.

[DrStakhanovite]

Massimo Introvigne?

Good guess but no. The Massman was also promoted a lot. This guy had better credentials.

Perhaps it was Ian Barbour? He adopted (and modified) what Thomas Kuhn did with the history of science and applied it as an analysis of religion. I can totally see an argument about how there was a “Mormon Paradigm” for the historicity of Mormon scriptures that was separate and distinct from a more secular paradigm and that you should not and could not judge one paradigm by the standards of another.

Regardless, it was news to me that the Afore of the Z era was titillated by the whole Sokal affair. It isn't surprising though because it plays into a fundamental aspect of the entire Mopologist LARP; adopting the role of the hard nosed skeptic who gets to embarrass the naked emperor by sardonically reporting the absence of clothes. Richard Dawkins was similarly turned on by the perceived embarrassment of ‘Social Text’ and actually encouraged people to use Postmodern text generators to create fake articles and send them out for publication. Strange bedfellows.

It reminds me of the time SHIELDS bothered to travel to (then) Columbia Evangelical Seminary so it could be ridiculed as a Fundamentalist diploma mill.

[Gadianton]

No, not him. It's no one that you'd know about, I'm pretty sure. Well, it's possible you might, but he was a young up-and-comer at Harvard or something.

The name will hit me one day and I'll let you know. You could start a thread asking about it at MAD. Could get you banned for asking, of course, but I'm sure they would remember.

[Moksha]

If so-called "critics" do not see the wisdom of Lying for the Lord, they should read the complete works of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, and listen to talks from President Dallin Oaks.