Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[Calm]

Since calmoriah has insisted that Ensign articles constitute church doctrine...

Really? Where did she do that? I must be a very bad reader because I can't even find the word "doctrine" in her comments at all.

[Vance]

His argument stands as a masterpiece of desperate clutching at straws in futile support of an argument that hasn't a leg to stand on.

You, sir, are a poet!

[Mortal Man]

You, sir, are a poet!

I always picture Salacious Crumb when I read your posts.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man said that his point was that the apologetic websites tell a different story than the church manuals.

I do remember being surprised to read that scholars including LDS scholars believed that the age of the papyri was nearly 2000 years after Abraham lived. I do understand the argument now that there is often a difference between a piece of writing and the age of whatever it was physically written on, but I had to adapt my long-standing impression that the book of Abraham was not "by his own hand" in the sense that I thought it had been.

Seeing as how Hugh Nibley was writing on this very topic before Mike Ash, that young whipper-snapper, was even out of diapers, you might have been "adapting [your] long-standing impression" a long, long time before you came across "apologetic websites."

I certainly was. Long before the advent of the world-wide-web spawned "apologetic websites," I understood that the Joseph Smith papyri did not date to the putative time of Abraham, nor did Abraham himself pen the words that were "purportedly" attributed to him. It was neither disconcerting nor difficult to "adapt my impressions" to the new information. In fact, it made perfect sense, and still does.

Of course, your entire argument, as articulated on this thread, is merely a subtle rephrasing of the false "internet mormon/chapel mormon" dichotomy of which disaffected and former Mormons are so fond. They are fond of this notion because, in a twisted kind of way, it provides them with what they imagine to be a sense of justification for their disbelief as well as their desire to express a kind of intellectual superiority over the apologists, who they (the disaffected/former mormons) believe to be involved in "mental gymnastics" in order to deal with a raging case of "cognitive dissonance."

The problem is that these notions have long since been discredited by a recitation of the facts contained in the documentary history. Why then people like Mortal Man (and now "mathilde," whose former message board incarnations we can only imagine at this point) continue to act as though these things are some kind of recent innovation in LDS thought. They are, demonstrably, "old news" that dates back before most of the participants on these boards were ever even born.

[wenglund]

Mortal Man said that his point was that the apologetic websites tell a different story than the church manuals.

They are different in the sense that the apologetic web sites go into greater detail than the church manuals.

The real difference, though, isn't so much between the apologetic websites and the church manuals, but between apologetic websites and certain member's personal interpretation of the manual.

I do remember being surprised to read that scholars including LDS scholars believed that the age of the papyri was nearly 2000 years after Abraham lived. I do understand the argument now that there is often a difference between a piece of writing and the age of whatever it was physically written on, but I had to adapt my long-standing impression that the book of Abraham was not "by his own hand" in the sense that I thought it had been.

Wonderful! Truth be told, such surprises and shocks and jolts and so forth are often a part of spiritual growth. They constitute the "tests" of strength and "tests" to strengthen faith that most all of us experience at various times and to varying degree during our respective spiritual journeys.

To me, the issue isn't whether a person may at times experiences spiritual "shocks" or not (in fact I would be surprised if they didn't), but rather how he or she reacts to those "shock".

From what I have discovered, such jolts in belief and perception are most pronounced when transitioning from a pedagogical (child) to andragogical (adult) form of learning, and from a fundamentalistic (absolitist, black/white) to an advanced (nuanced) form of thinking.

As with much of life, during such growth transitions, people can go in at least three directions. They can either balk against the gowth transition and hold fast to the fundamentalist world view that was necessary and served them well during the early stages of their development, or they like some teens can rebel and reject, to varying degrees, their faith journey, trusting in their own presumed wisdom, or they can complete the growth transition by adopting a more mature and nuanced world view.

One of the biggest jolts I experienced was in my youth, and it had to do with a considerably more subtantial issue than the meaning of "by the hand of". It had to do with the commandment, "thou shalt not kill." You see, I came of age during the Vietnam war, and before I received my mission call, I got my draft notice in the mail. In the black/white way in which my mind worked at the time, I couldn't justify killing another human being (in fact I couldn't bring myself to personally kill any animals and even insects). This created a dilemma for me because of my sense of duty in upholding the cause of liberty and protecting my family and neighbors. My first instincts was to rebel and leave the U.S. for Canada as a "consciencious objector". But, fortunately, I decided instead to seek the advice and counsel of my elders and to pray to God for guidance and direction. In so doing, I came to view the commandment to not kill in a somewhat different, more nuanced light. I came to see it as a general rule, with important exceptions. And, in the process, my perceived dilemma was resolved.

I don't know if my saying this will be of any help to you in your current dilemma, but there it is for what it is worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I always picture Salacious Crumb when I read your posts.

You can do better than this. Come on.

[wenglund]

Oh very well, I'll respond to your query on condition that you answer my Brady Bunch question.

That is okay. This is your second in so many excuses for not responding, and so I get the distinct impression that you don't wish to go there, and will likely come up with some other lame excuse even if I answer the Brady Bunch question. It is standard fare for naysayers like you who can get quite exercised when the spotlight of criticism shines on the Church, but duck for the nearest cover when the spotlight is turned back on them.

No shock or surprise there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

I always picture Salacious Crumb when I read your posts.

Well, I am OBVIOUSLY better looking than that!!!!

Just look at my avatar! I AM the handsome one!

[Wiki Wonka]

I think it's obvious that the Ensign has been run by "internet Mormons" for almost 40 years now.

What?

There was no "internet" back then?

Maybe I'll have to rethink my theory ...

Actually, 40 years ago, it wasn't the Ensign...it was the Era.

Like this one:

WW

[Mortal Man]

Really? Where did she do that? I must be a very bad reader because I can't even find the word "doctrine" in her comments at all.

cal, I sense there is still feeling in you; come join mathilde and me before it's too late.

[William Schryver]

Actually, 40 years ago, it wasn't the Ensign...it was the Era.

Which is why I wrote "almost 40 years."

The first issue of the Ensign was January 1971, meaning that its forty year anniversary is just a few months from now.

That said, your point is well taken. Those "internet Mormons" even pre-date the Ensign!

[Daniel Peterson]

Mortal Man said that his point was that the apologetic websites tell a different story than the church manuals.

I can only speak with any real confidence about two "apologetic websites" -- that of the Maxwell Institute and, to a somewhat lesser degree, that of FAIR -- but, if this was really MM's point, I deny it.

[Greg Smith]

ROFL! George Bernard Shaw on the Prince of Wales, according to Monty Python.

Actually, it's one of Oscar Wilde's.

GLS

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it's one of Oscar Wilde's.

GLS

I thought Wiki Wonka was Greg Smith. Now I'm confused.

[Mortal Man]

That is okay. This is your second in so many excuses for not responding, and so I get the distinct impression that you don't wish to go there, and will likely come up with some other lame excuse even if I answer the Brady Bunch question. It is standard fare for naysayers like you who can get quite exercised when the spotlight of criticism shines on the Church, but duck for the nearest cover when the spotlight is turned back on them.

No shock or surprise there.

Wade, because I like you so much and want you to succeed with your amusing manipulation tactics, I'll go ahead and answer your questions, even though (A) I'd rather hear more from mathilde and (B) you really ought to avail yourself of the wholesome family entertainment I provided.

In terms of your OP, why do you suppose you personally were "shocked" while many of us LDS here (many of whom qualify as "Chapel Mormons" according to Shade's bogus test) weren't disturbed by the FAIR and FARMS and Ensign articles in the least?

The only real shocks for me were the over-the-top ad hominem attacks in FARMS review articles. These pieces in particular nearly gave me a heart attack.

What is there about about your way of thinking that rendered you vulnerable to being "shocked" by clarifying information, whereas others of us found the same information to be enlightening?

I

[Anijen]

Mortal Man;

The only real shocks for me were the over-the-top ad hominem attacks in FARMS review articles. These pieces in particular nearly gave me a heart attack.

Wow, seems it would be a time saver by letting us know the ones you might have liked.

Out of curiosity which FAIR papers do you like?

[Mortal Man]

I can only speak with any real confidence about two "apologetic websites" -- that of the Maxwell Institute and, to a somewhat lesser degree, that of FAIR -- but, if this was really MM's point, I deny it.

Dan, I think you're on to something here. In this confusing and troubling world, what we really need is a supreme omniscient authority who can sweep away the so-called "personal experiences" of millions of so-called "truthseekers" with one majestic denial.

Three cheers for Brother Peterson!

[Mortal Man]

Wow, seems it would be a time saver by letting us know the ones you might have liked.

The ones I like best are the review articles written before the book came out.

Out of curiosity which FAIR papers do you like?

This is my all time favorite FAIR article.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I think you're on to something here. In this confusing and troubling world, what we really need is a supreme omiscient authority who can sweep away the so-called "personal experiences" of millions of so-called "truthseekers" with one majestic denial.

Three cheers for Brother Peterson!

It would help us to understand you better if what you wrote made at least minimal sense.

And your claims would be more plausible if they bore at least some tenuous relationship to reality:

The ones I like best are the review articles written before the book came out.

Anybody who bothers to read the article to which you provide the embedded link will easily see that it wasn't a review at all.

Incidentally, too: Andrew Skinner, whom you've sought to position in this thread as the mainstream LDS counterpoint to the representative FARMS heretic John Gee, recently completed three years of service as the executive director of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute. Andy, in other words, was John's boss. To the best of my knowledge, Andy never uttered a peep of criticism of John's position on the Book of Abraham. So far as I can tell, he shares it.

And, finally, there are precisely no ad hominem attacks in any of the articles to which you lazily supplied a global link. Perhaps you should have read them first.

.

[William Schryver]

Dan, I think you're on to something here. In this confusing and troubling world, what we really need is a supreme omiscient [sic] authority who can sweep away the so-called "personal experiences" of millions of so-called "truthseekers" with one majestic denial.

Three cheers for Brother Peterson!

It's beginning to look like the creeping malaise of your personal apostasy has reached critical mass, and so you are lashing out in the only way presently available to you.

Having served myself as the focus of your increasing predilection for derision and mockery, I'm at least glad that Dan has returned from his hiatus in order to provide you with a secondary target.

I hope things are going well at home and in your calling. I also hope that venting your spleen against Dan and me scratches the itch sufficiently that you aren't "acting out" in bishopric meetings as well.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's beginning to look like the creeping malaise of your personal apostasy has reached critical mass, and so you are lashing out in the only way presently available to you.

Will, can you perhaps explain what MM might have thought he was talking about in the incoherent and apparently irrelevant sentences below?

Dan, I think you're on to something here. In this confusing and troubling world, what we really need is a supreme omiscient authority who can sweep away the so-called "personal experiences" of millions of so-called "truthseekers" with one majestic denial.

Three cheers for Brother Peterson!

I have literally no idea what he imagines himself to be referring to.

[William Schryver]

Will, can you perhaps explain what MM might have thought he was talking about in the incoherent and apparently irrelevant sentences below?

I have literally no idea what he imagines himself to be referring to.

You are, of course, at a distinct disadvantage in not having been able to observe, as closely as I, the accelerating pace of Andrew's devolution.

What he's trying to say, as best I can interpret, is that you are attempting, with the wave a magisterial hand, to dismiss the genuine concerns and sincerely held beliefs of an imaginary group of people he identifies in a fashion equivalent to Dr. Shades's "chapel mormons," or in other words "truthseekers" who, confronted by doubt-inducing information, have consulted FARMS and/or FAIR for solace, only to have their doubts and fears confirmed and their prior beliefs ridiculed by the evil kingdom of LDS apologetics.

Or something like that.

Edit: Just remember that you must read everything he writes these days as an attempt at satire. Nothing is to be taken at face value. Nothing. And, frankly, he has a gift for satire. I've suggested to him that he should turn it to good use by using it against politicians or celebrities, but he insists, at present, to waste his talent on LDS apologists. <sigh>

[Daniel Peterson]

What he's trying to say, as best I can interpret, is that you are attempting, with the wave a magisterial hand, to dismiss the genuine concerns and sincerely held beliefs of an imaginary group of people he identifies in a fashion equivalent to Dr. Shades's "chapel mormons," or in other words "truthseekers" who, confronted by doubt-inducing information, have consulted FARMS and/or FAIR for solace, only to have their doubts and fears confirmed and their prior beliefs ridiculed by the evil kingdom of LDS apologetics.

Where and how, I wonder, have I done this terrible thing?

It really would help MM's case if he didn't grossly mischaracterize and misrepresent things in an attempt to transform them into evidence for his accusations. Or, then again, on second thought maybe it wouldn't.

.

[William Schryver]

Where and how, I wonder, have I done this terrible thing?

As should have been manifestly evident in the link he provided earlier, it is, quite simply, all you have ever done. Or so he is convinced.

[Mortal Man]

It would help us to understand you better if what you wrote made at least minimal sense.

Okay, I fixed the typo, are you happy now?

Anybody who bothers to read the article to which you provide the embedded link will easily see that it wasn't a review at all.

After re-reviewing the article I can see your point. Although the title, beginning and ending are apparently aimed at the unpublished book (more precisely its authors) the entire middle section is clearly more of a preemptive strike.

To the best of my knowledge, Andy never uttered a peep of criticism of John's position on the Book of Abraham.

Are you saying he was speechless when Lloyd's article came out?

And, finally, there are precisely no ad hominem attacks in any of the articles to which you lazily supplied a global link.

Thanks for making me smile after a long hard day.