The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:
Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship
So the main, number one purpose of the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" is apologetics.
Do we all agree on that?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:
Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship
So the main, number one purpose of the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" is apologetics.
Do we all agree on that?
Actually, even in that statement, the first thing mentioned is description of the Restoration, which is not apologetics. At best, apologetics, in the statement you cite, is 50% of the first cited purpose of the Maxwell Institute, and is mentioned second.
But that statement may well end up being revised anyhow. At least, there's talk of doing so.
I'm sure it will be revised. How can you even attempt to do apologetics under the guise of serious scholarlship if you flat out admit your plan on page one?
Yes, revision will be necessary. Your hair-splitting isn't very convincing. If I say I'm going to "hole up and camp", then it would be just as disingenuous to say that I'm only 50% camping and that first and foremost I shall "hole up".
You may proceed further with a more detailed lesson in propositional logic, but I fear we can all read English and understand very well what that sentence means.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
I'm not -- though the subject was raised by our new director during a meeting last week. But I defer to your superior knowledge of the organization's inner workings.
Gadianton wrote:How can you even attempt to do apologetics under the guise of serious scholarlship if you flat out admit your plan on page one?
Ah yes. Our fiendishly cunning plan must be kept secret!
Gadianton wrote:So the main, number one purpose of the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" is apologetics.
Do we all agree on that?
Actually, even in that statement, the first thing mentioned is description of the Restoration, which is not apologetics.
Uh huh. Right. "Describing" the translation of the Book of Mormon as being done "with the Urim and Thummim" isn't the least bit apologetic. "Describing" the history of the Book of Mormon as occurring in Latin America isn't apologetic at all. Yep: "describing" plays no role whatsoever in apologetics.
Mister Scratch wrote:Uh huh. Right. "Describing" the translation of the Book of Mormon as being done "with the Urim and Thummim" isn't the least bit apologetic. "Describing" the history of the Book of Mormon as occurring in Latin America isn't apologetic at all. Yep: "describing" plays no role whatsoever in apologetics.
Describing the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon isn't apologetics.
Describing the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon isn't apologetics.
Describing the textual history of the Book of Mormon from 1830 to the present isn't apologetics.
Describing all of the publications up through 1844 that refer to the Book of Mormon isn't apologetics.
And so forth.
Yet these are enormous on-going projects of the Maxwell Institute.
How about "describing" Mike Quinn as a "bad historian"? Apologetic? Or not? How about describing the "cash nexus" of anti-Mormon ministries? Apologetic? Y/N?