Has your opinion of the LDS church

[Boy Named Sue]

now, can we get back to pinpointing the location of the 100 acre wood. what says farms on that?

That comment is either an ignorant insult or merely inane. I'll choose to believe that it was the latter.

not an insult. just a sarcastic emphasis to the point you just made, that whether it is lgt or otherwise, makes little difference in the grand schemothings.

the real questions to me are related to what joseph smith knew of the characters he describes. i think i am on record as siding with the smithsonian, which makes this a debate about fiction.

[Daniel Peterson]

i think i am on record as siding with the smithsonian, which makes this a debate about fiction.

Has The Smithsonian (whoever he may be) announced that the Book of Mormon is fiction? (Please indicate where The Smithsonian said this.) Has anybody ever offered any reasons for disagreeing with The Smithsonian regarding the Book of Mormon?

[Confidential Informant]

I have. Repeatedly. Read the quotes. Read her readings of them. Read me explaining what is wrong with those readings. (Hear the phrase "affirming the consequent" come up over and over again.)

What else could you possibly want? The quotes are there. Her reading of them is wrong, plainly available for anyone else to see, and explained by me on numerous occasions.

As I've gone back over these quotes which were actually offered by Don Bradely, I' come to the conclusion that your are the one who is misunderstanding the whole argument here.

Juliann doesn't respond to my explanations of what's wrong with her reading. She justs reasserts her stance, makes the same error with another quote, and demands I deal with the evidence. What else am I supposed to do?

I dunno. Smartass remarks and condescending sarcasm seem to serve you well.

I once listed, via Don, an extensive cross-section of quotes all defining fundamentalism in the way I just did, and she ignored it and continued her same pattern of quote, misread, and ignore.

No she didn't. Those quotes directly support what she's arguing here. Can't you see that?

If you want a defintion of fundamentalism in the historically relevant sense, take a simple Marsden quote.

Fundamentalists shared with the discontented intellectuals of the 1920's, if little else, a sense of the profound spiritual and cultural crisis of the 20th century. Unlike their more disillusioned contempories, however, they had very definite ideas of where things had gone wrong. Modernism and the theory of evolution, they were convinced, had caused a catastrophe by undermining the Biblical foundations of American civilization. "Modernism," President James M. Gray of the Moody Bible Institute stated flatly, "is a revolt against the God of Christianity.""

...

"During this period of its national prominence in the 1920's, fundamentalism is best defined in terms of these concerns. Briefly, it was militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicism. Fundamentalists were evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the 19th century, who in the twentieth century militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural exchanges that modernism endorsed... Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity in line with modern thought"

(George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford University Press, 1980).

Great, now let's take that quote and apply it as (I think) Juliann is applying it by substituting some new ideas for those in the original:

Unlike their more disillusioned contempories, however, they had very definite ideas of where things had gone wrong. Modernism and the [the Limited Geography Theory], they were convinced, had caused a catastrophe by undermining the [revelatory underpinnings of the Mormon prophetic office.]. "Modernism,"

Now, the analogy is not perfect (it's the best I could think off hand) and Juliann has on several occassion stated that contra-Mormons do not share every characteristic of religious fundamentalists, but they share an awful lot of them.

In this case we have BYUalterego (and Murphy, and Metcalfe and Southerton) acting like fundies. They are insisting on that a traditional understanding of the scripture is preferable to the modern interpretation. They insist that we Mormon treat our prophetic leaders as inerrant and complain to high heaven when we don't.

In the case of BYUalterego, he bought into the Inerrantist ideas and when he discoverd that LDS prophets are not inerrant and never claimed to be, rather than reexamine his own fundamentalist view, he rejected the whole thing.

Juliann isn't misreading or misinterpreting anything here. You just don't like the way she's using her evidence but I can't see anything wrong with it as it supports the exact point she's making.

What do you want Pent?

Peace on earth? Goodwill towards men? How about you just call me "Lance" and stop playing your Pent/CI game.

I just briefly explained in some detail what is meant by the term fundamentalist. I referenced quotes to support myself. Namely the same one's Juliann has already kindly offered over and over again. Seems I'm set.

Well you really ought to publish your findings since everything I'm reading indicates that defining fundamentialism has been a major issue. And from what I'm reading Juliann's use of it would be completely acceptable.

If all Juliann can do is stick to a blatantly irrational reading of a quote after someone points it out, that's a conversational impasse.

Once more. She's not arguing that they are fundamentalist, she's arguing that they are acting like them in certain instances. She point to a specific mindset that they share. I've yet to see you show that she is incorrect or even deal with the specific examples she's given.

Not uncoincidentally, the exact same problem occured when she hilariously misread what can be concluded from a study when she was trying to attack moderate drinking.

Red herring and completely off topic.

She seems to be under the impression that using footnotes, regardless of whether they actually support your point, means you are engaging in substantive debate.

At least she makes the attempt. Your idea of a footnote appears to be to quote another poster's list of quotes which don't, in my view, disagree with what she's said.

Are you going to employ the anti-7of9 strategy on me and just keep insisting otherwise until people believe you?

I'm not sure what this means? Does the refer to some interaction between 7 and I or 7 and someone else?

And you aren't backing up squat, you big fat hypocrite.

That's the best you can do? Obesity quips? or was that a reference to the size of my perceived hypocrisy? What, exactly, do you want me to back up? That BYUAlterego held highly fundamentialist beliefs about LDS doctrine which ultimately caused him to be disappointed? Who should I quote on that?

At least I defined fundamentalism in a coherant way that matches scholarly and general uses and attempted to show when it would and wouldn't be appropriate to use it to refer to someone who reads the hemispheric model from the BoM.

No you didn't. Don did. YOu just cribbed his stuff and agreed with him. And what you've attempted to do is define fundamentalism in the most narrow terms possible and then deny that it's possible that certain posters share certain traits, which is the only argument that Juliann has made. She has never said they share every or that they don't differ in some very fundament (no pun intended) aspects. I doubt that BYUalterego is a fundamentialist in every aspect. Certainly his reaction to modernity was differnent from a fundie in that he didn't dig in his heels (ala a Jospeh Field McConkie) but rather rejected everything. But now he joins the ranks of the Murphy/Southerton/Metcalfe cadre that insist that Mormons must believe in the same way they did when they were members.

Juliann's arguments are much more subtle than you've given them credit for, perhaps because you were so busy using your sledgehammer to try and fight her you didn't grasp what she's been saying.

Now, with that, I'll leave you to go write some anti-gay opinions where you quote Jeffery Satinover.

Ah, very nice. Now you pull out the "bigot" card to bolster your arguments. How brilliantly predictable of you. You know the really fun thing is that while raling against my source, you provided no counter sources of your own. While apparently think very little of his expertise, others more knowledgable than you disagree as he holds degrees from M.I.T. (S.B.), Harvard (Ed.M.) the University of Texas (M.D.) and Yale (M.S.) He completed psychoanalytic training at the C. G. Jung Institute of Z

[sidewinder]

Sidewinder, isnt' that what I said? That is why I said perceived. Because of Mormonism's perceived universalism.... I have never said anything other than Mormons get accused of being postmodern.

The problem is those accusations usually rest on not only misunderstandings of Mormonism but of pomo. For instance, it might be true that a lot of reborn Christians educating themselves on the internet see Mormonism as "postmodern" because of its perceived universalism and because they understand postmodernism (wrongly) to be nothing more than rejecting "Truth" or "seeing through a glass darkly." But then that's like saying psychologists are often accused of being psychiatrists because people generally don't understand either field very well.

If that's the point you were trying to make, ok, point taken and I won't bug you about it anymore. But if the point you're trying to make involves a misnderstanding on your part where pomo is just the fair-minded murkey view of reality in contrast to the rigid certainty of modernism, then that's different.

[juliann]

I didn't say it.  I did say this is your spin on Mormon theology.

And if you had any understanding of the topic you would realize I am saying it is a common perception. Of others. From a fundamentalist's perspective Mormonism looks PM. I'm on record in an article on the FAIR website saying that years ago...so I really don't know where you are trying to go with this.

I find PM debates rather useless because it is obvious you guys can't reference what you are saying and everybody has different ideas of what PM is or how it functions, etc. etc. That is why I try to use PM as it relates to religion....not architecture and the like. So try getting acquainted with books like:

A.K.M. Adam, ed., Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation (St. Louis, MI:Chalice Press, 2000) or David Ray Griffin Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000).

Why don't you back this up this very common description with some data that isn't a quote from yourself.

[Boy Named Sue]

i think i am on record as siding with the smithsonian, which makes this a debate about fiction.

Has The Smithsonian (whoever he may be) announced that the Book of Mormon is fiction? (Please indicate where The Smithsonian said this.) Has anybody ever offered any reasons for disagreeing with The Smithsonian regarding the Book of Mormon?

good point. im really not sure who or what is the smithsonian. i was just dropping names i read on other threads.

has president hinckley announced that the lord of the rings was fictitious?

[Serious]

i think i am on record as siding with the smithsonian, which makes this a debate about fiction.

Has The Smithsonian (whoever he may be) announced that the Book of Mormon is fiction? (Please indicate where The Smithsonian said this.) Has anybody ever offered any reasons for disagreeing with The Smithsonian regarding the Book of Mormon?

good point. im really not sure who or what is the smithsonian. i was just dropping names i read on other threads.

has president hinckley announced that the lord of the rings was fictitious?

Got caught did ya? Hehehe

[Boy Named Sue]

has president hinckley announced that the lord of the rings was fictitious?

Got caught did ya? Hehehe

i dont know. did president hinckley not say it was fictitious? if he didnt, what should i make of that, serious, seriously?

[Serious]

has president hinckley announced that the lord of the rings was fictitious?

Got caught did ya? Hehehe

i dont know. did president hinckley not say it was fictitious? if he didnt, what should i make of that, serious, seriously?

Is it anyone's job to tell anyone that this admittedly fictional Lord of the Rings is fictictious?

[MarleyMeyer]

The Smithsonian is an institution. Google it and LDS and False and you'll find the info you need.

[HiJolly]

The Smithsonian is an institution. Google it and LDS and False and you'll find the info you need.

Dang literalist.

HiJolly

[Daniel Peterson]

The Smithsonian is an institution.

Right. My point exactly. But the letter that anti-Mormons so treasure was written by a human individual or individuals.

Google it and LDS and False and you'll find the info you need.

No. That's precisely the problem. You certainly will not find all the information you need.

[Boy Named Sue]

But the letter that anti-Mormons so treasure was written by a human individual or individuals.

oh c'mon now. seriously, are we to dismiss anything written by a human individual or individuals? take the entire standard works, who authored that? who created the content and the collection of works that is the history of the church? may i suggest - individuals?

[Serious]

But the letter that anti-Mormons so treasure was written by a human individual or individuals.

oh c'mon now. seriously, are we to dismiss anything written by a human individual or individuals? take the entire standard works, who authored that? who created the content and the collection of works that is the history of the church? may i suggest - individuals?

Only in regards to LDS History and works which are inspired by The Lord, whose Church it is.

[Boy Named Sue]

Only in regards to LDS History and works which are inspired by The Lord, whose Church it is.

huh? i need a translation if anyone can help me out.

[Daniel Peterson]

oh c'mon now. seriously, are we to dismiss anything written by a human individual or individuals? 

Have I suggested that it simply be "dismissed"?

[Boy Named Sue]

oh c'mon now. seriously, are we to dismiss anything written by a human individual or individuals? 

Have I suggested that it simply be "dismissed"?

nope, another score for you. but how else was i supposed to read the tone of your comment. was that meant to flatter the smithsonian? or was it to imply that the smithsonians position could be wrong? or right? or was it just hairsplitting that meant nothing at all?

hey, btw, can you translate what serious said? i aint got the zkillz.

[Daniel Peterson]

nope, another score for you. but how else was i supposed to read the tone of your comment. was that meant to flatter the smithsonian? or was it to imply that the smithsonians position could be wrong? or right? or was it just  hairsplitting that meant nothing at all?

It was meant to suggest that whoever wrote the Smithsonian letter is a flesh and blood human individual who puts his or her pants on one leg at a time and eats soup with a spoon and whose opinions are neither more nor less intrinsically worthy of credit than those of any other similarly trained human individual.

"The Smithsonian" as such, as a borg-like mass-mind to which ordinary mortals, even those equipped with Ph.D.s in the relevant fields, simply must bow the knee and submit, doesn't exist.

[Escalante Sam]

nope, another score for you. but how else was i supposed to read the tone of your comment. was that meant to flatter the smithsonian? or was it to imply that the smithsonians position could be wrong? or right? or was it just

[e=mc2]

Because it was originally found out in a field, yes? Well, O.K. in a hill in a field.....

[Addictio]

Hi BYU Alterego:

You might find it useful in discussing or debating "DNA issues" with folks like DCP and CI to distinguish between the hemispheric vs. limited geography model of the BoM, and the separate set(s) of evolving "population models" that have been applied to the BoM. The Leavitt, Crandall, Marshall article in the Vol. 36 No. 4 Dialogue (2003), for example, while it doesn't reference their historical development, illustrates that it is assumptions/models about ancient Amerindian populations and BoM peoples that are relevant to the DNA science and data. (Hence Whiting's "global colonization model" -- rather than a "hemispheric geography model" -- and the BoM population models of Leavitt et al in their DNA article, none of which are significantly affected by the assumed geographic location or geographic scope of the referenced BoM cities, or of the Book's narrative.)

I mention this because the evolving geography models and the population models have a distinct intellectual history (as Roper's three FARMS articles show) and also present distinct logical, interpretive and (hence) distinct BoM-historicity issues. If the discussion instead conflates the geographic and population models and issues, historicity advocates such as DCP and CI have an easier time of it, seems to me, and goodness, we can't have that!

Two examples. First, it is clear that JS and his contemporaries all adopted/accepted what Whiting calls the "global colonization model" and which Leavitt et al. refer to as the "traditional hemispheric model" of BoM/ancient Amerindian populations, which has to do with the absence of pre-BoM indigenous inhabitants in the Americas, not the location or spatial scope of BoM events. Consequently, favorable comments JS may have made about a mesoamerican location (along with other locations) for BoM peoples and events (the comments DCP invokes) are actually irrelevant to the DNA, historicity and other issues raised by the population model JS and his contemporaries uniformly adopted and believed in. Perhaps more importantly, they are also irrelevant to the issues raised by the current, conflicting BoM population model advocated by Sorenson, Roper, Meldrum, Stephens and others in the 2003 JBMS articles you (BYU alterego) mentioned. (The same is true of the oft-invoked textual support -- e.g., limited travel distances -- that favors the limited spatial scope (geography) for the BoM narrative. The current population model advocated in support of ancient authorship, on the other hand, raises entirely different interpretive issues and difficulties.)

Second, it is relatively easy to reconcile the limited mesoamerican geography model with the D&C references to modern-era North American Amerindians as "Lamanites" (one of which BYU alterego quotes); hence DCP suggests that no one who adopts that limited geographical model is or should be concerned with those D&C passages. Without arguing the point here, a distinct, and IMO a much stronger case, can be made that the D&C revelations regarding modern-era Lamanites plainly reflect the original (discredited) BoM population model and also are inconsistent with the current population model advanced by ancient authorship advocates.

With these comments I don't mean to belabor the obvious or wax pedantic, btw; perhaps BYU alterego, for example, understands this difference (yawn, etc.), but his dialogue with DCP seemed to me to suggest otherwise. In any event, I'd be interested in your (BYU alterego's) assessment of the above-referenced Leavitt article. Do you think it suffers from the same or similar logical or DNA-science mistakes/defects as those you believe are reflected in the 2003 JBMS articles?

Note to Brant G: if you happen to be reading this thread, I'll respond to your most recent comments re my last post in the "DNA" thread within the next couple of days.

[Escalante Sam]

Because it was originally found out in a field, yes? Well, O.K. in a hill in a field.....

Now there YOU go, interpretin' my words like a LITERALIST, as opposed ta bein' a POSTMODERNIST like Dr. Dan. Next thing ya know, you'll be a-claimin' that people comes from primates an' that the scientific method actually works. Yee-haw!

[E Allusion]

Great, now let's take that quote and apply it as (I think) Juliann is applying it by substituting some new ideas for those in the original:

You can't just change the words into something completely different and have the same meaning apply. There needs to be actual analogous meaning.

Now, the analogy is not perfect (it's the best I could think off hand) and Juliann has on several occassion stated that contra-Mormons do not share every characteristic of religious fundamentalists, but they share an awful lot of them.

For instance, they both breath air. The problem is that Juliann doesn't pick out defining characteristics of fundamentalists. She takes random observations of things fundamentalists do and then illicitly assumes they are defining characteristics of fundamentalists and calls anyone who shares those characteristics fundamentalists. For instance, fundamentalists tend argue as though science has some relevance to establishing the truth of their religion. Fundamentalists frequently can be found arguing that scientific methods, properly construed, establish the verity of their various religious beliefs, espeically the truth of their scriptures. (Know any Mormons who do that with the BoM?) That's why there are Christian creationists out there, "scientifically" showing the Bible is true. This does show a begrudging respect for the heritage of the enlightenment, which is worth bringing up because it is counter-intuitive giving their opposition to the general scientific community. It's easy to think of fundamentalists as anti-science, but why do they have their largely insular cottage industries of scientific apologetics at all, then? What's up with that? That doesn't mean, however, that anyone who thinks sound emprical methods for understanding the natural world have some relevance to the truth of religious claims about scripture is fundamentalist.

One does not follow the other.

Peace on earth?

[juliann]

For instance, fundamentalists tend argue as though science has some relevance to establishing the truth of their religion. Fundamentalists frequently can be found arguing that scientific methods, properly construed, establish the verity of their various religious beliefs, espeically the truth of their scriptures. (Know any Mormons who do that with the BoM?)

No. And if you can find one I'll take bets on how long it is before he joins your ranks. The refusal to use "science" or "proof" to determine truth is a huge part of what Mormons look like PMs.

It's easy to think of fundamentalists as anti-science, but why do they have their largely insular cottage industries of scientific apologetics at all, then? What's up with that?

Because LDS do not behave like fundamentalists:

Evangelicals who think that the basic intellectual operations performed by the modern research universities can be conceded to

[E Allusion]

What happened to you explaining to me that quote on science, positivism and how it connects to your calling people like myself fundamentalist? I was looking forward to that.

Oh well....

Fundamentalists frequently can be found arguing that scientific methods, properly construed, establish the verity of their various religious beliefs, espeically the truth of their scriptures. (Know any Mormons who do that with the BoM?)

No. And if you can find one I'll take bets on how long it is before he joins your ranks. The refusal to use "science" or "proof" to determine truth is a huge part of what Mormons look like PMs.

My paranethetical question was sarcastic. In reality, I think it's a fuzzy border in BoM apologetics where the topic of fundamentalism is concerned. What those apologetics are understood to mean and establish is all over the map for various believers.

That said, unless you've taken "establish" to mean "absolutely prove," then it should be plain as day LDS frequently argue that the BoM is supported through traditional emprical methdology to compel reasonable belief. And understanding the word "establish" to mean "establish with certainty" would be an egregous misunderstanding of philosophy of science. That they also tend to think mysticism/"religious" experiences is appropriate as well doesn't obscure the first point.

It's also quite clear that LDS for the most part have no problem using science to determine truth. For that matter, the same is true of "proof" in its formal sense. Of course there's disagreements over the content and scope of what science supports, but rarely have I seen a Mormon who refuses to accept science as truth-determining method. If you want to assert otherwise, I think you owe an explanation. Not just to me, but to all those LDS scientists and other Mormons you're acting as a spokeswoman for.

What are my ranks? Who do you have in mind? Atheists? Non-Mormons? Lost fans? And exactly who are LDS looking like postmodernists to again? You say this is common, but common among 1) who and 2) what evidence do you have of this? And note, quoting someone making the same assertion wouldn't be evidence. I want to see hard support of this statement. If someone else makes the same assertion, then I want to see their evidence, as it both violates my experience and strikes me as an unreasonable judgment to make.

It's easy to think of fundamentalists as anti-science, but why do they have their largely insular cottage industries of scientific apologetics at all, then? What's up with that?

Because LDS do not behave like fundamentalists:

Evangelicals who think that the basic intellectual operations performed by the modern research universities can be conceded to