Doctor Scratch wrote:This is fascinating. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, Mr. Stak. We've already seen the Mopologists beginning to retreat by way of different strategies. After devastating defeats over the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Lamanite DNA, and many, many other things, they first withdrew via the so-called "Gadianton Turn," and now it seems that they are attempting to establish a "bulwark" by turning to politics. I suppose it was only a matter of time before this happened. Quite interesting, in any case.
I wonder if they'll allow Droopy to participate in their conferences?
A sidenote: it's extremely interesting that they've provided a link to DCP's SHIELDS material in his bio.
Has Dallin approved this new outlet for LDS Defender DCP's theorising and is he happy that it clearly goes against the Church's stance of staying out of politics?
The John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs fosters understanding of the critical importance of politics and political philosophy in shaping a moral and cultural environment proper to the true flourishing of families and of individuals and friendly to religious freedom. The Center thus resists the false separation of moral and religious convictions from law and policy and contributes to the reasoned articulation of traditional and religious insights into the good of moral self-government. This moral liberty is essential to the well-being of individuals, families, and political communities.
And where does the Mormon Defence League fit into all this?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Hi, Drifting. I was told by an "informant" that Elder Oaks was "apoplectic" over certain recent developments in Mopologetics--including the bellicosity of the Mormon Defense League. Provided that this is true (and I cannot confirm it, though Steve Benson suggested some time ago on RfM that it *sounded* like the Oaks he interacted with), then I'm certain that he would have major problems the explicitly aggressive things that are being said on the J. Adams Center website. I halfway suspect that the top Mopologists have been told by the Brethren to "knock it off," but these Mopologists are so overflowing with egotism and hubris that they are disobeying the General Authorities and finding clever ways to circumvent what they've been told.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
MrStakhanovite wrote:Oh boy...DCP is on the board of advisors.
Not for the first time I fail in trying to understand the point of one of your posts.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting wrote:Not for the first time I fail in trying to understand the point of one of your posts.
And it won't be the last, I'm sure.
Stak started a thread about DCP.
I said "Oh, another DCP thread..."
You said something to effect that I should read the OP because it isn't a DCP thread.
I responded with the portion of the OP that specifically makes it about DCP. OP means Original Poster or Original Post.
You want to show me where I did that?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
quark wrote:I'm stuck on "dogmatic secularism" and "traditional morality".
The first one makes no sense to me. The second one feels subjective.
Their objection to "dogmatic secularism" has to do with the fact that they dislike having to confront a brand of criticism that's based in secular thinking. They were in hog heaven when their major critics were EVs or counter-cult ministries. Now, though, they are being confronted by critics who demand a more rigorously scientific and empirical brand of evidence, and their old rhetorical tools just don't work as well in this case. They feel intimidated and outmatched.
As for "traditional morality"---uh, yeah. This is probably just a bone they're tossing over to the Brethren. It's kind of a smarmy wink that's meant to indicate that they'll finally "behave" this time.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14