clarkgoble Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Vogel's work has it's virtues and defenders, but I think it also appropriate to mention that it notable for a very conspicuous degree of ideological saturation. Alan Goff has explained this at length on many occasions, such as here Way back at my old blog Dan, Alan and I had a pretty extended discussion on positivism. While I think Alan makes some good points I think he pushes them too far. While I'm no logical positivist I think they tend to get unfairly tarred and made into boogeymen they aren't. (Primarily due to how both Popper but also postmodernists viewed them) I really can't fault Dan for adopting certain theoretical stances embracing naturalism. I'm not sure I'd call that "ideological saturation." I'll fully admit my own view embraces a fairly robust naturalist stance, at least ontologically speaking. I just am open to real angels. As far as he goes though, given his view there are no angels nor revelation I think Dan does about as good a job as one can do. I think the big flaw ends up ironically not taking Joseph's writings quite as serious as he should. Particularly the Book of Mormon and JST. If one reads them as fraudulent in some sense (acknowledging the possibility in the model of unconscious production) then they have to be taken very serious in terms of Joseph's thinking. That in turn causes problems due to frank differences between what Joseph shows himself as understanding and what he demonstrates as his understanding to others. (I think the faithful model can explain these discrepancies easily by simply saying he didn't really understand his revelations well but this is a bit harder for the fraudulent model) But one definitely should read Vogel recognizing that he sees Joseph as a fraud and is interpreting the data in light of that model. I think what this thread has demonstrated is that while it may have been 5 years before Joseph came out and said, "an angel ordained me" that the theology is much earlier. Arguably as early as 1829 but certainly by 1832 it's all there. Edited February 23, 2017 by clarkgoble 2 Link to comment
hagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) On 2/20/2017 at 0:04 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: Please do! He didn't break his promise...but wasn't there today (he didn't specify *when* he might return)...so I'm returning to simply report...that I got nothing to report...so far. Was that sufficiently annoying? (If not, I could do another emergency broadcast test in 5 or 6 minutes.) Edited February 27, 2017 by hagoth7 1 Link to comment
Benjamin Seeker Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, hagoth7 said: He didn't break his promise...but wasn't there today (he didn't specify *when* he might return)...so I'm returning to simply report...that I got nothing to report...so far. Was that sufficiently annoying? (If not, I could do another emergency broadcast test in 5 or 6 minutes.) I got so excited when I saw you had posted in this thread. Could you let us know soon that he didn't get back to you still, please? Actually, I was going to private message you to ask you, so thanks for the update! 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 11 minutes ago, hagoth7 said: He didn't break his promise...but wasn't there today (he didn't specify *when* he might return)...so I'm returning to simply report...that I got nothing to report...so far. Was that sufficiently annoying? (If not, I could do another emergency broadcast test in 5 or 6 minutes.) You do realize you are making me see double popping between not Hagoth and Hagoth. Link to comment
hagoth7 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 2/26/2017 at 10:12 PM, Calm said: You do realize you are making me see double popping between not Hagoth and Hagoth. And it gets worse. ;0) 1 Link to comment
hagoth7 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) On 2/26/2017 at 10:07 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: I got so excited when I saw you had posted in this thread. Could you let us know soon that he didn't get back to you still, please? Actually, I was going to private message you to ask you, so thanks for the update! He wasn't there 2 weeks ago. I wasn't there last week, and am scheduled to be elsewhere next week. And we have GC the following week. Which pushes us out to the 2nd week of April. (Assuming I'm there, and I remember to look for him then.) Or, you may PM my siamese twin probablyHagoth7, since I don't log in here much any more, and he'd certainly be willing to relay your contact information to a ward clerk to see if they might relay your request to the person in question to see if he might opt to contact you directly. (I never did catch that RM's name. But probablyHagoth7 could relay to you identifying info that a good ward clerk should be able to pin to a name.) Edited March 22, 2017 by hagoth7 Link to comment
notHagoth7 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) On 2/26/2017 at 10:07 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: I got so excited when I saw you had posted in this thread. Could you let us know soon that he didn't get back to you still, please? Actually, I was going to private message you to ask you, so thanks for the update! And a quasi-final update: A few doors opened suddenly, and I ended up relocating to a different ward/stake/county the Friday after GC, so didn't encounter the RM again. (You have a PM.) Edited April 28, 2017 by notHagoth7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts