Rob Bowman Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Robert,You wrote:Carle not only spoke of some his coreligionists being "duped into thinking of Mormonism as just another species of Christendom,” but he also claimed that Mormon scholarship depends on fallacies such as circular reasoning, a priori assumptions, question begging, etc., and that Mormon scholars misinterpret scriptural and patristic sources in some eisegetic manner (as though Hans Hillerbrand was not publicly upbraided by Robert M. Grant for making just such a ridiculous accusation against Hugh Nibley). As though the concept of sola scriptura is not subject to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.I don't know what your point is. Are you claiming that circular reasoning is just fine and everyone does it, or are you saying that Carle's criticism is valid but his view is also susceptible to the same valid criticism?You wrote:Now of course Carle is entitled to his opinion on such matters, but he became so freewheeling in his criticisms that he also made a number of blatantly false statements about how young Mormon scholars get through graduate school -- as though the LDS Church pays their way, when the truth is that they get good grades, go to fine universities, and pay their own way (just like other grad students), and run up onerous grad school debt (just like other grad students). There is no free ride. The upshot is that he actually names several such scholars, including the late Hugh Nibley!! (who graduated summa cum laude from UCLA in the midst of the Great Depression, with no help from his Church)I think you have a legitimate criticism of Carle's comments on this point. It was unnecessary in any case, since it didn't have anything to do with the substance of Carle's article.What is worse, the editor of GJCT (John Warwick Montgomery) made a point of mocking the LDS in that same issue, something which I note you are loathe to do. Naturally, I wrote a letter to Montgomery at that time protesting his unprofessional editorial conduct, and sent copies to two honest evangelicals. Warwick did not deign to reply.I looked, but I did not see any statements by Montgomery mocking the LDS. Could you cite the offending remark or remarks, please?By the way, to the best of my knowledge, no one calls him Warwick.
ERayR Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Because certain people on these forums seemingly think throwing the label "anti-Mormon" at someone who disagrees with them is a good argument.I disagree (but I have no intention of getting into a debate about this right now).May I suggest that your incorrect understanding of anti has lead to a supersensitivity on your part to this term and you over react. Just a thought.
Pahoran Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I'm just going by my personal experience as its been applied to me here on these forums.Who has called you an anti-Mormon, and in what context?Regards,Pahoran
Scott Lloyd Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Who has called you an anti-Mormon, and in what context?Regards,PahoranI put essentially the same questions to him, and he dodged them with this unresponsive reply:Because certain people on these forums seemingly think throwing the label "anti-Mormon" at someone who disagrees with them is a good argument.I wonder if that's the best we're going to get from him. 1
diglot Posted December 3, 2011 Author Posted December 3, 2011 I wonder if that's the best we're going to get from him.Yes it is, because I have no intention of wasting my time going through threads looking for an example. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. It doesn't matter either way.
selek1 Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Yes it is, because I have no intention of wasting my time going through threads looking for an example. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. It doesn't matter either way.So, in other words, you've decided to slander us all with an assertion you've no intention of backing up with evidence.That is very....revealing.
diglot Posted December 3, 2011 Author Posted December 3, 2011 So, in other words, you've decided to slander us all with an assertion you've no intention of backing up with evidence.That is very....revealing.I've slandered you all? lol if you say so
Robert F. Smith Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Robert,I don't know what your point is. Are you claiming that circular reasoning is just fine and everyone does it, or are you saying that Carle's criticism is valid but his view is also susceptible to the same valid criticism?I was trying to say nothing more profound that that the pot ought not to be calling the kettle black. Aside from that, circular reasoning is always suspect, regardless of the source. I don't think we ought to play favorites.I think you have a legitimate criticism of Carle's comments on this point. It was unnecessary in any case, since it didn't have anything to do with the substance of Carle's article.Good point, but you asked about what I meant, so I replied.By the way, I read the comments of Joseph Fitzmyer on the entire matter of I Cor 15:29 and baptism for the dead in his translation-commentary on First Corinthians in the Anchor Bible series today (Yale, 2008), and highly recommend it for its thorough and even-handed coverage. In the event, I found him also mentioning the II Macc similarities -- just as you might have suggested.I looked, but I did not see any statements by Montgomery mocking the LDS. Could you cite the offending remark or remarks, please?I'll take a look and report back. Haven't seen that issue in years.By the way, to the best of my knowledge, no one calls him Warwick.My bad. I don't call him Warwick either. I meant to say "Montgomery," but the intention didn't match up with hand-eye coordination.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Robert, I looked, but I did not see any statements by Montgomery mocking the LDS. Could you cite the offending remark or remarks, please?I apparently took Montgomery's comment that his journal would "take a crack at the cults by way of Gordon Allen Carle’s 'How Mormon Scholars Conduct Patristic Research To Prove the Legitimacy of Their Religion'," as unprofessional and insulting. However, after over a year on this board it doesn't seem so insulting any longer. I must be developing thick skin.
Calm Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Yes it is, because I have no intention of wasting my time going through threads looking for an example. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. It doesn't matter either way.Allow me since I can't sleep anyway:
Recommended Posts