In fairness to BRM, it may come as no surprise that he could produce some outlandish

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you see the world in black and white? Too bad, as the world is really represented better in color.

There is nothing negative at all. You perceive it as negative because you are negatively inclined.

First, my post was complimentary toward Maxwell, if one wants to view things in such simplistic terms.

Second, it's neither negative nor positive, just an observation that if a culture is being cultivated which discourages dissent, as opposed to academia, leadership will be hard-pressed to get legitimate feedback. Only those leaders who cultivate relations with academia will receive such.

Explain the negativity, Mr. Negative.

I gotta give you credit Arch. Few people have I ever known are able to constantly bitch, moan and whine about how the Church is run, what their leaders say, and how they say it........only to make it sound like you're doing the leaders, and others in the church a service by being the constant verbal diarrhea of discontent.

You're like few I've known, in your ability to make a turd look like a polished coin of silver. You get irritated simply because I call you on your B.S...of course which in turn you translate into being simple minded, black and white....you've got phrases, words, intelligent sentences creatively put together to enhance the fragrance on the piece of turd to make it smell like a wonderful aroma instead of the well...the smell of turd that it really is. You're an extraordinarily intelligent individual and are very good at your game.

To be perfectly fair I've ZERO doubt that because of the arrogance and intellectual pride you're poisoned by that you believe everything that comes of out your mind and mouth.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And if you court that sort of atmosphere instead of the scholarly atmosphere, then you won't get feedback. In academia, you'll get feedback even if you don't want it.

In an aura of worship and respect, you won't.

I'm starting to understand now. You don't really mean feedback. When you say "feedback" what you really mean is "criticism." My, wouldn't the calling of Chief Apostle Criticizer be a role you could fill so well.

Methinks this whole thread is just another not-so-subtle "I can't stand Packer" whine.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree that theoretically the apostles are unlikely to be critiqued outside of the 12.
Theoretically, it would be difficult to give many apostles feedback as a non-apostle. Most Mormons, I think, would be very reluctant to ever tell an apostle that something they were planning on saying was incorrect/not fully-developed/inconsistent/etc.

Why? I don't have any special inroads into the apostles, but I know from my time at BYU that many/most of them are very friendly with academia (one-third of the quorum are former university presidents) and I'd be surprised if they didn't solicit commentary from people they know and trust in that world.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm starting to understand now. You don't really mean feedback. When you say "feedback" what you really mean is "criticism." My, wouldn't the calling of Chief Apostle Criticizer be a role you could fill so well.

Methinks this whole thread is just another not-so-subtle "I can't stand Packer" whine.



Why? I don't have any special inroads into the apostles, but I know from my time at BYU that many/most of them are very friendly with academia (one-third of the quorum are former university presidents) and I'd be surprised if they didn't solicit commentary from people they know and trust in that world.

Your comments are revelatory. Academic review and debate may appear to outsiders as pejorative remarks for the sake of elevating oneself. Sometimes they are, but there many in academia, especially those outside political science where much of the bullshit occurs, who are sincere and honest, even if you disagree with their approaches.

No, in the subculture of the Church we have church mouse philosophy, which may be sufficient for you Tex, but for many others, we enjoy a much more vigorous debate and rough and tumble.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your comments are revelatory. Academic review and debate may appear to outsiders as pejorative remarks for the sake of elevating oneself. Sometimes they are, but there many in academia, especially those outside political science where much of the bullshit occurs, who are sincere and honest, even if you disagree with their approaches.

No, in the subculture of the Church we have church mouse philosophy, which may be sufficient for you Tex, but for many others, we enjoy a much more vigorous debate and rough and tumble.

I am aware of the tone of academic review and debate, thank you. The church is not a university nor a research institution, so I maintain the comparison is deeply flawed. The Lord does not declare truth by committee or consensus.

In other words, I'm challenging your use of the term "legitimate feedback."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I am aware of the tone of the tone of academic review and debate, thank you. The church is not a university nor a research institution, so I maintain the comparison is deeply flawed. The Lord does not declare truth by committee or consensus.

In other words, I'm challenging your use of the term "legitimate feedback."

I'm aware of "legitimate feedback" in these realms, (1) academia, (2) science, (3) commerce, (4) judicial arena, and (5) athletics.

In all of these arenas, one receives solicited and unsolicited responses by virtue of the culture in which these activities or industries conduct themselves. Unlike these arenas, the Church does not cultivate an atmosphere of feedback. It is more one akin to military, which can become too monolithic without enough new blood and ideas.

You as a mullah wish to knock down any who don't share your myopic view of life of deference without cogitation. You have not demonstrated an awareness of the workings of academia, just a complete dismissal of the benefits thereof.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm aware of "legitimate feedback" in these realms, (1) academia, (2) science, (3) commerce, (4) judicial arena, and (5) athletics.

In all of these arenas, one receives solicited and unsolicited responses by virtue of the culture in which these activities or industries conduct themselves. Unlike these arenas, the Church does not cultivate an atmosphere of feedback. It is more one akin to military, which can become too monolithic without enough new blood and ideas.

How fortunate we are the the church is none of those things. Neither academic nor scientific, commercial nor judicial, athletic nor military, it has a wonderful and divinely instituted system of government.

The order of the priesthood is vastly superior to any other mode of governance. I am very grateful that the Lord's system so effectively minimizes the greed, discord, disharmony, dishonesty, and self-aggrandizement of all those others.

Originally Posted by Archaea

You as a mullah wish to knock down any who don't share your myopic view of life of deference without cogitation. You have not demonstrated an awareness of the workings of academia, just a complete dismissal of the benefits thereof.

And yet, my very presence on this board defies this accusation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

And yet, my very presence on this board defies this accusation.

Your presence to correct the wandering minds? You have yet to demonstrate an open mind.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your presence to correct the wandering minds? You have yet to demonstrate an open mind.

Please, let's not turn this into another thread about me.

The point is, my experience in the church is that feedback is welcome and even encouraged, even (or should I say especially) to the leadership, so long as it is offered appropriately. The spirit moves in unseen ways, and how grateful a bishop is for ward members who can identify needs and offer experience and advice in areas where he is less capable. I know young bishops who select older and wiser counselors for just that purpose. Although I have no insider knowledge, I have a hard time believing that the general leaders of the church operate differently.

I seem to vaguely remember a story delivered by Thomas Monson, though I can't remember who the story is about, that illustrates this. A young man serving in a subordinate calling was sitting in a meeting with the ward bishopric discussing the needs of the Young Men's program, which in some way or another was lacking. Listening to the discussion he realized he had many ideas to address the problems, and somewhat out of turn, blurted them out to the group.

Embarrassed at his outburst, he excused himself and left the room. The bishop looked at his counselors and said, "Brethren, I think we have found our next Young Men's President." He went and found the young man and extended the call.

Feedback may not be presented in the way you wish it would, Arch, but that doesn't mean it isn't sought after or appreciated. The church is unlike any organization in the world, and thus its methods are unlike the world's too. I don't relish the thought of official scholarly critiques of General Authorities' talks--I'm glad the Lord does things differently.

[Archaea]

This debate almost sounds like the ancient cristological debates concerning the nature of God.

You seem to argue the Church isolated from the world, even though it is composed of humans, with their external training. Thus, somehow, the Church should operate, as if by magic or as the Docetists would like, believing the entire world to be but an immaterial appearance.

I on the other hand recognize the Church is comprised of humans, who must take what we learn from the entire cosmos of human existence, even in our earthly Church dealings. To ignore successive models from outside and to try to achieve a Utopian society alone is ripe for failure.

The Logos is indeed material, and separate yet part of the World.

[Indy Coug]

I know for a fact that "peer review" is the norm for Ensign articles, conference talks and so forth.