Warts and all kind of history

[Daniel Peterson]

I would go so far as to say that Nibley was crazy. What is your point?

You've just made it.

By the way, you should clarify your own thinking here. The words "like Nibley" cannot possibly be a dismisal of Kerry since the content of my post is unchanged if you remove those words. The words "Like Nibley" are an "aside".

You were dismissing Nibley.

[Mortal Man]

I see you'll still try to distract anyone from the actual evidences and arguments FARMS brings forth.... clever, very clever. It's the critics mantra. FARMS are snotty, they personally attack with ad hominim, and are mean spirited, therefore nothing they write is worth reading. If we take all the nastiness out, there is little left. That sounds noble, but it ***still*** virtually ignores the dismantling that FARMS gives the critics, on pretty much every subject they write on, which is, truly, just about every subject in existence having to do with Mormonism.

?

If you'll go back and read my first comment on this you'll note that I was referring to both sides. With this last comment of yours however, I'm afraid the virulence on your side now outweighs that of the critics.

BTW, I'm not a critic of anything but ignorance and misdirection.

[Tarski]

You've just made it.

You were dismissing Nibley.

Typo.

I meant to type "I would't" not "I would".

I know you revere Nibley and perhaps feel that any intelligent person would have to be convinced or at least impressed with Nibley's arguments and logic. But I am not. Sorry. You can always complain that I didn't read enough of it.

[Jason]

BTW, I'm not a critic of anything but ignorance and misdirection.

As you see it.

[e=mc2]

I wasn't asking for proof, just a little more evidence supporting their ridiculous claim that somehow the drawn in portion wasn't incorrect. Give me statements from a number of well known Egyptologists supporting their claim that Anubis should be drawn with a man's head. Yes, what they are saying is plausible or probable however I give the probability about 5% based on what I seen so far and based on the weakness of the apologetics arguments, you may see it differently.

You brought up the probability possibility thingy, and I am showing you that if that is established, that is the goal of historians. To take a swipe at LDS scholarship for doing the standard historical thing is quite frankly, truly silly of you to do. That is all I was pointing out.

[e=mc2]

Tarski:

Like Nibley, some of these Ufologists types have an inexhaustible reservoir of factoids at their finger tips and an ability to find parallels and patterns where the rest of us suspect projection, imagination and creativity (faces in the clouds sometimes look amazingly detailed).

If this is all the better your comprehension is of Nibley to tie him into this kind of quackery, we really have no reason to bother with your information anymore. I am serious. To put him in this camp in seriousness is flat out ridiculous. I could in like manner say in all seriousness that whatever it is you teach of mathematics, it is simply tabloid science and math on the par of Uri Geller. Now you tell me, seriously.....seriously, is that even remotely fair? Because I will do it if you persist in mislabeling Nibley so crassly and stupidly. Not that I revere Nibley, but I certainly have it way up on you on what he stood for, what he taught, how he taught it, and how absolutely hands down impressive his materials are. Not that I agree with it all either.

[Tarski]

If this is all the better your comprehension is of Nibley to tie him into this kind of quackery, we really have no reason to bother with your information anymore. I am serious. To put him in this camp in seriousness is flat out ridiculous. I could in like manner say in all seriousness that whatever it is you teach of mathematics, it is simply tabloid science and math on the par of Uri Geller. Now you tell me, seriously.....seriously, is that even remotely fair? Because I will do it if you persist in mislabeling Nibley so crassly and stupidly. Not that I revere Nibley, but I certainly have it way up on you on what he stood for, what he taught, how he taught it, and how absolutely hands down impressive his materials are. Not that I agree with it all either.

I've heard your ideas too. Remember all that quantum Light of Christ stuff? Let's also not forget the tarot business. Is this on par with Nibley?

[e=mc2]

I've heard your ideas too. Remember all that quantum Light of Christ stuff? Let's also not forget the tarot business. Is this on par with Nibley?

If you are unaware of what is on par with Nibley, how utterly unscientific and naive it was of you to label his materials and place him in categories all in complete ignorance. Is *THIS* how you work at math and science also?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you are unaware of what is on par with Nibley, how utterly unscientific and naive it was of you to label his materials and place him in categories all in complete ignorance. Is *THIS* how you work at math and science also?

Tarski, Kerry,

You 2 make me laugh. You inellectual types have a great sense of humor sometimes.

[e=mc2]

Tarski, Kerry,

You 2 make me laugh. You inellectual types have a great sense of humor sometimes.

Yeah, I mean hey, we gots ta play around a bit....sparring with intellectual idiocy is what I feel like I am doing right now with Tarski's methodology. Don't know nuthin, but der her, I KNOW what kind of skolar Nibley is - der her......Never read no not nuthin what it is he wrote, but der her, I KNOW what kind of skiolar he be. I a scientist, I know it all, you a religion idiot, you know nuthin. My word trumps truth itself, cause I be mathematical jeen-ee-us. etc., etc. If his thinking and method on Nibley represents the scientific method, I demand he apostastize from science so as to quit giving that wonderful discipline the black eyes he is giving it.

[mfbukowski]

I KNOW what kind of skiolar he be.

Watch it dude. I be the only skiolar hereabouts.

[Tarski]

Never read no not nuthin what it is he wrote,

oops! You missed there.

Of course, even within the ranks of believers we get some telling admissions (Jackson and Salmon).

My brother, an intelligent chap, philosophy major and author, was a complete Nibley nut in his BYU college days. Over the years his opinions, um, shall we say, changed a bit. Of course, we are both just dummies who stupidly refuse to bend knee to the great career apologist Hugh Winder Nibley.

But he is not here to defend himself and at this point I find reading his stuff really boring. I can't ask questions because he is gone.

So, why don't we get to arguing about something we both know about--quantum field theory .

Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology, you have taught yourself quantum physics--right?

Link me to your videos about that stuff from before and I will start a new thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology, you have taught yourself quantum physics--right?

Nibley studied Egyptology with Klaus Baer at the University of Chicago in 1959-60.

Now, remind me, Tarski, where did you get your degrees in history and religion that qualify you to opine on these topics?

[Daniel Peterson]

The insinuation that Nibley's knowledge of Egyptian and Egyptology was merely amateurish is ignorant and false.

I studied Middle Egyptian with him, and he definitely knew the language. We did Gardiner's Grammar at precisely twice the pace of a friend's Ivy League class on the same book.

[smac97]

And, with that, he's dismissed.

Like John Nash, the crazy Princeton professor who was the subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, Tarski has a doctorate in mathematics . . .

Hmm. So did the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.

There is obviously a pattern here...

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

One of the Unabomber's victims, David Gelernter -- he lost some fingers, as I recall, yet survived -- teaches computer science at Yale but also writes extensively on popular culture, politics, and the like. In an article that he published just after Kaczynski was captured, Gelernter remarked "I pass over in silence the fact that he's a Harvard man."

Patterns.

[Bill Hamblin]

Now, remind me, Tarski, where did you get your degrees in history and religion that qualify you to opine on these topics?

I'm still waiting for a summary of Tarski's degrees in language, religion and history. Waiting ... Waiting ... Waiting ...

[Tarski]

I'm still waiting for a summary of Tarski's degrees in language, religion and history. Waiting ... Waiting ... Waiting ...

I have lost track of the point of this (I'm sure there was one) but I'll say this:

1) I don't claim a degree or expertise in history (you knew that). I often ask others (experts) whom I believe aren't especially invested for their opinion if I must know something. (One of my two best friends to whom I talk to daily is an expert in History.)

For example, I emailed a couple paleontologists about the precolumbian horse stuff.

2) We all have to make decisions about religion and some of the same kinds of notions about evidence that I know of from science and common sense can and do come in to play.

.

.

.

Aside:

Since what I do or don't know seems to come up a lot, here is what I've got--maybe is isn't much compared to some and so this is far from an attempt to brag--I am just laying my cards on the table. If you think I am about to brag, then don't read it and don't comment to that effect. The truth is I feel very limited in many ways.

i) Ph.D. in math (you knew that), tenure, peer reviewed publications, graduate textbook.

ii) An expert level of understanding of some major parts of modern physics (gauge theory, general relativity, applications of symplectic geometry to mechanics and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Bell's inequality etc.).

iii) 25 years of sporadic reading in philosophy (continental and American, analytic etc Quine, James, Rorty, Heidegger, Gadamer, Husserl, Dennett, Chalmers, Davidson, Lewis.) and many discussions with some colleagues at more than one university who are in philosophy. These guys treat my ideas and comments with respect and do not seem to think that I can't keep up.

iv) Language? A little. I speak more than one and spent a good deal of time getting up to speed on cognitive and structural aspects of language (a la Steven Pinker and a bit of Chomsky).

v) Religion? I've studied Mormon standard works under the usual college level guidance of BYU professors. I've real many books about Mormonism from both Mormon and non-Mormon authors. I read some of Nibley's stuff in the 80s and did readings from stuff like Doctrines of Salvation, and Talmadge's Jesus the Christ. Add in readings from material from FAIR. I am now slowly working through Dan Peterson's stuff.

I also spent some time examining the Bible with the help of the work of guys like Robert Price (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/). I have no specific allegiances to a biblical school of thought and consider my knowledge to by less than expert level. From my perspective it looks like there is a lot of finding of patterns that are really in the scholar's mind rather than really there in the text or in the intentions of the authors.

As far as the psychology of religion, I have a good deal of background (perhaps outdated) in the the psychology of visionary experience (altered states, mystical states, phenomenology of religious experience etc). I was sufficiently exposed to the writing of guys like Robert Ornstein (I now realize that this field is plagued by fuzzy thinking and too much new age popular nonsense).

Other tidbits: Jazz guitarist, study of Schenkerian and neo-Riemannian harmonic theory (music).

But besides an above average skeptical sense, my most precious resource in all of this is respect for mainstream thinking in the relevant fields--especially those with due respect for evidence and no obvious ties to fundamentalist religions, cults, or fringe organizations

[Bill Hamblin]

I have lost track of the point of this (I'm sure there was one) but I'll say this:

1) I don't claim a degree or expertise in history (you knew that). I often ask others (experts) whom I believe aren't especially invested for their opinion if I must know something. (One of my two best friends to whom I talk to daily is an expert in History.)

For example, I emailed a couple paleontologists about the precolumbian horse stuff.

2) We all have to make decisions about religion and some of the same kinds of notions about evidence that I know of from science and common sense can and do come in to play.

My point is a simple one. Since you are admittedly an autodidact on history, religion, philosophy and language, then will you please stop criticizing Mormons who are autodidacts. It is both irrelevant and ad hominem.

Your remark that Nibley "taught himself Egyptian," besides being false, is irrelevant. If he can read Egyptian, what does it matter how he learned it? And, in any case, he can certainly read Egyptian better than you.

If we are going to get into a pissing contest about who has the best credentials, then we need also to evaluate those of the anti-Mormons, right? You, for example, if this is how we are going to play the game, then you have no qualifications to pronounce on history or religion. You've read a few books on the subject. So?

For example, among anti-Mormons:

Dan Vogel has a BA in history.

Brent Metcalef has a High School degree.

George D. Smith's and his latest polygamy book has no relevant degree; he's a businessman.

(Nor, for that matter, does Christopher Hitchens; Dawson, of course, has no credentials in history or religion.)

I could go on and on. The anti-Morons are, with few exceptions, the amateurs in this field. Non-Mormon scholars with real credentials almost never become anti-Mormons, though there are a few.

So, since you are an autodidact amateur in history, ancient studies, religion, etc. perhaps it would be wisest for you to stop criticizing Kerry Shirts and Hugh Nibley. I seem to recall Confucius saying something about glass houses and stones.

So, you can decide how you want to play the game. But if you want to keep trying to play the credential card, you'll lose ... unless we are talking mathematics, of course.

(By the way, I am confident that I am just as skeptical as you are, indeed, probably more so. You have repeatedly exhibited an extraordinary inability for the slightest degree of self-critical reflection.)

[CV75]

The Gospel is revealed by the Perfect One through His very imperfect servants--each servant will attest to that. The effectiveness of the essential doctrines, covenants and ordinances that establish each individual's active relationship with Heavenly Father unto eternal salvation is independent of the shortcomings that will be found and examined in His servants and adherents. The Atonement covers "all that." Whatever truth has been and continues to be revealed is not a function of the warts and all, but of the particle of faith that was acted upon despite them. This also applies to all other kinds and sources of truth that benefit mankind.

The process of recording and transmitting history is imperfect, only a dark refelction of reality, and subject to the imperfections of the historians. The real light, the process of the Spirit ratifying doctrines, covenants and ordinances unto one's calling and election is not subject to (and irrelevant to) any kind of temporal, historical accuracy.

[Tarski]

My point is a simple one. Since you are admittedly an autodidact on history, religion, philosophy and language, then will you please stop criticizing Mormons who are autodidacts. It is both irrelevant and ad hominem.

Your remark that Nibley "taught himself Egyptian," besides being false, is irrelevant.

As always you missed the thrust. Kerry was my target (not all autodidacts are created equal). My underlying assumption was that Nibley did in fact learn some Egyptology one way or another. I am in a position to judge Kerry'd musings on quantum field theory.

(By the way, I am confident that I am just as skeptical as you are, indeed, probably more so. You have repeatedly exhibited an extraordinary inability for the slightest degree of self-critical reflection.).

Thanks for the insult but you could not be further from the truth. If anything, those who know me say that I go too far in the direction of doubt, including self-doubt. I routinely check my thinking against others even in my own field. It was self-critical reflection that made me doubt the religion of my birth and what at one time was a personal conviction. Your perception of me is not veridical and yet is accompanied by, ironically, not the slightest doubt or self-critical reflection.

While we are handing out frank criticism (and you have just set the precedent), let me say that I consider you singularly unable to think abstractly and notice that you often fail to grasp the logical thrust of an argument or analogy even after much explanation. Or conversely, you see phantom logical arguments in mere statements of opinion never intended as formal logical arguments. You also lack a scientific sensibility.

[Bill Hamblin]

While we are handing out frank criticism (and you have just set the precedent), let me say that I consider you singularly unable to think abstractly and notice that you often fail to grasp the logical thrust of an argument or analogy even after much explanation. Or conversely, you see phantom logical arguments in mere statements of opinion never intended as formal logical arguments. You also lack a scientific sensibility.

Charming as usual.

[Tarski]

Charming as usual.

If you could manage some self-critical reflection you would realize that you started it.

[Bill Hamblin]

As always you missed the thrust. Kerry was my target (not all autodidacts are created equal). My underlying assumption was that Nibley did in fact learn some Egyptology one way or another.

Right

Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology,

[Tarski]

Right

Perfect example! You look right at the sentence, "Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology" and think you see a denial that Nibley learned Egyptology. You don't realize I was comparing this aspect of Nibley unfavorably with Kerry's ability to learn QM.

If that wasn't clear then I hereby clarify it.

Let me ask this: Why is it that when someone such as Kerry puts themself forward as a polymath, it just so happens that when they talk about something that I do actually know about, it becomes painfully apparent that the they do not know what they are talking about?

Should I assume a giant coincidence or might it be that those in other fields would notice the same thing should they take a look?