SkepticTheist Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Glad to be of service... The bottom line is, I'm just not going to engage you in something where you are just trying to trip me up on something that I have no particular interest in engaging you on, or wasting time on it. If you want to "win" the conversation, if it makes you feel good, then I will let you *win* if it helps your ego.For anyone that wants to see a decent review of the book in question in an in-depth manner, here is a review that substantiates my/Anijen's conclusions:http://byustudies2.byu.edu/reviews/pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=116Thank you SkepticTheist and Anijen for your astute analysis of Vogel's scholarship and motives. All this time I had assumed that the best way to assess the value of an author's work was to read it. Boy was I naive.
rockslider Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This thread was a good read.In the cases where what you do negatively impacts the faith of people, apologists must out of necessity come in and try to counter what you do.Rather what they have presented has any truth to it or not, right?The ironic part is that apologist's works have often been reported as a major player in the loss of peoples faith!This topic well might be a good example of that .DCP's outright dismissal of Mike (here and in the other place) was sure impressive however. Glad to be of service... The bottom line is, I'm just not going to engage you in something where you are just trying to trip me up on something that I have no particular interest in engaging you on, or wasting time on it. If you want to "win" the conversation, if it makes you feel good, then I will let you *win* if it helps your ego.For anyone that wants to see a decent review of the book in question in an in-depth manner, here is a review that substantiates my/Anijen's conclusions:http://byustudies2.b...px?reviewID=116But it's good to know, as busy as DCP is, that he always has the likes of the SkepticTheist to stand in for him.
Glenn101 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Richard Lloyd Anderson has some information on the witnesses and goes somewhat into the Stephen Burnett letter of 1838. Anderson says that he has accumulated documents over the years concerning their statements, something like fifty for Oliver Cowdery alone. Those documents show 95% averrals that the witnesses saw and handled the plates physically as opposed to 5% that have some other explanation. His question is, do you believe the 95% or 5%. The article can be read here.Warning!! Warning!!! Richard Lloyd Anderson has the reputation as a dyed in the wool believer!!!!Glenn
SkepticTheist Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 At least apologists try to get it right. And if they don't try, then definitely nobody will, because critics definitely don't get it right.
Dan Vogel Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 You make him sound like he just was a historian on a stroll who wandered onto the Mormon religion and thought hey I should write about this...But from a members point of view like mine, his apostasy from the church and his embracing of atheism is just a little hard to swallow when you and others say oh he can be unbiased etc. We are not talking about a historian such as Jan Shipps or Margaret Barker who are non LDS and do seem to respectfully write about LDS history without misrepresenting us or our beliefs. From my point of Dan Vogel has an agenda other than writing on the academic historic values of LDS history as the other two professors do but Mr. Vogel seems to purposely highlight and grandiose the history into a more shocking/startling aspect and is not short on speculation.Yes, I admit I am a bit hesitant and I question an ex-mormon's motives more so than a non member when they write history about the church they once belonged to.Just Saying.edited to add; I apologize if I have contributed to derailing this once awesome thread.I have to smile at this idea that I have an agenda. Someone with an agenda wouldn
Dan Vogel Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Richard Lloyd Anderson has some information on the witnesses and goes somewhat into the Stephen Burnett letter of 1838. Anderson says that he has accumulated documents over the years concerning their statements, something like fifty for Oliver Cowdery alone. Those documents show 95% averrals that the witnesses saw and handled the plates physically as opposed to 5% that have some other explanation. His question is, do you believe the 95% or 5%. The article can be read here.Warning!! Warning!!! Richard Lloyd Anderson has the reputation as a dyed in the wool believer!!!!GlennAnderson has published his views elsewhere, and I have responded to some of them on this board years ago. The 95% affirmations he talks about are actually ambiguous and can be read either way
Dan Vogel Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Glad to be of service... The bottom line is, I'm just not going to engage you in something where you are just trying to trip me up on something that I have no particular interest in engaging you on, or wasting time on it. If you want to "win" the conversation, if it makes you feel good, then I will let you *win* if it helps your ego.For anyone that wants to see a decent review of the book in question in an in-depth manner, here is a review that substantiates my/Anijen's conclusions:http://byustudies2.byu.edu/reviews/pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=116Walker reviewed one asppect of my book, not the whole book. I read his thesis on Smith family dynamics. Both of us use family systems theory, but his pushes the theory farther. Basically, our differences pertain to different approaches to Smith family history. I focus on Joseph Smith Sr.s heavy drinking and Smith family split over religion following the death of Alvin. Walker downplays both, and portrays the family as basically harmonious.
Anijen Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I have to smile at this idea that I have an agenda. Someone with an agenda wouldn
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.