Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
That may happen some day, but sometimes baby steps. Perhaps you can take off your Shaff glasses and let the work speak for itself.
On one hand, you and others have argued the Church should apologize for stuff, and on the other you want an organization to allow itself to be lambasted publicly.
Read the work first. Apparently you don't like positive reviews by anything LDS. How's that for bias?
Work prepared by LDS employees can raise an eyebrow as to its sincerity, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
If SEIQ, Pelagius and Adam worked together you think they would not be able to produce an academically responsible and honest piece? I do.
|
I'm not sure why you include Adam in that list. Given Adam's demonstrable penchant to couch his unsparing observations in the most inflammatory language possible, and often resorting to the most strained interpretation possible of events to cast leaders and members in the worst light (like God bumping off Harold B Lee for being a racist pig), I see no reason to expect him to produce an academically responsible and intellectually honest document on LDS history.