Not so easy?

[Calm]

I think we can all come up with other possible scenarios.

It would be helpful if you did this so Dr. Hamblin can respond in clarification.

I am assuming one is that JS was deceived himself by Satan or something else.

That would make it "Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Dupe" perhaps?

add-on: the only thing I could find to keep the alliteration was "Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Lamebrain." Very few synonyms for "dupe" start with "l" apparently.

As a side issue--

Notice that there is only one possibility here that allows a psychological profile of Joseph Smith to result in a "psychological healthy" conclusion.

I am not sure how valuable a psychological analysis that eliminates the outcome "clean bill of mental health" before the analysis is even started could be.

[TOmNossor]

The old "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trichotomy.

[Bill Hamblin]

The old "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trichotomy. Isn't this the same simplistic reasoning for which the anti's are chided?

I'm certainly open to new suggestions for alternative models. Everything I've seen is a variation on these three themes, as is Vogel's scenario (which mixes liar and lunatic, the best of both worlds from the anti-Mormon perspective.) The Revelation of Satan model is simply a variation on delusional, since Satan really inspired JS, but JS thought the inspiration was from God rather than Satan. Thus Satan replaces abnormal brain chemistry as the cause of JS's delusions. The Knowing-Pawn-of-Satan is a variation on the liar model, since JS knew Satan was his real master, but lied to people about the true source of his revelations. Here Satan replaces Joseph (or some secret cabal) as the source of fraud. I suppose you could alternatively define the three options as

Supernatural (God or Satan)

Delusion (lunacy, bi-polar, or other form of mental instability)

Deception (pious or fraudulent)

There is also the possibility of some combination of these three.

The Space Alien model proposed by Eric von Daniken in one of his books is the only truly innovative model I've seen; There really were Nephites and golden plates, but Moroni was a space alien, etc. ("Beam me up, Nephi!")

However no one I've heard of takes this seriously; I suspect von Daniken himself didn't believe it.

[Ray Agostini]

The Space Alien model proposed by Eric von Daniken in one of his books is the only truly innovative model I've seen; There really were Nephites and golden plates, but Moroni was a space alien, etc.  ("Beam me up, Nephi!")

However no one I've heard of takes this seriously; I suspect von Daniken himself didn't believe it.

Just poking in here to make an observation about Von Daniken, since I've read almost all of his books, starting with Chariots of the Gods in the late 60s.

In one of his books, I forget which one now as it was a long time ago and I threw them all out (necessity of divorce and so much moving), he mentions that he believes that aliens inspired Joseph Smith, or alien intervention more properly, accounts for the existence of the BoM. Why? Because Von Daniken said he recognised similarities with the Popul Vuh and other ancient American texts and he felt that JS could not have written the BoM on his own as it was too sophisticated and scriptural. Now I'm paraphrasing here, so don't say I gave you an exact quote, but that was the substance of what he wrote. It may have been Gold of the Gods, but I can't remember.

What I find ironic is that a controversial UFO researcher can recognise this but BoM critics don't budge from the idea that JS wrote the BoM. I kind of wonder sometimes if Von Daniken was all the fruitloop people say he was, in that case. Of course I don't accept his theory on the BoM. I believe it was produced exactly how JS said it was.

[sidewinder]

I don't know what all the confusion is about. Dan gave scriptoral examples of divine inspired lying, making lying and prophets compatible. The question is, how far can God go with this practice? I don't think any of you can clearly answer that.

Recall the "God works in mysterious ways" mumbo jumbo. Who is bill hamblin, to say that God logically couldn't have instructed JS, having called him as a true prophet, to go afrauding with the BOM?

Parents lie all the time about santa clause to their children, believing it serves a greater purpose, and objectively, that may be the case.

"Logic" does not demand that the BOM be historical, obtained by real plates or anything else, for it to be God's word.

[kolobian]

Mr. Gardner:

Since everyone approaches comlex questions with some preconditions, under your suggestion no one would be doing scholarly work because they all bring some version of an ontological commtiment to their task (different ontologies, of course).

Let me be clear: I do not mean to suggest that any scholars approach questions without "preconditions." Depending on the philosophy of science you prefer, all scholars operate within "paradigms" or "research programs." I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean here, but one possible thing you mean is that faith is somehow paradigmatic (that is, the LDS scholar's faith is similar in a relevant way to a conventional scholar's paradigm). I used to think something akin to this (so maybe I am reading to much into it), but I have since relinquished that view as unpalatable. A more face value reading of this claim is that all research can't begin at the Archimedian point and build on a sure foundation. Some commitment is always necessary to prior ideas. Its unclear to me this view can be pryed apart from the first. Even assuming it can, I don't think this gets any traction. My only claim throughout this discussion (my part thereof) has been that it is not true that the Book of Mormon provides the most parsimonious explanation of archeological phenomena. Or, if it is true, there is no rationally compelling way of illuminating that truth. So, why can't I just say, "sure, all scholars have prior commitments, but if you want to show the Book of Mormon provides the most parsimonious explanation of a phenomenon. Isn't it cheating to call everything square at the point research commences when Mormon scholars have a massive ontological commitment coming in and others have relatively modest commitments? I think the move just pushes the problem away one step. Although I didn't get much reply (so maybe I am wrong), I think my above questions are relevant. At the very least, I mean them sincerely.

I still maintain that the quality of the methods and analysis are not inherently dependent upon the initial assumptions brought to the question.

Indeed, I have repeatedly affirmed my appreciation of LDS scholarship as instrumental in my own development as a participating member of the Church. My concern is not with the methodology but the metatheory. The evidence is good. What does the evidence prove? I don't think we know, and I think our non-knowledge is exhibited clearly. First, there is the aggregation model of the Book of Mormon proof. One might admit that any one piece of evidence is insufficient as proof, but then reference the totality of evidence. This is dubious, especially when no one (to my knowledge) has undertaken any systematic integration of the evidence. Making arguments across arguments requires a way of meaningfully integrating them. A visceral view that the evidence is "enough" assumes first that evidence is cumulative and second fails to persuade anyone with a different intuition. If we really are interested in persuading rational people, another tier of argumentation is necessary. Otherwise one might worry about question begging.

Second, the terminal point of arguments needs to be specified. My typology admits two categories of arguments: sound and unsound; true and not true. If an argument is not designed to evince "the Book of Mormon is true," what is its conclusion?

I see scholarship as performing an exclusively defensive function. Defense, on my typology, is the argument that an opposing argument is not true. It does not assert a positive claim. I think the scholarship is good because LDS scholars can win against anti-mormon antagonists. Reasons why the church cannot be true can be effectively refuted. Offense, saying that one has an argument why the Church is true (I think the claim to parsimony is the strongest form of this) is an entirely different matter. Hence my concern.

Thanks for bearing with me.

A few thoughts.

[Bill Hamblin]

Who is bill hamblin, to say that God logically couldn't have instructed JS, having called him as a true prophet, to go afrauding with the BOM?

I am quite confident that neither you nor Vogel actually believe this. Indeed, I am quite confident that there is no one who actually believes this.

[Sarah]

Who is bill hamblin, to say that God logically couldn't have instructed JS, having called him as a true prophet, to go afrauding with the BOM?

I am quite confident that neither you nor Vogel actually believe this. Indeed, I am quite confident that there is no one who actually believes this.

I do.

Whether or not you or others believe it, does not mean that G-d did not do this. Can you prove otherwise?

[will2believe]

Who is bill hamblin, to say that God logically couldn't have instructed JS, having called him as a true prophet, to go afrauding with the BOM?

I am quite confident that neither you nor Vogel actually believe this. Indeed, I am quite confident that there is no one who actually believes this.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. We believe in a God who commands men to take multiple wives, allows thousands of Native Americans to believe that the Lamanites are their principal ancestors, allows thousands of his followers to believe that blacks are cursed because of their lack of valiance in the preexistence, and stands by and watches as toddlers fall into pools and drown. These are all behaviors that would be considered irrational and sociopathic if exhibited by humans. As sidewinder and modern prophets have reminded us, God's ways are not our ways.

Besides, there are possibilities other than God commanding Joseph to commit intentional fraud. I know several reasonable people who believe the Book of Mormon to be ahistorical, yet still consider Joseph to have been inspired although fallible.

[Ray Agostini]

We believe in a God who commands men to take multiple wives, allows thousands of Native Americans to believe that the Lamanites are their principal ancestors, allows thousands of his followers to believe that blacks are cursed because of their lack of valiance in the preexistence, and stands by and watches as toddlers fall into pools and drown.  These are all behaviors that would be considered irrational and sociopathic if exhibited by humans.  As sidewinder and modern prophets have reminded us, God's ways are not our ways.

Maybe if you studied the Prophet's revelations you'd understand why you hold that false concept. God allowed polygamy in OT times, even to David, of whom he said was a "man after my own heart". As for the Lamanite opinion, it appears you're still holding to misinformed ideas about that statement. Many clarifications have been given on this board by "apologists", but apparently if it comes from "apologists" it's not worth anything. The views of blacks were personal opinions, none of which are scriptural, a lot of tradition and Christian mythology at work here.

And why do toddlers fall into pools and drown, or why does God seemingly so often just "stand by and watch"?

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

  31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

  32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

  33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

  34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

  35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

  36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

  37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

  38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

  39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

  40 But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth. D&C 93

Basically we live in a corrupted system of things, which became corrupted after the fall of man, when thorns and thistles grew, and death came into the world. God is not going to stand by and control everything that happens. But of one thing you can be sure, a day of justice and recompense will come. Whatever you have lost will be returned to you, provided you have exercised your agency properly. If you have not, you may even lose your own soul.

[sidewinder]

Some definitions of a prophet From dictionary.com:

--A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.

--The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

Niether of these require any communication, or authority from God.

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

Mr. Vogel: Finally, it is your fundamentalist paradigm that has led to your prophet/fraud false dichotomy. As far as you are concerned my pious fraud paradigm does not exist.

Mr. Hamblin: It is crystal clear that your Joseph the Pious Fraud model is simply another way of saying that JS was a false prophet, when answering the REAL question.

Ms Juliann: Let me say it one more time, only fundamentalists try to nail false prophets.

I

[Bill Hamblin]

I do.  Whether or not you or others believe it, does not mean that G-d did not do this. Can you prove otherwise?

I cannot disprove your theory of God-the-Liar; but why in the world would I want to even try?

Nor can I prove that God is not a maniacal being who delights in creating souls for the sole purpose of torturing them.

I cannot prove that the universe is not a dream of Shiva, which will instantly cease the moment Shiva awakens.

I cannot prove that I am not dreaming now.

What I can do, however, is ask why in the world an omnipotent and omniscient God would possibly want to reveal lies to a person he wants to call as his true prophet, and call upon him to proclaim these lies to the world? Why would God invent a false history of a non-existent people for his true prophet? Why not instead reveal something true?

[Bill Hamblin]

Some definitions of a prophet From dictionary.com:

--A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.

--The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

Niether of these require any communication, or authority from God.

Quite true. But consider this:

I say Fido is a dog.

You say, this means Fido is an unattractive human being.

I say, no, I mean Fido is a canine.

You say, but the dictionary includes "unattractive human being" as a possible meaning for "dog."

The obvious point is, of course, that that is not the topic of the discussion. You are equivocating. The fact that the dictionary has multiple meanings for words does not demonstarte that Fido is or is not a canine. It demonstrates that it is a (rather simple) logical fallacy to try to prove Fido is or is not a canine by equivocation.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel

I

[juliann]

I’m not trying to “nail” JS as a false prophet. Haven’t you been listening. I’m not concerned with the true/false dichotomy, Hamblin is. And that makes him a fundamentalist. It was you who said:

But that is how what you did is perceived. That should matter to you. I think that you will be hard pressed to find much of an audience who thinks that a career of deception makes someone a true prophet.

I’m not concerned with the true/false dichotomy, Hamblin is. And that makes him a fundamentalist.

I think that deep down inside you really do understand the difference between discussing faith issues on a message board (or in house publications like Dialogue ) vs stepping out into the academy. The point made was "The fact that you may wish to limit the discussion to those questions should not prevent others from asking different questions, and your unwillingness to engage these other questions amply demonstrates your fundamental equivocation on the matter. I do not object to you asking these questions. I object to your pretense that by claiming to have answered these questions you are actually answering the REAL question, which is: was JS a REAL prophet of God."

You do not seem to understand that it is you bringing up the question of true/false by calling him a "sincere fraud" and a "pious deceiver". You are putting this question on the table. I don't see where it serves you to pretend otherwise.

I gave three definitions for “prophet,” while Hamblin insists on one that assumes God REALLY talks to prophets. He is certain that JS is a prophet in the REAL sense. By implication it is an attempt to “nail” other prophets, like Mohammad, whose revelations contradict the BofM.

Is there a mammal on this planet who would define a true prophet as anything but someone who communicates with God? Again, you are missing the point...which is your illogical position that a prophet, by definition, can be a deceiver and a fraud. I'm not sure how Mohammad got in here...but it is only those fundamentalists who have problems with "contradictions".

Hamblin implies that scholars are disingenuous if they refuse to deal with the REAL questions, which attempt to resolve ontological “truth claims.”

I guess I missed that part. I see him dealing exclusively with the consequences of your illogical position. Did he advocate a position for scholars that I missed?

I doubt that Claremont is going to ask the questions Hamblin wants to ask. You have already said that truth claims are not to be discussed. So when you now imply that Hamblin is asking the right questions and I am asking the wrong questions, on what basis do you do so?

We are on a message board. It is your true/false/pious/deceiver claims that are being discussed.

I don’t see how this helps explain JS, or how you think this relates to the discussion at hand. Do you imagine some kind of mystical connection between JS and Aune’s findings about early Christianity? Are you saying that the minutia of scholarly discovery about the early Christian church somehow relates to JS? Or that the secret to understanding JS is found in NT studies? I can only smile at your naivete. Your idea of how biography should be written is quite humorous.

I'm still scratching my head over your refusal to address the self-understanding of Mormons. If you won't deal with how they saw themselves...how can you give an accurate picture of them? Did JS not think that he was restoring early Christianity? Would it be logical for him to disembowel prophecy in front of a Bible believing group while claiming to re-instate it? I would be asking the same questions that any scholar asks when studying Biblical prophets... if that is what JS thought he was. That is how Aune connects. Simply saying that JS's concept was larger than the Bible does not free you from the smaller part of his concept. That is why I am asking what standard you are using. You mention "many prophets in Britain, Europe, and America". Is that what you are using for your standard?

[E Allusion]

Cinepro: Isn't it also weird how a BOM-related name like "Kish" is similar to an Old Testament-related name like "Kish"?

Brant Gardner: Isn't it weird that this is exactly what Bill Hamblin predicted would happen if there were direct evidence for the Book of Mormon? I'm sure you thought you were making a different point rather than proving the one he made.

This is a means of evaluating the evidence in the comparative context of competing theories Brant. It

[Brant Gardner]

E Allusion: Since you are skimming through things and cherry picking with what appears to be an agenda, you apparently are unaware that I am personally unimpressed with the "Kish/Kix" connection and have noted that before.

[Confidential Informant]

Boy, ZLMB must really be getting bad these days. Now we've got EA posting over here at FAIR.

If Serenity shows up, we may have to call this "ZLMB West" or something like that.

C.I.

[E Allusion]

Brant: Since you are skimming through things and cherry picking with what appears to be an agenda, you apparently are unaware that I am personally unimpressed with the "Kish/Kix" connection and have noted that before.

Whether or not you are impressed with Hamblin's example is beside the point. The point is you attacked Cinepro for a very natural response by implying he was rationalizing away the evidence, when in reality he was making a legitimate appeal to a better way to evaluate the evidence in a comparative context. This is particularly notable, because you like to go after people about methodology. This is fairly basic science Brant. Cinepro wasn't fulfilling any arcane prophecy of Hamblin.

I wrote a little reply to you as a brief introduction into my post. So, in a sense, I was cherry picking. I just went after the first real silly thing that came to mind after having scrolled through the thread upon request from a mysterious stranger. I guess I could've dealt with Tom's continuing misunderstanding of criticisms of the Fine-Tuning argument, but that was going to take more time.

Yes, my agenda was an antagonistic opening for atmosphere. Sort of like entering a room with a flash of a cape. But it wasn't dishonest. I truly was taken aback about your response to Cinepro.

Boy, ZLMB must really be getting bad these days. Now we've got EA posting over here at FAIR.

If Serenity shows up, we may have to call this "ZLMB West" or something like that.

Don't worry C.I., I'm only here to discuss the irony of Juliann siding with Hamblin and against Dan on this one subject, because of how unbelievable it truly is. Hamblin is taking the exact position she criticizes people as fundamentalists for, attacks her position like gangbusters, and she's totally oblivious to it. If a drop of consistency flowed through her blood at all, she'd be all over Hamblin for his naive fundamentalism.

The funny thing is Bill and I are two realists in a pod. We both think the term "true prophet" references a factual ontological claim that can be relatively true or realtively false based upon relevant information. The main difference between us is we come down on different sides of that question in the case of his prophets. Juliann on the other hand, well, Juliann needs to read the positions she uses to criticize others with more closely. There's a reason for the word antirealist.

In the end, I hope to demonstrate the conclusion that Juliann does not understand the very postmodernist ideas she tries to use to criticize others with, and in reality, the only reason she uses them is because she is looking for an excuse deride those she thinks write material that leads to critical conclusions about her Church.

However, given the person I am dealing with, I'd like to use largely quotes of others to establish this, so I have to devote a little time here and there to collecting and organizing them.

See you in a bit

Edited to make the html tags work.

[Confidential Informant]

Don't worry C.I., I'm only here to discuss the irony of Juliann siding with Hamblin's modernism and against Dan on this one subject, because of how unbelievable it truly is.

So, you admit you are hijacking this thread to conduct a personal attack on Juliann? Well, I suppose admitting upfront that your agenda is merely antagonistic will make it easier for Dunamis to reign you in.

Remember, this is a woman who attacks post-enlightenment modernism as fundamentalist.

Funny, it was my take that she attacked it as sharing many of the same characteristics as fundamentalism, not that they are equivalent. As I recall, she even supported that position with quotes from other well-regarded thinkers and your sole response was to claim that she was too dumb to understand what those people were really thinking. Hardly a robust defense.

My goodness, even I have been called fundamentalist by her for not sounding pomo enough.

Indeed and it seems to chaff your thighs to no end such that, at the suggestion of some little birdie, you drop in here guns-a-blazin' to defend your besmirched honor. (Is that how you spell besmirched?)

However, the topic itself is, indeed, fascinating, thus maybe you should start a new thread, one that you can control, and then you can address the issue anew if you wish. (Whether or not Juliann chooses to participate is up to her, of course).

The funny thing is Bill and I are two realists in a pod. We both think the term "true prophet" references a propositional claim that can be relatively true or realtively false based upon relevant information.

Again, I cannot speak for Juliann (and I'm sure Bill loves you yoking yourself with him) but it occurs to me that Juliann holds this position also. Were it not so, her faithful membership in the Church and her feisty defenses of it and it's leaders would be odd. That alone ought to be a hint to you that you aren't grasping the full extent of her arguments. Then again, maybe she's simply not communicating them well. That happens on boards like this.

While I may not think simple logic dictates the word must be read that way, the main difference between us is we come down on different sides of that question in the case of his prophets.Juliann on the other hand, well, Juliann needs to read the positions she uses to criticize others with more closely. There's a reason for the word antirealist.

Again, based on what I know of Juliann, it appears to me she sides squarely with Hamblin and always has.

In the end, I hope to demonstrate the conclusion that Juliann does not understand the very postmodernist ideas she tries to use to criticize others with, and in reality, the only reason she uses them is because she is looking for an excuse deride those she thinks write material that leads to critical conclusions about her Church.

Okay. To be honest, this sounds like the preface to a whole personal attack but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But do it on another thread and try to keep it about the issue and not about Juliann's perceived character flaws.

However, given the person I am dealing with,

See what I mean? Personal attack. It won't fly here. The excuse for mods over at ZLMB might let this crap fly but it just doesn't here.

I'd like to use largely quotes of others to establish this, so I have to devote a little time here and there to collecting and organizing them.

Okay, but take it to another thread.

C.I.

[Calm]

Boy, ZLMB must really be getting bad these days.  Now we've got EA posting over here at FAIR.

If Serenity shows up, we may have to call this "ZLMB West" or something like that.

C.I.

Totally off topic plug here. Won't repeat myself. If someone wants to ask a question of me on this, please start another thread. Mods can delete this if it's too over the top in derailment.

=====

Nah, we've just limited posts to 5 a day for the general public so some that haven't fulfilled their craving for posting have to wander into other venues. Some posters that we want to encourage posting have more or even unlimited posts (such as Kerry and any authors so that they can respond to questions about their work).

We're even requiring approved registration where people have to give their reasons for joining unless they have past ezboard posting history we can use for a 'reference.' We're hoping this gets rid of the spammers and most trolls.

And last, we are currently trying to tip the balance of post numbers back to an even keel by favouring LDS posters. LDS are more likely to get approved for more posts than nonLDS because there are currently less LDS on the board and less posting by LDS.

It's actually improved quite a bit, IMO. You might want to look in sometime if only because David Waltz, Rory and Kerry are starting a number of very interesting threads. Latest from Rory: http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...opicID=26.topic

[Calm]

If a drop of consistency flowed through her blood at all, she'd be all over Hamblin for his naive fundamentalism.

I think both Dr. Hamblin and Juliann's last posts demonstrate the consistency of the position and why it is relevant in this particular instance of examining the "pious fraud" claim.

You might have a point if it was extended in a more generic fashion.

[Dunamis]

NO BOARD WARS.

If you have an issue with a particular person from another forum keep it in that forum. Do not bring it here.

New posters who are coming in with the intent to take on posters rather than the topic need to read the rules. We have an extremely low tolerance for this. Serial violators will have their posts edited or deleted if they are not topical or if they generate multiple complaints.

Everyone get back on a topic.

[E Allusion]

So, you admit you are hijacking this thread to conduct a personal attack on Juliann? Well, I suppose admitting upfront that your agenda is merely antagonistic will make it easier for Dunamis to reign you in.

No. I was merely following the flow of discussion, and finding a particular juicy point that I thought needed to be criticized. There is no hijacking going on Pent. There is no personal attack involved.

It was pointed out to me that Hamblin was making a certain kind of case here, and Juliann was going along with it in contrast to how she generally argues.

I felt this was a perfect time to really get to the core of Juliann's use of pomo people like Massimo Introvigne to see what is going on. So it's out there for people plainly to see. That's pefectly legitimate use of thread space. Sure, it's antagonistic, but not personally so, nor in a illegitimate fashion. It has as much claim to the discussion going on here as what followed before it.

If the mods don't want me to write, fine, they can suit themselves. I, however, see no problem with it.

Again, I cannot speak for Juliann (and I'm sure Bill loves you yoking yourself with him) but it occurs to me that Juliann holds this position also. Were it not so, her faithful membership in the Church and her feisty defenses of it and it's leaders would be odd. That alone ought to be a hint to you that you aren't grasping the full extent of her arguments. Then again, maybe she's simply not communicating them well. That happens on boards like this.

It would be odd, wouldn't it Pent? That's why seeing people go pomo Massimo style to defend the LDS Church seems so strange. Yet, that's what Juliann does. In fact, what Bill said is what I think Juliann thinks, but what Juliann thinks and what Juliann purports to argue aren't neccessarily the same thing.

It appears that Juliann is claiming to agree with Bill here, but then again, Juliann, by consequence of her arguments in the past (which we shall see) also disagrees with him. In fact, this particular example is so raw in its obviousness, that I could not pass it up. It's like the irony of Juliann dividing the world in to naive fundamentalists and everyone else she calls "liberals" (which usually ends up being pomo people) and then complaining fundamentalists are such black and white thinkers - only writ on a more large scale.

She both agrees and disagrees with Bill depending on the circumstances. The only thing that stays consistent is her dogged desire to call those who write material that can lead to critical conclusions of the Church she believes in "fundamentalists". Juliann's willingness to agree with Hamblin isn't born out of any intellecutal consistency. That's the position I will claim to defend. The full extent of Juliann's arguments is a hodgepodge of misunderstood views used to try and justify calling people a label of derision she has endeared herself to.

(The example of her calling me fundamentalist was brought up specifically to show how loose she applies the label to anyone not sounding enough like pomo people she "rolls" with. In my case, it was for expressing something akin to correspondance theory of truth. I then realized this was too esoteric of an example, so I erased it out of my post.)

See what I mean? Personal attack. It won't fly here. The excuse for mods over at ZLMB might let this crap fly but it just doesn't here.

It's not a personal attack Pent. Juliann has a long history of criticizing people unless they include in their posts quotations from scholars. Given that this is the person I'm dealing with, I though it'd be smart to go get some quotes, even though my laziness will cause this to take much more time.

You have a very strange concept of what constitutes a personal attack.

I think both Dr. Hamblin and Juliann's last posts demonstrate the consistency of the position and why it is relevant in this particular instance of examining the "pious fraud" claim.

I'm aware of Juliann's last post. In fact, that's why I wrote what I wrote. Surely you can see the irony in her asking the question like, "Who does not see true prophets as someone who factually communicates with a real God?" Hmmmm....who might think like that? Need a hint?

EA: Shamelessly self-promoting.

Historical truth is regarded as a mere social product by Latter-day Saint conservatives - Massimo Introvigne