Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. Credibility shot. Not his. Yours. Tell me, what does a good Egyptologist look like to you? Someone who toes every line of the scholastic orthodoxy perhaps? Or perhaps someone who publishes a lot of peer-reviewed material? Perhaps you ought to tread a little more carefully: if I am not mistaken, Gee has published more than Dr. Ritner, and his publications are in good standing. The same goes with Dr. Muhlestein, who is one of the most highly rated Egyptology professors in the country.
  2. Sorry, I let my temper get away from me a bit. I apologize.
  3. ^ this. I think the love of money and stuff which almost always precedes the rise of secret combinations and the collapse of society in the Book of Mormon will do the trick.
  4. There it is. This, in a nutshell, is why we aren't interested. Clearly the point of this is for someone to get put in their place. Forgive us for not wanting to produce the next patch of soundbites and videos for the Bloggernacle to regurgitate for eternity. Only a fool thinks that a person-to-person debate is a superior form of getting to truth, or even a mildly passable one. Written exchanges, the type which we already have, permit deeper development of thoughts and arguments, a broader range of sources, and more time to flesh out and fully treat ideas, among other benefits. Thes
  5. Let me repeat what I said: "Nothing of substance is lost. Dehlin and RFM are just throwing another gauntlet around which will then become r/exmormon fodder for mocking the Mopologists from TSCC. And, after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0." I'm don't care about the mockery that r/exmormon denizens will throw around. Like I said, "after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0." They can get in a circle and pat each other on the back all they want. That's what this whole thing is about. Everyone knows that a Gee/Muhlest
  6. Nephi would disagree, per 1 Nephi 14:20-27. I imagine the Brethren quote from it less because there are more pressing things to discuss in General Conference and they don't have the time/expertise to get their hearers appropriately equipped with the tools of exegesis. Returning to Nephi's view, he didn't seem to think so. Referring to 1 Nephi 14 again, he identifies the whore of all the earth as "the great and abominable church" which is among all nations. It is operative before the American revolutions are prefigured in 1 Nephi 13, and 1 Nephi 14:1-3 says that the Gentiles need to ha
  7. How on earth are you getting that from what I wrote? How much have you engaged with the papers the apologists have written? It doesn't seem like a lot, because you still seem to be hung up on "the Book of the Dead doesn't talk about Abraham" which is old news by now. We've been on this treadmill for a century. How familiar are you with the debate as it is today? You know what hasn't been engaged directly, to my knowledge? Kevin Barney's proposal of a Jewish redactor. Robert Smith's oft-linked assessment of the Abrahamic facsimiles and traditions. Sam Brown's discussion of tex
  8. A direct scholarly dialogue has already been ongoing. Dehlin and RFM would not be needed as moderators if it were going to be an exchange of papers or anything other than a "formal debate." Their self-insertion betrays the whole game. Nothing of substance is lost. Dehlin and RFM are just throwing another gauntlet around which will then become r/exmormon fodder for mocking the Mopologists from TSCC. And, after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0.
  9. Nibley was an iconoclast with a flair for the dramatic. Great moments ensued.
  10. Probably no different than scientists or people from any other discipline when they disagree. Seriously, I don't understand the rhetoric around the word "apologist" which so many seem to have internalized. It seems like many people think of "the apologist" as some sort of monolithic genus of subhuman creature, chained to a wheel which he perpetually pushes in slavery to the defense of a narrative. This is flatly untrue. There's apologists of all shapes, stripes, levels of orthodoxy, and clashing opinions, just like in any discipline.
  11. I'm sorry, but I've seen too much of Dehlin and RFM to have any confidence at all in their bonafides. Their discussions are so one-sided that I cannot attribute to them anything more noble than the status of active polemicist. If they were interested in the truth, they would give Brant Gardner and Terryl Givens the same softball treatment they give Coe and Ritner. Dehlin's interview with Coe was absolutely embarrassing: he hadn't put in any effort at all to grasp the fundamentals of apologetic scholarship. They may use the "it's wrong for members to not know the exact truth and sacrifice so mu
  12. I've always found in-person vocal debates to be tests of showmanship just as much as they are tests of evidence and logic. Personal presence, gravitas, dramatic timing, humor...these things do not truth decide, but they sure can affect our impressions of who won a debate and thus who was correct. I personally am not interested in identifying the best grandstander out of Dehlin, Ritner, Gee, Muhlestein, and RFM, so I'd be just as happy if they stick with the texts. In-person debates rarely allow for much more than soundbites anyway.
  13. I can respect that. It was an interesting conversation and you've put me on a new research topic, so thank you! I've seen you around the board but never actually engaged with you, so I'm glad I got the chance.
  14. I freely confess to arguing within a "Smith was the sole translator" paradigm because I find a conspiracy roping in Cowdery, the Whitmers, and the Smiths untenable. It's just too broad and trial-tested and requires too much dismissal of eyewitness testimony for me to feel comfortable accepting it. The Book of Mormon manuscript is manifestly a dictation, which makes no sense if Cowdery and Whitmer are already in on it. It's unlikely that the educated Cowdery, demonstrably prone to soaring language, would be behind a book with such grammar and relatively bland didactic tendencies as the Book of
  15. As I'm sure you know, a summary is not the same thing as the text. Nevertheless, I don't know what text you are referring to, so there's not much more I can say. Since I don't believe Cowdery or Whitmer were conspirators/co-creators of the text, I find arguments that use them as sources to be unconvincing. The consensus surrounding Neibuhr's map is that it was too far away for Smith to reliably access; a traveling copy must be posited. Then there's the relevant time depth and the fact that the maps referenced all complicate the account of the the Jerusalem-Bountiful journey in ways
  16. One might say the professors...went medieval on each other.
  17. Timbuktu is famous. Nihm is minutiae. Anyways, as to your point about maps published near Joseph: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-2-of-2/. It's from 2016, so it's possible that new information has come forward of which I am not aware. If so, I'd love to hear it. The long and the short of it is: the closest map with references to Nihm/Nehhm to Joseph that we can identify with certainty was 200 miles away from Palmyra and 300 miles away from Harmony. Not exactly close. So, no map with the relevant information can be demonstrated to be i
  18. There's probably parts of it she doesn't agree with, so she doesn't see it as the Restored Gospel full stop. But there's reason to believe that she meant it when she said that Joseph was receiving revelations.
  19. It's evidence in that we have a location referenced in 1 Nephi which was a) unlikely to be known to Joseph Smith, but also b) in the appropriate place chronologically, which was impossible for him (or anyone else in the world) to have known, unlike most of the names on the maps he theoretically (but improbably) could have referenced. Right place, right time, right function, right integration into the narrative. This is a whole thread in the making. You've given me a good discussion of categories of historical evidence, but not on how they fit together in everyone's subjective
  20. Perhaps it's time for a break then. We're talking past each other. For what it's worth, I didn't say that bias makes it a tie. I said that our judgements as to what constitutes evidence precedes any argument based on the evidence. That's why magisterial handwaves to "the evidence" aren't convincing unless you share the same rules about what evidence should be expected. For my part, I've read the papers talking about what the Book of Mormon says about its own geography and I have found them, personally and subjectively as all evaluation is, to be strong enough evidence to convince m
  21. You'll find examples at the beginning of the thread. Nahom and general correspondence with Arabia are witnesses of First Nephi. The seal of Malkiyahu. Stubb's research in Uto-Aztecan. LiDAR when contrasted with the views of archaeology in Joseph Smith's time up to later. Literally everything Kevin Christensen has posted. We've been over this. If you don't find it convincing, then so be it. Everyone has a different threshold for what they consider to be evidence, its strength, etc.: if it were not so, disagreement among humans would not exist. But we have to be aware of this fact, aware of our
×
×
  • Create New...