It seems, however, that you see some kind of equivalence between this little discussion board of private opinion and the Church-supported and authorized apologetics of their print journals. That is where the two of us differ greatly.
What I don't understand about you and Scratch, is that you've both argued, as nauseam
, that these journals have long lost any credibility. Isn't this a chance to bury them even deeper in it? Or do you genuinely fear that they might have solid and convincing enough arguments to actually convince members (the three or four who read them, that is) that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? You're giving them far more credibility than you ever have, as a "real threat" to John. You're giving me
the impression that you really don't
want these criticisms to be made public. FWIW, from the outset, I don't believe they'll convince me that John is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and I'm pretty sure I can well anticipate most of the arguments that will be forthcoming.
I didn't become acquainted with Mormon apologetics yesterday. I read the very first FRB
(initially RBBM) in 1989, and all of them until the late '90s. I've also been on Mormon-related discussion boards for 12 years now, and I don't expect any rabbits to be jumping out of hats. I've also closely followed the Dehlin/Peterson debates where they've occurred, and I closely followed John's posts and his "history" with FAIR/MAD. There's really no need for you to tell me what I "don't understand", because I've been involved with it for considerably longer than you have, or even most here, apart from the "veterans" themselves. In fact, I believe I was "officially" involved with FARMS (1981) even before