Nofear Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I accept Christopher Columbus as divinely motivated... unfortunately as an academic I'm not sure I can quite approve of some of the methods he used to justify his belief. He kind of fudged the numbers to make his grant proposal more palpable (even so, all his academic peers correctly rejected him) and there is some indication, despite being a tremendously gifted navigator, also fudged navigation numbers. Anyway, Columbus is a very interesting case of ends (following inspiration) and means (for Columbus either delusion and/or willful deceit).
Daniel Peterson Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 I certainly don't think that the Book of Mormon requires us to approve of everything Columbus ever did, or of everything that happened in the sequel to his voyages.
strappinglad Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Compared to the Spanish conquistadors who followed him, Columbus was a paragon of virtue.
Nofear Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I certainly don't think that the Book of Mormon requires us to approve of everything Columbus ever did, or of everything that happened in the sequel to his voyages. Agreed.
Daniel Peterson Posted September 25, 2014 Author Posted September 25, 2014 Bloviating at length in an embarrassing attempt to obscure the truth, Peterson admits that the Book of Mormon is nonsense, completely unsupported by evidence, and that the apologists, desperate at the imminent collapse of Joe Smith's pedophiliac empire, are in flat panicked retreat: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611661/Thinking-clearly-about-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html
rockpond Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Bloviating at length in an embarrassing attempt to obscure the truth, Peterson admits that the Book of Mormon is nonsense, completely unsupported by evidence, and that the apologists, desperate at the imminent collapse of Joe Smith's pedophiliac empire, are in flat panicked retreat: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611661/Thinking-clearly-about-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html Thanks... I've downloaded the articles you linked to my kindle for later reading. I'm looking forward to them. And, I've ordered Elements of Style -- I'm not one of your students but, as you said, there's hope.
Buckeye Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Thanks... I've downloaded the articles you linked to my kindle for later reading. I'm looking forward to them. And, I've ordered Elements of Style -- I'm not one of your students but, as you said, there's hope. I also ordered a copy of Elements of Style ... for my 8th grade son.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 2, 2014 Author Posted October 2, 2014 Years ago, some of us undergraduates asked a few very prominent BYU professors to recommend one book (each) to us for a reading group we were forming. I've never forgotten Eliot Butler's recommendation. He was a vice president of BYU, a Caltech Ph.D. in chemistry who had also picked up an M.A. in history for the sheer fun of it, and a popular lecturer. His recommendation was The Elements of Style.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 2, 2014 Author Posted October 2, 2014 Unexpectedly, and for no apparent reason, Peterson launches into yet another out-of-control antisemitic rant: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865612177/Octobers-Feast-of-Tabernacles.html
Alan Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Joining this late, so if someone has already said this, I apologise.Is it safe to interpret Nephi's prediction of the man "discovering" the new world to be Columbus?There are, I understand, other candidates; so why Columbus? Is it just because he's the most famous?
Daniel Peterson Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 Joining this late, so if someone has already said this, I apologise.Is it safe to interpret Nephi's prediction of the man "discovering" the new world to be Columbus?There are, I understand, other candidates; so why Columbus? Is it just because he's the most famous? That's been the traditional explanation, and, for all I know, it's correct. It was his voyages that led to the massive influx of "Gentiles" into the New World. Neither Leif Ericsson's nor any other Viking's visit to the Americas had such an impact. But your question is a sound one. I've wondered the same thing.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 A colonialist wannabe, born out of his proper time, who disrespects indigenous peoples and refuses to allow that they can have spiritual experiences unless they first bow the knee to his idol Joe Smith, Peterson seeks to impose correlated Salt Lake City Mormonism on a pagan Hawaiian woman from at least a century ago: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865612714/They-were-dead-2-but--they-were-all-so-happy.html
Calm Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 That's been the traditional explanation, and, for all I know, it's correct. It was his voyages that led to the massive influx of "Gentiles" into the New World. Neither Leif Ericsson's nor any other Viking's visit to the Americas had such an impact. But your question is a sound one. I've wondered the same thing.I believe those who want the Promised Land to be limited solely to the US somehow (maybe Canada is okay too) go for John Cabot, iirc.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Promised land? Canada? (Sorry; couldn't resist!)
Daniel Peterson Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 In which, literally spitting with rage, Peterson vents his hatred and contempt for all those who have questions about Joe Smith's Book of Mor(m)on: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/10/when-the-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon-cant-be-taken-seriously.html
Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 In which, literally spitting with rage, Peterson vents his hatred and contempt for all those who have questions about Joe Smith's Book of Mor(m)on: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/10/when-the-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon-cant-be-taken-seriously.htmlYour blog post was right: Judging by the reader comments, you really kicked the hive with this one. This should fuel poor toni's indignation about laughing at the absurdity of attacks on Mormonism. She thinks that is a cruel thing to do.
rockpond Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Your blog post was right: Judging by the reader comments, you really kicked the hive with this one. This should fuel poor toni's indignation about laughing at the absurdity of attacks on Mormonism. She thinks that is a cruel thing to do. There is certainly "laughing" coming from both sides of the aisle but I don't believe that such a response will ever help us find common ground.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 There is certainly "laughing" coming from both sides of the aisle but I don't believe that such a response will ever help us find common ground.There is no desirable "common ground" in the tolerance of transparently false attack. It ought to be refuted by whatever fair means is necessary, including exposing it as absurd. And in so doing, it is not the individual himself who is targeted but the deficiency in his argumentation. It would be well to remember that before denouncing a defender as "unkind" for making light of a deficient argument.
rockpond Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 There is no desirable "common ground" in the tolerance of transparently false attack. It ought to be refuted by whatever fair means is necessary, including exposing it as absurd. And in so doing, it is not the individual himself who is targeted but the deficiency in his argumentation. It would be well to remember that before denouncing a defender as "unkind" for making light of a deficient argument. I have not denounced Dr. Peterson as unkind. I'm not sure why you would include that comment in your response to me. I've heard from people who know him personally that he is quite affable and kind. And I think that Dr. Peterson presents strong arguments/data to counter the claims he discussed. But as I consider where I was in my faith several years ago and as I look at those in my ward who I know are struggling, I feel that the "laughing is the best response" counsel in the article actually detracts from its strength as a means of pulling our members closer together.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I have not denounced Dr. Peterson as unkind. I wasn't referring to you personally. I'm not sure why you would include that comment in your response to me. Because of the context of my post to which your response was directed. I've heard from people who know him personally that he is quite affable and kind. I will attest to that. And I think that Dr. Peterson presents strong arguments/data to counter the claims he discussed. He is certainly among the best, if not the best today, at doing so. But as I consider where I was in my faith several years ago and as I look at those in my ward who I know are struggling, I feel that the "laughing is the best response" counsel in the article actually detracts from its strength as a means of pulling our members closer together. I, on the other hand, believe that it bolsters the faith of those who feel in their hearts that the attacks are wrong but perhaps can't quite put their finger on or verbalize the reasons why. (I speak partly from personal experience here.) Reading or hearing good, solid rebuttal helps them to do that. And showing the absurdity of an argument can be a powerful means of rebuttal.
rockpond Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I, on the other hand, believe that it bolsters the faith of those who feel in their hearts that the attacks are wrong but perhaps can't quite put their finger on or verbalize the reasons why. If that's the only goal, then I guess it's a great article. I continue to hope for more resources to bring back those who struggle. But obviously, not every essay can serve every purpose.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 If that's the only goal, then I guess it's a great article. I continue to hope for more resources to bring back those who struggle. But obviously, not every essay can serve every purpose.I think you make a good point here. Some approaches are perhaps better suited to one purpose or one audience than they are another. I see it as a difference between what sethpayne has called the "pastoral approach" vs. what might be called the rhetorical approach. (I'll say here that while there is a place for both, I don't believe Internet message boards or blogs are optimal media for the pastoral approach; that such a thing is better accomplished with one-on-one interaction and private counseling.) I heard the observation a while back from one who has been engaged in apologetics for some time and has also served as a bishop that by the time people get around to expressing aloud (or in writing) their doubts about the Church, they are already almost all the way out, farther than they might let on or than might be readily evident. I can understand why someone in this state would not take kindly to derision of arguments that he has already embraced or is on the way to embracing. He resists and may resent it because it puts him face to face with the unpleasant prospect that he might have made a serious mistake by jumping ship too soon. That said, I don't know that such a person would be appreciably more receptive to a straightforward, though non-derisive, refutation of said arguments. It seems to me that would be unwelcome as well.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 Peterson retreats, admitting that the Book of Mormon isn't historical but demanding that the sheeple believe (and fork over their money) anyway: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/10/some-things-are-more-important-than-others.html
Jude2 Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Thanks Br. Peterson, I enjoyed the article and shared it on facebook with my family.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.