Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[mysteryman]

I don't think it's a nitpick, though. I see enough of this your-team-my-team talk on the boards, it is easy to slip into this thinking. Sometimes I have to deliberately pull myself out of it. Reminders are a good thing, not a nit-pick, imo.

Fair enough

[LifeOnaPlate]

You didn't make the claim, others did. As for why he hasn't published it yet, I assume it has to do with he hasn't completed it to his satisfaction. That it is because he hasn't solved the puzzle to the detriment of the church enough yet is of course as silly as he he knows the other side is right, but I know your just being sarcastic. But again, it is the type of smart remark I would expect from SOME Mormon critics as well. If you know Metcalfe at all, you know he could careless about the detriment of the church.

That's not the impression some folks have of Metcalfe, especially in the books written about the Salamander affair. Of course, he can throw in his perspective, but it seems to me he is pretty committed to "Debunking" as best he can, and willing to spend time and money doing it. I am serious when I say had he discovered something utterly damning I believe he would have at least pounded out an article on it already. We'll see, let him bring his strong reasons.

[Greg Smith]

I didn't say Will is claiming the Book of Abraham is inspired, nor is that relevant at all to my point. It is simply silly to think that someone who has already reached a conclusion on a certain topic won't already be suspicious they will disagree with someone who is presenting the opposite conclusion. Religious implications don't matter, the point is that there are future arguments to be made out there that you know you will likely disagree with before actually hearing them. I could have used any number of examples.

I think it naive in the extreme to think that religious beliefs and implications don't play into these discussions. 'Tis human nature.

(We are speaking, lest we forget, about people who have dedicated a significant amount of their discretionary time to debunking a faith they don't share, attacking and castigating scholars of that religious tradition as incompetent or worse (Chris Smith's treatment of John Gee springs to mind), etc. This strikes me as a singularly bizarre use of one's time and bespeaks a rather messed-up set of priorities as best. I can't think of anything more tedious than attacking, debunking, and debating any of the thousands of religious traditions with which I am not in agreement. Life is too short. So, you'll have to forgive me if I see this case as inevitably containing more than the usual set of omnipresent human epistemological and cognitive biases.)

I assume if someone was making an argument that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger was an affair and not a marriage you would be suspicious of the argument before ever hearing it.

You assume rightly. But, that is because I know something of the data involved, and have given the matter rather detailed study on my own, and the matter has been rather exhaustively dissected by a number of people over the years. The chances of finding something radically new that will "seal the deal" and settle the debate is probably pretty small.

The same cannot be said of the KEP, about which very little work has been done. But, even in this case, I was rather surprised that it could be done. And the nature of the documents and issues are more complicated and involved than the question of the nature of a relationship between two people.

It seems common on any issue that has disagreement, each side claims it is the other side that has preconceived notions and won't approach their arguments with an open mind.

Yup. Everyone approaches with preconceived notions. There is no objectivity, no lack of bias, no tabla rasa. On any subject. Ever.

But, I don't really care about generalities. Do some Mormons do this? Doubtless. When they do, call them on it. I haven't seen any do so here.

Are you going to the ex-Mormon conference this year to hear their arguments with an open mind that they might be right on any given topic?

Nope, I'm not going to ex-Mormon conferences. But, I don't express my opinion about their contents or likelihood of their speakers being accurate, prior to having heard them. Its logically fallacious to do so and makes me look silly.

To pick an unrelated example, Sunstone Symposium might have the greatest stuff since sliced bread. Or, the largest load of hooey since the humoral theory of disease. Or a mix of both. Only specifics and data matter, and the presenter or venue doesn't.

As I said, it has been my experience that in cases when I am least likely to credit someone's argument because of ideological disagreement or past experience, it is then that I must pay the most close attention. (And publicly expressing my skepticism prior to making the effort is not typically a good way to facilitate that effort. Your mileage may vary, of course, and if it doesn't affect someone at all--though how they would be sure of that escapes me--then no harm, no foul I suppose.)

In medicine, people die if you don't. So it rather gets beaten into you--if you're wise, through the experiences of others; if not, through your own.

One might use past experience or someone's body of work/reputation as a tool to decide whether it's worth investing the effort to hear someone's next offering. One can't pay attention to any but the smallest fraction of work in any field after all. But, that's a function of parsimony and efficiency, and if I adopt it, I can only legitimately remain silent and ignore them.

But, I'm delighted that Chris will be listening and be exerting himself to put aside any biases and animus he might have toward the speaker or subject matter. This is all one could ask.

Besides, Kevin Barney agrees with me. This means I'm right about what Will has to say. QED.

[Kevin being the LDS equivalent of Chuck Norris. One must simply back away slowly.]

:-)

GLS

[Greg Smith]

Another problem with such discussions is when people just nit pick and miss the point of what another is saying. Would it make you feel better if I said SOME Mormon critics and SOME church defenders engage in SOME identical absurd tactics to discredit the other side?

It is much better.

But, it also reduces to a triviality. Of course this is true, in general. "Some human critics and some human defenders of anything" do so.

If someone does it in a specific case, by all means, point it out.

But, responding to a given example of a critic doing so by saying that some Mormon someonewhere has doubtless done the same thing is simply the tu quoque fallacy.

GLS

[Daniel Peterson]

A minor footnote on Will Schryver's inclusion on the FAIR program:

I've been away for several weeks, but my unsleeping Malevolent Stalker doesn't let up, and it seems that back on 17 July, he posted several claims about me and Br'er Schryver's presentation. As they typically are, the Stalker's accusations on this matter are substantially when not wholly false. Just for the record, I think I'll expressly deny them.

"For whatever reason, DCP has decided that Schryver is a 'toxic asset' for Mopologetics [sic]."

This is false. As I matter of fact, I think his forthcoming presentation will be an important one.

"It may be that DCP, whom my informant once called 'the kingpin of apologetics,' is more focused on faux-pious projects like 'Mormon Scholars Testify,'"

Why "faux-pious"?

Ah yes. Because "Mormon Scholars Testify" is my project, and because everything I do is a conspiratorial lie. Almost forgot.

Incidentally, it continues to decline, just as the Stalker prophesied. Whereas it once posted a new entry every other day, it's now limping along at barely seven new entries every two weeks. Final rigor mortis can't be far away. We're holding the deathwatch.

"and he's seeking to distance himself from the traditional, hardcore attack apologetics that have been adopted by Schryver."

I am in no way seeking to distance myself from either Will Schryver or standard-issue apologetics.

"Regardless, it seems clear that Dr. Peterson is partly interested in und]ermining Schryver's reputation,"

Not even slightly.

"though he is unwilling to do this at the expense of this last-ditch BoA project."

"Last-ditch"?

"In any case, there are essentially 3 key parts to this new 'intel':

"1) Schryver's project was approved in spite of the fact that he did not submit an abstract. According to my informant, *no one* save one BYU professor knows what Schryver will be talking about. If true, this would represent an extraordinary deviation from academic protocol. It would show how thoroughly the apologists have rested their hopes of salvaging the BoA on Schryver."

I haven't been deeply involved in the process of selecting speakers for this year's conference (or any other's for that matter), but I'm aware of nothing to suggest that any of these Stalker claims (some of which are plain non sequiturs in any event) are true.

"2) The invitation for Schryver to participate was made while DCP was out of the country."

Very possibly true. I've been on the road a lot for the past several months. More than I've been home.

"Per the allegations, Dr. Peterson was livid that he was not consulted first."

Flatly false. I have never expected to be "consulted first" about any of the presentations. "Livid"? Nice touch, but purely fictional.

"3) Rumors are swirling"

Where are these "rumors . . . swirling"? Dutch John, Utah? Southern Ecuador? Greek-speaking sections of Toronto? Among pharmacists in rural Sumatra?

Being interpreted, the Stalker's claim seems to mean that one half of the Stalker's brain told the other half, or that, at the most generous, a creative "informant" told this to the desperately over-eager Stalker.

"that DCP personally made an effort to have Schryver removed from the FAIR Conference program, apparently under the rationale that it would be better to suffer embarrassment over the BoA than to have Will submit an inept and underwhelming presentation"

Again, flatly untrue. I'm perfectly happy that Will Schryver is on the program. Always have been.

Either the Stalker makes this stuff up out of thin air, or somebody else does who is playing the poor fellow for a gullible fool.

[wenglund]

But two considerations stood in the way this time. For one, no money. We're down to a single and somewhat inadequate income, WifeOnaPlate is jobless (and living in Russia! I miss her!) This problem was rectified by a generous offer from our friend Lamanite, however. By then, though, the days had become blacked out for time-off requests at work, and that closed the door. And that is my sad tale.

You will be missed. Conversing with you at the conference is one of the highlights for me. I also appreciate your remarkable note-taking. Sad tale for all of us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Greg Smith]

"In any case, there are essentially 3 key parts to this new 'intel':

"1) Schryver's project was approved in spite of the fact that he did not submit an abstract. According to my informant, *no one* save one BYU professor knows what Schryver will be talking about. If true, this would represent an extraordinary deviation from academic protocol. It would show how thoroughly the apologists have rested their hopes of salvaging the BoA on Schryver."

I haven't been deeply involved in the process of selecting speakers for this year's conference (or any others for that matter), but I'm aware of nothing to suggest that any of these Stalker claims (some of which are plain non sequiturs in any event) are true.

They aren't. Scott Gordon (FAIR's president) is in charge of soliciting and approving speakers. He consults with FAIR's management committee. It is also plainly bogus that *no one* knows what Will's doing. Many members of the mgmt committee have seen the whole presentation. I doubt most academic venues preview the entire presentation word-for-word. We typically don't do that for FAIR; Will wanted feedback, however.

"2) The invitation for Schryver to participate was made while DCP was out of the country."

Very possibly true. I've been on the road a lot for the past several months. More than I've been home.

"Per the allegations, Dr. Peterson was livid that he was not consulted first."

Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!

"3) Rumors are swirling that DCP personally made an effort to have Schryver removed from the FAIR Conference program, apparently under the rationale that it would be better to suffer embarrassment over the BoA than to have Will submit an inept and underwhelming presentation

Again, nonsense. If it were true, I would have heard about it. Besides, everyone who has seen Will's presentation has been over-, not underwhelmed.

But, we've certainly got option (b) from my list down. As well as a bunch of other options I can't even quite wrap my brain around categorizing, save as (z) Various paranoid delusions and frank breaks with reality.

I really sometimes almost believe the MS is probably a well-intentioned but misguided Mormon trying to make critics look loony. He needs to stop--it's embarrassing.

GLS

[MAsh]

Wish I could be there this year. I would also be interested to hear from Royal Skousen (and get my book signed!) There are a few gems on the schedule this year for sure. I hope FAIR will be able to make Will's presentation available on dvd or video online so folks who can't be there can check it out.

The presentation (as all presentations) will be video and audio recorded & made available on DVD. I'm bringing all of the 2009 DVDs with me for the FAIR bookstore to sell. As Will himself knows, the video recording is the easy part; the editing is the hard part (and by editing, I don't want to fuel the fans of some critics-- I don't mean editing out material but rather synching the recorded audio with two camera angles & putting the power point slides in the right spots). Since this is all volunteer work (and my regular job(s) eat up over 50 hours a week plus writing the MT articls, family, church callings, etc.), it takes some time to get them done. Right now I've run into a snag with my CD label printer not being compatible with Win 7 (recent software upgrade) so I'm scrambling to print stick-on labels before next Thursday.

Sorry to post this all off-topic, but I thought some people would be interested to know.

[Chris Smith]

We are speaking, lest we forget, about people who have dedicated a significant amount of their discretionary time to debunking a faith they don't share, attacking and castigating scholars of that religious tradition as incompetent or worse (Chris Smith's treatment of John Gee springs to mind), etc.

I admit I have spent and continue to spend some time debunking bad apologetics when I come across them, but that is not the same as debunking the whole "faith". I am an admirer of the LDS faith and scriptures, though I do not personally believe.

As for "attacking and castigating" LDS scholars, you should not take my bad reaction to John Gee's apologetics as a measure of my reaction to LDS scholarship in general. I have apologized for and retracted the ugly comment I once made about Gee's personal integrity, and in any event, Gee's work is a unique case. I have not found other LDS scholars' apologetics to be nearly as problematic. On the whole, I think that LDS scholars are very competent. I have been impressed by a number of apologetic pieces published by FARMS and BYU Studies, and a number of apologists are good personal friends.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Greg,

On a purely theoretical level, it also occurs to me to ask why religious ideas should be considered unworthy of or immune to debunking, when we do not afford the same immunity to other popular ideas such as conspiracy theories, UFOs, ESP, etc. I think making religion "off-limits" in fact has the potential to patronize and trivialize religion, and constitutes a sort of admission that religion cannot handle criticism.

I personally am a pluralist, so I see value and salvific power in all religions, including the LDS Church. However, I am also interested in accurate history and science, and I think it is worthwhile to clear the ground of literalistic religious ideas that stand in their way. This includes 6-day creationism, global flood mythology, biblical inerrancy, and the missing papyrus theory. I refuse to privilege these ideas or to treat them with kid gloves on account of their religiosity.

Peace,

-Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yup. Everyone approaches with preconceived notions. There is no objectivity, no lack of bias, no tabla rasa. On any subject. Ever.

Amen.

But, I don't really care about generalities.

Generally speaking, neither do I.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You will be missed. Conversing with you at the conference is one of the highlights for me. I also appreciate your remarkable note-taking. Sad tale for all of us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, I've enjoyed having a chat with you at FAIR conferences of yesteryear.

[LifeOnaPlate]

They aren't. Scott Gordon (FAIR's president) is in charge of soliciting and approving speakers. He consults with FAIR's management committee. It is also plainly bogus that *no one* knows what Will's doing. Many members of the mgmt committee have seen the whole presentation. I doubt most academic venues preview the entire presentation word-for-word. We typically don't do that for FAIR; Will wanted feedback, however.

Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!

Again, nonsense. If it were true, I would have heard about it. Besides, everyone who has seen Will's presentation has been over-, not underwhelmed.

But, we've certainly got option (b) from my list down. As well as a bunch of other options I can't even quite wrap my brain around categorizing, save as (z) Various paranoid delusions and frank breaks with reality.

I really sometimes almost believe the MS is probably a well-intentioned but misguided Mormon trying to make critics look loony. He needs to stop--it's embarrassing.

GLS

Add me to the list of folks who've seen some behind-the-scenes FAIR stuff and who flatly deny the weird accusations.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The presentation (as all presentations) will be video and audio recorded & made available on DVD. I'm bringing all of the 2009 DVDs with me for the FAIR bookstore to sell. As Will himself knows, the video recording is the easy part; the editing is the hard part (and by editing, I don't want to fuel the fans of some critics-- I don't mean editing out material but rather synching the recorded audio with two camera angles & putting the power point slides in the right spots). Since this is all volunteer work (and my regular job(s) eat up over 50 hours a week plus writing the MT articls, family, church callings, etc.), it takes some time to get them done. Right now I've run into a snag with my CD label printer not being compatible with Win 7 (recent software upgrade) so I'm scrambling to print stick-on labels before next Thursday.

Sorry to post this all off-topic, but I thought some people would be interested to know.

Wonderful updates, and I am well-familiar with the time-consuming nature of editing. Thanks for the efforts!

[Greg Smith]

Greg,

On a purely theoretical level, it also occurs to me to ask why religious ideas should be considered unworthy of or immune to debunking, when we do not afford the same immunity to other popular ideas such as conspiracy theories, UFOs, ESP, etc. I think making religion "off-limits" in fact has the potential to patronize and trivialize religion, and constitutes a sort of admission that religion cannot handle criticism.

You misunderstand me. Anything and everything is, of course, free ground to debunking, criticism, critique, or whatever. People are welcome to pick their topics, and will continue to do so. Some people waste their time defending their conception of how Star Trek warp engines work. No accounting for taste.

I just find it deeply problematic that someone would think the best use of their time, energy, and intellectual/emotional power to spend hours in debate and attack on the members and details of a specific faith, unless that faith/belief system is something of a threat (notwithstanding assurances of how much someone may respect, like, or "love" the adherents of said religion or belief system, which is the oft-offered excuse) or clear and present danger.

I personally am a pluralist, so I see value and salvific power in all religions, including the LDS Church. However, I am also interested in accurate history and science, and I think it is worthwhile to clear the ground of literalistic religious ideas that stand in their way. This includes 6-day creationism, global flood mythology, biblical inerrancy, and the missing papyrus theory. I refuse to privilege these ideas or to treat them with kid gloves on account of their religiosity.

Nor do I. I just think if one wants to make the world a better place, one's energies are best spent advocating for a positive stance (i.e., what one believes) rather than being in attack mode against what one doesn't believe and the benighted others who believe differently from oneself. I'm a pluralist, except for people who want to believe in missing papyrus for one short sacred book used in one relatively small religion. That requires an all-out intellectual assault, because Truth Must Prevail.

So literalism bad, got it. So we await what? Allegorical salvation? Metaphoric redemption? Cheerful.

Seems like overkill, and rather a waste of resources. Let's say you triumph--the papyri theory is false, the Church's truth claims in tatters. Therefore--what? What have you got to offer in its place? How might I access this rather nebulous "salvific power" present in all religions, but that is somehow blocked or threatened (which it must be, or you wouldn't be opposing it so vociferously and doggedly, right?) if I don't reject the idea of Joseph having more than our present tally of a few scraps of papyri?

That strikes me as a far more meaningful question--but one in which polemics about history have relatively little role.

I can't off hand think of any even hypothetical truth of importance (religious, humanistic, or otherwise) that one can't embrace because one believes in (say) a missing papyrus theory. The stakes are just so trivially small--unless, of course, one feels this debate is a tool or wedge to debunk the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ being the kingdom of God on earth, possessor of the priesthood keys, and the way through Christ to salvation. If so, then it matters a very great deal, and dedication to the assault is to be understood, perhaps even applauded. But, then, claims to a benign personal pluralism ring rather hollow.

This is, of course, why I give reasons for my faith, and defend it from what I regard as ill-conceived attacks--because I think it matters a great deal.

After all, why aren't you out going 12 rounds debunking papal infallibility? Calvinistic predestination? Reincarnation? Dialectical materialism? All of those affect far more people, have far more impact on issues of "Truth," (religious or otherwise) than do the relatively few Mormons who have investigated the matter and think there was more papyrus in Joseph's possession than the fragments we now possess.

So, you're welcome to your targets--it has been my experience that the Church and gospel of Christ can weather such things without difficulty.

I just think the choice of target and manner of aiming at it is telling, and suggests something more than a disinterested passion for Truth, Justice, and the American way.

You can learn a lot about a man from what he attacks and to what he dedicates himself--whether he thinks so or not.

[mysteryman]

I think it naive in the extreme to think that religious beliefs and implications don't play into these discussions. 'Tis human nature.

(We are speaking, lest we forget, about people who have dedicated a significant amount of their discretionary time to debunking a faith they don't share, attacking and castigating scholars of that religious tradition as incompetent or worse (Chris Smith's treatment of John Gee springs to mind), etc. This strikes me as a singularly bizarre use of one's time and bespeaks a rather messed-up set of priorities as best. I can't think of anything more tedious than attacking, debunking, and debating any of the thousands of religious traditions with which I am not in agreement. Life is too short. So, you'll have to forgive me if I see this case as inevitably containing more than the usual set of omnipresent human epistemological and cognitive biases.)

You assume rightly. But, that is because I know something of the data involved, and have given the matter rather detailed study on my own, and the matter has been rather exhaustively dissected by a number of people over the years. The chances of finding something radically new that will "seal the deal" and settle the debate is probably pretty small.

The same cannot be said of the KEP, about which very little work has been done. But, even in this case, I was rather surprised that it could be done. And the nature of the documents and issues are more complicated and involved than the question of the nature of a relationship between two people.

Yup. Everyone approaches with preconceived notions. There is no objectivity, no lack of bias, no tabla rasa. On any subject. Ever.

But, I don't really care about generalities. Do some Mormons do this? Doubtless. When they do, call them on it. I haven't seen any do so here.

Nope, I'm not going to ex-Mormon conferences. But, I don't express my opinion about their contents or likelihood of their speakers being accurate, prior to having heard them. Its logically fallacious to do so and makes me look silly.

To pick an unrelated example, Sunstone Symposium might have the greatest stuff since sliced bread. Or, the largest load of hooey since the humoral theory of disease. Or a mix of both. Only specifics and data matter, and the presenter or venue doesn't.

As I said, it has been my experience that in cases when I am least likely to credit someone's argument because of ideological disagreement or past experience, it is then that I must pay the most close attention. (And publicly expressing my skepticism prior to making the effort is not typically a good way to facilitate that effort. Your mileage may vary, of course, and if it doesn't affect someone at all--though how they would be sure of that escapes me--then no harm, no foul I suppose.)

In medicine, people die if you don't. So it rather gets beaten into you--if you're wise, through the experiences of others; if not, through your own.

One might use past experience or someone's body of work/reputation as a tool to decide whether it's worth investing the effort to hear someone's next offering. One can't pay attention to any but the smallest fraction of work in any field after all. But, that's a function of parsimony and efficiency, and if I adopt it, I can only legitimately remain silent and ignore them.

But, I'm delighted that Chris will be listening and be exerting himself to put aside any biases and animus he might have toward the speaker or subject matter. This is all one could ask.

Besides, Kevin Barney agrees with me. This means I'm right about what Will has to say. QED.

[Kevin being the LDS equivalent of Chuck Norris. One must simply back away slowly.]

:-)

GLS

Look you can claim the KEP is different in your own mind all you want. You have proved my point, you have admitted there are arguments that could be made that you would be skepitical of before hearing them, therefore do not get mad at Chris Smith for simply doing what you youself would do. Chris Smith has done a lot of research in this area, just like you with Fanny Alger, it is therefor silly to think Chris wouldn't be skeptical up front when someone is presenting a conclusion different than his own.

[mysteryman]

It is much better.

But, it also reduces to a triviality. Of course this is true, in general. "Some human critics and some human defenders of anything" do so.

If someone does it in a specific case, by all means, point it out.

But, responding to a given example of a critic doing so by saying that some Mormon someonewhere has doubtless done the same thing is simply the tu quoque fallacy.

GLS

It has nothing to do with tu quoque fallacy, I wasn't trying to discredit anybody. I was simply pointing out my observation about how similar critics and defenders can be when trying to discredit the other.

[Greg Smith]

It has nothing to do with tu quoque fallacy, I wasn't trying to discredit anybody. I was simply pointing out my observation about how similar critics and defenders can be when trying to discredit the other.

Ok. Granted, humans don't always behave as they should.

GLS

[Greg Smith]

Look you can claim the KEP is different in your own mind all you want.

If you don't care to engage those points, that's fine.

You have proved my point, you have admitted there are arguments that could be made that you would be skepitical of before hearing them, therefore do not get mad at Chris Smith for simply doing what you youself would do. Chris Smith has done a lot of research in this area, just like you with Fanny Alger, it is therefor silly to think Chris wouldn't be skeptical up front when someone is presenting a conclusion different than his own.

Sigh. I didn't say he couldn't be skeptical. I've repeatedly said that he and others ought to be, until having seen the data. (Including skepticism of their own skepticism.)

I said announcing and staking out one's skepticism publicly was counter-productive. Leo Tolstoy put the risk perhaps more eloquently than I can:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

This tendency is always at play in these types of matters especially--believer and non-believer alike. In a sense, one cannot be neutral about religious things or claims. Which is A Good Thing, ultimately.

As I said, I might be skeptical about such a Fanny Alger claim, but I wouldn't be publicly declaring before having seen the data that I didn't expect to be convinced. It makes it that much harder to be convinced if the data warrants it. Human nature, at least mine. Perhaps Chris has transcended that human tendency, and if so, then I cheerfully withdraw my warning.

I wasn't "mad" at Chris. I rarely get mad. A trifle amused maybe.

I just decline to accept the model of a disinterested, skeptical mind at rest in which religious/philosophical issues have no more emotional freight or influence on the evaluation of evidence than if we were debating on the exact number of troops that landed at D-day, or the species of bacteria that causes cholera. I think this (often unconscious) assumption with such topics an enormous risk for the modern mind because it goes unacknowledged or actively denied.

Quite simply, some questions just matter more and matter more to us. And, that means that the dynamics involved in addressing them will be different, much as we might like, desire, believe, or insist otherwise.

GLS

[Chris Smith]

I just think if one wants to make the world a better place, one's energies are best spent advocating for a positive stance (i.e., what one believes) rather than being in attack mode against what one doesn't believe and the benighted others who believe differently from oneself.

Agreed.

I'm a pluralist, except for people who want to believe in missing papyrus for one short sacred book used in one relatively small religion. That requires an all-out intellectual assault, because Truth Must Prevail.

Well, the promotion of non-literal approaches to religion is definitely on my agenda, I suppose. I believe that such approaches are a positive good, because they work against religious partisanship and promote historical and scientific understanding. But my rebuttals of Gee are mainly intended to clear the ground for my own future interpretive work on the BoA. My interpretative work will assume that the BoA papyrus is not missing, so I feel an obligation to answer those who have argued otherwise. I can't blame those who don't share my academic interest in the topic and think my endeavors are a waste of time, but I find it interesting, and I suppose that's all that matters. As you said, there's no accounting for taste.

BTW, I would love to discuss my religious views with you sometime, if you're genuinely interested. Perhaps in another, more cordial thread-- or over lunch at the FAIR conference.

Peace,

-Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, the promotion of non-literal approaches to religion is definitely on my agenda, I suppose. I believe that such approaches are a positive good, because they work against religious partisanship and promote historical and scientific understanding.

You do recognize that the promotion of non-literal approaches to religion is your own religious partisanship, yeah? Or in other words, the only way to oppose partisanship is to utterly ignore the partisans, or else become partisan oneself? (Speaking of "non-literal" approaches to religion I take it that in your case you refer to seeing religion as a collection of moral aphorisms while jettisoning miracles like angels, gold plate translations and the resurrection, is that the idea?)

BTW, I would love to discuss my religious views with you sometime, if you're genuinely interested. Perhaps in another, more cordial thread-- or over lunch at the FAIR conference.

Watch out, Chris steals your fries. Trust me, I know!

[Glenn101]

So bottom line, Will Schryver will be presenting a presentation at the next Fair Conference which he feels will be a "game changer" in the words of Greg Smith. Greg and at least one other LDS in the know has actually seen the presentation and feel that Will's assessment are pretty much "spot on". The presentation will be such that cognitive laymen will be able to grasp the implications. The KEP will no longer be a "cause celebre" for the critics/skeptics and they will have to find soemthing else to chew on concerning the Book of Abraham.

There are some skeptics who are, well skeptical that Will has enough or maybe even any undisputable/irrefutal evidence that will knock their socks off.

All of the rest of us are going to have to wait for the actual presentation to form an informed opinion.

I myself have my doubts that the presentation will be so powerful as to change a few mind sets that I have encountered. After all, the EV's point to a scripture in the New Testament which says unambiguously that "God is a spirit", but the LDS say that it is just not that simple. (Not arguing this one, just an example.)

Glenn

[Greg Smith]

BTW, I would love to discuss my religious views with you sometime, if you're genuinely interested. Perhaps in another, more cordial thread-- or over lunch at the FAIR conference.

I will, sadly, not be at the conference this year.

My point, though, is that if you were more engaged in sharing your own religious views instead of pages of posts and threads here and elsewhere attacking mine, then I wouldn't have to guess, nor would a special opportunity to discuss it need to be sought. I'd know.

But, all I know is that you don't like John Gee, and you don't seem to think much of LDS truth claims.

GLS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But, all I know is that you don't like John Gee, and you don't seem to think much of LDS truth claims.

GLS

That is all you know? Whoa.

[Chris Smith]

You do recognize that the promotion of non-literal approaches to religion is your own religious partisanship, yeah?

When I speak of partisanship, I'm not talking about advocacy of a particular set of opinions. I'm talking about exclusionary and emotionally charged, us vs. them kind of thinking. One can believe that such exclusionary thinking is counterproductive without being exclusionary toward those who disagree.

But yes, there is some truth in what you say. This is the same paradox that the United States faces. In order to prevent a religious establishment and maintain religious equality, we have in fact established a kind of pluralistic disestablishmentarianism. By no means does the state afford equal protection to those who would go around killing infidels in the name of their faith. I guess the recognition that anti-partisanship is itself somewhat partisan should keep us somewhat humble, but in my view that does not make it any less valuable.

I do want to be clear about one thing: pluralism is not relativism. I do believe that there are sets of propositions that are true. Pluralism simply says a) that there is no "ultimate" religious system, including pluralism itself, and b) that although our respective belief systems may not all propositionally agree or be propositionally true to the same degree, we are nevertheless in touch with the same sources of spiritual power and ethical behavior, and to more or less the same degree.

I would even go so far as to say that pluralism is not so much a unified belief system in its own right as a paring-down of or overlay on other belief systems. I am a Christian pluralist, whereas others are Hindu pluralists or Mormon pluralists. Becoming a pluralist often does require the abandonment of major distinctives of each tradition-- especially in an exclusivistic tradition like my own former evangelicalism-- but it does not require a total loss of religious identity. Indeed, it actually really needs some kind of basic religious framework to give it shape and substance. The pluralist holds that all traditions are accessing the same sources, but also recognizes that those sources can only be accessed through some kind of ritual, spiritual, communal, intellectual, or ethical framework such as the religions provide. This is why I typically advocate non-literal interpretations as opposed to deconversion-- though I do think humanistic philosophies can provide access to the same sources, as well.

Hope that helps understand where I'm coming from. Peace,

-Chris