Jump to content

Derl Sanderson

Members
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derl Sanderson

  1. And even in national media, where people supposedly have attained the highest level of competence in use of the language, they commonly misuse number/amount and less/fewer.
  2. Exhibiting the same insightful commentary as do their counterparts at MSNBC regarding current events.
  3. Just finished reading the third volume of Saints. It is referenced there on pages 369-376 and 485-488. Yet another deceitfully well-hidden historical item that reflects poorly on the Church. 😁
  4. Your reaction to the misuse of "irregardless" makes me wonder what neurosis you may have developed given the ubiquitous misuse of fewer/less in virtually every freaking element of society! πŸ˜‰
  5. I can appreciate that one might not find LDS scholars' arguments compelling. My issue is with the notion that none exist or that they cravenly masquerade as no more than ad hominem attacks. Those are such overused canards. Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owens certainly seem to have taken LDS apologetics seriously. And I don't know if "support" is exactly what one would call it, but non-LDS scholars like Margaret Barker (Methodist), Craig Blomberg (Evangelical), and Stephen H. Webb (Catholic) certainly consider our faith claims to be substantive and deserving respect. The arguments of Southerton and Murphy are not without considerable thought and credentialed backing (plus they are darlings of John Dehlin, so they got that going for 'em 😁), but I find them less compelling than those offered by LDS geneticist/scholars Michael F. Whiting, John Butler, Ugo Perego, and David A. McClellan. The Maxwell Institute published an entire book of essays by LDS scholars addressing in a manner that is supportive of the BOM the very issues that Southerton and Murphy criticize. Then there is a detailed critique of Southerton's entire book Losing a Lost Tribe that I thought was quite good. Of course the world of scholarship, to me anyway, seems more often than not like a war ground. You got your smart guys, I got my smart guys, and to each his own. So I am perfectly happy with the notion that in matters of faith, I decide not only on the basis of smart guys' arguments, but also as guided by the promise of the Holy Spirit. It is so annoying how the initial topics of discussion always wander down tangent road to entirely off-subject items. Not a thing I just said has anything to to with Utah Lighthouse Ministry or the Tanners, so I'm just contributing to my own annoyance, so I'm gonna shut up now. 😠
  6. In what way has it been demonstrated that the faith claims of the Church cannot withstand scholarly criticism? Has it been shown that there is no intellectual defense of the Church's claims or that critics have had no answers from credentialed scholars who support and believe those faith claims? And what constitutes a "successful critic" anyway? By what standard do we assess the critic's success or failure? Are there some examples of successful critics you could give us for context? I am fairly conversant with the Tanners' works and the newsletters produced by Utah Lighthouse Ministry. In following their efforts for many years, I noted that early on, they took extreme pleasure in openly challenging Church leaders to answer their criticisms. When no answer was forthcoming, the Tanners took it as evidence that they could not be answered. It might have been that the ministry of Church leaders required their attention be given to more weighty issues, but that's the topic of a different discussion. For years the Tanners were quite self-satisfied in this apparent victory over the Deceived Deceivers in LDS leadership, but then a funny thing happened. In the 1980's, LDS scholars began to take notice of the Tanners' work and to seriously engage it, with results that were not quite so satisfying to the Lighthouse keepers. The tone of their newsletter turned from self-congratulatory gloating to one of whining about being attacked and persecuted. Works of the Tanners and their fellow travelers were quite often and very seriously engaged in the old FARMS Review where the unassailable criticisms turned out to be rather assailable after all. This is probably the "great opposition" they faced that you sympathetically referred to earlier.
  7. I know how you fret so over the status of the Church.
  8. Alternately ... Just like every other anti-Mormon "ministry" that finds itself on the scrapheap of history.
  9. Right ... like how we've jettisoned our concept of Godhead because of all the bad publicity and criticism generated by virtually every other Christian sect over the decades due to our not embracing their concept of Trinity.
  10. Really. My first notice of this site was in a FAIR newsletter dated Oct 15. Nearly two weeks later I have been on the site most days and have gotten through the first fifty questions of the 500 listed. Many of the questions are not new to me, but some are and I found them quite intriguing. The "further reading" aspect given in associated links is very good and takes you to excellent scholarly resources in Book of Mormon Central, the Religious Studies Center, etc. These are all well-sourced, and take a fair amount of time to consider. Thus my only getting through 50 questions in two weeks (coupled with my natural disposition to slothfulness generally). I am much impressed with the content and appreciative of the effort that has gone toward making this substantial resource possible. I also like the idea it espouses of taking the opportunity to, in a positive manner, go on the offensive with our faith claims in the face of critics rather than always being "just" apologists. It seems to me that you give it short shrift, but then again perhaps I should be happy that we have a genuine polymath on this board! πŸ™‚
  11. Tracy Browning's talk. Not just mike drop ... podium drop!
  12. Absolutely true. All my children are adopted. When they excel, it's nurture. When they screw up, it's obviously nature. As a parent, I can't lose! πŸ˜‰
  13. I can't help wondering what the reaction would be if someone with Wayment's position, platform, and audience were to describe, say, Sharon Eubank as a "hottie."
  14. Glad you're here. As you have probably already seen, we try to stay away from disgusting topics like politics and surstromming. 😁
  15. Perhaps. But that's to my point about mind reading. And you obviously are more confident in your ability to do so than I am. And I am dubious that the Church is capable of tracking the reason for those who once held recommends have left.
  16. This conclusion involves too much mind reading, of which neither you nor the Church are capable. There is another aspect of this same logic that I believe is true, but I cannot verify because it also involves thought discernment at which I am particularly bad. It goes like this: Some or all of the various reasons for leaving the Church that Smac and Robert have enumerated are often masked by individuals behind the "Church-lied-to-me" or other similar facade. This can be the complaint that is voiced when in reality the individual left the Church because Sister Fishbreath pissed him off or the demands of Church membership just became too much of a burden/hindrance to a desired life style. To be sure, this is a good technique, because if I push back against the argument, I am accused of being judgemental because I in no way can read the mind or know the heart of the offended party and I'm therefore branded as "hating the victim" and am effectively silenced. My sense is that this happens fairly often. But of course I can't say for sure. And neither can the Church.
  17. Man, I hate to see this generation disappearing.
  18. I am reminded of the prescient press and their similar musings when Harold B. Lee died. Spencer Kimball was given scant notice of being any factor at all in Church governance. His health was lousy and his meek personality didn't bode well for his serving as an agent of change. Most of the ink spilled was used in prognosticating what that radical ideologue, Ezra Taft Benson, would do when he took command. How'd that turn out?
×
×
  • Create New...