two interesting news items – Mormon’s Secret and Maxwell Institute shake up
Not sure if you’ve heard, but all you ex-mo’s out there missing your “super sexy” garments can now get them without the requisite temple recommend. www.mormonssecret.com has recreated them, symbols included. I’m tempted to buy some of these for my wife for role-playing:
(I kid, of course. Nothing sexy about these, despite the picture. And my wife hated garments.)
Second news item: Everyone’s favorite apologist to hate – Daniel Peterson – has been given the ax. Apparently his ad hominem attacks went too far when he was involved with a 100-page tirade against John Dehlin. Dehlin, who has, amazingly, managed to stay on the border of Mormonism longer than I ever would have imagined possible, has friends in high places. One phone call later and Daniel Peterson was out the door on his keister as editor of The Mormon Studies Review. So long, Daniel. Can’t say we’ll miss you!
i would amend that to read, “the fact that there might be etc,” because I can recognize that adherents to religions I or others raised LDS might characterize as “vastly inferior” to Mormonism might have reasons for considering them vastly superior.
Nonetheless, the relative merits of Mormonism to any other branch of monotheism or any religion ever invented is not, in and of itself, reason to accept most or all of Mormonism’s teachings and directives, unless you feel some obligation to be not just a religious observer but a religious believer simply for its own end, regardless of the validity of religion’s truth claims in the first place.
I don’t recall saying any of my examples were “equal” to each other.
And let’s keep something clear – I’m not really here giving you or anyone “sufficient reason” to become a Mormon. That’s not why I’m posting. I’m just posting to point out that the believing position is not ridiculous and unfounded. Don’t attribute more ambition to me than I actually have. Usually my debate goals are pretty modest.
In other related news…
John Dehlin is on Facebook basically admitting he didn’t actually know of any instances of FARMS apologists using ad hominem arguments when he accused them of using ad hominem arguments, and he’d like help finding some examples.
Way to hijack the thread!
Also, I went to the Facebook link, and surprise! What you just said about John Dehlin is an out-and-out lie.
John Dehlin isn’t my favorite person due to our differing goals, but he doesn’t deserve to have obfuscating individuals libel him.
The cool thing is I didn’t have to take that on faith. I could go and look it up and see what you did. Science FTW!
Interestingly, this JD thread(jack?) actually kind of illustrates my earlier point about keeping one’s comments beyond reproach. It is difficult to judge whether any given negative comment was merited or not. However, when you hold yourself to the standard of keeping your comments civil and constructive (especially in the face of opponents who aren’t holding themselves to as high a standard), the stronger your case appears to those who are silently reading it.
note: this is a general/theoretical principle and is not directed at any individual.
Well, you did write
But if you want to admit now that you didn’t provide any real evidence or support or examples for the second half of that assertion, I can accept that.
i think we are all VERY clear on the fact that you do not provide “sufficient reason” to become a Mormon.
You are certainly entitled to attempt to make that argument. People here are entitled to determine that you fail in your stated goal, and, as I said, to have a lack of respect for your methods, including your relationship to argument, evidence and logic, of attempting to accomplish said goal.
p.s. sorry if the connection with my previous comment was unclear. I mean that the FARMS guys can attempt to justify any ad hominem that is found in their journal, but it would be that much better for them if they have nothing questionable to explain away.
@107, OK, makes sense.
Incidentally, Jack posted this summary:
I happen to know Jack pretty well and trust that she wouldnt make the assertion that the Dehlin paper had GA involvement without more information on the subject than I have. So my position on this has changed since a few days ago. We still have no indication that anyone above Bradford was involved in Petersons demotion (he wasnt technically fired he was demoted).
Jack has posted a conclusion sort of post as well: