Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[sethpayne]

I've reached the limit of my patience with you, and that takes quite a bit to achieve.

I'm quite capable of having civil discourse with critics, and I never accuse them of "obfuscating" or being incapable of rational thought. I certainly would never insult them by implying that they have been "drinking the Kool-Aid." I remember the Jim Jones Guyana tragedy quite well. To equate my sacred beliefs and efforts to defend them with such a tragedy is reprehensible. Keep that kind of language on the RFM board where it belongs.

I'm done responding to you.

WW

Hi WW,

Although I strongly disagree with Mariner's tone, he does raise an interesting question. From what he laid out, it seems that the FAIR website leaves out the full immersion and population reduction to 8 even though this is commonly taught and, utilizing bcspace's Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine ( ), is official Church doctrine because it was published in the Ensign. How do you determine what Church teachings end up on the FAIR website?

I know in the case of evolution there is significant disagreement (or has been over the years ...) have you found disagreemnt on the flood topic?

Seth

[Calm]

I have asked the mods to remove a few of the off topic posts in hopes of avoiding derailing the thread into its own personal attacks. It would even be better if posters edited their own posts. I don't know if the mods will do so as they don't like to delete posts very often, but I am saying this to show I am serious about keeping the thread open rather than allowing it to be closed due to off topic attack posts (don't mind off topic interaction as long as it is neutral or positive).

Again thank you for your attention and hopefully cooperation.

Done

Cal: thank you mods for your efforts here.

Edited May 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

Review of Greg Smith, by a well respected critic and scholar (who earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania)

Now, Kevin.

If you're going to trade on the qualifications of a "well respected critic and scholar (who earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania)" then you've opened the door to questioning those qualifications and determining just how relevant they are. So please don't whine about "ad hominem" while we examine those claims, because you are the one who raised the subject.

Firstly, him being a "well respected critic" doesn't say much. The snarl clique always respect their own. In that little club, Scratch is "well respected" too.

As for him being a "scholar (who earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania)" I should point out that he is a scholar in classical studies. That means that if you want to know why Marcus Porcius Cato kept on saying things like "Carthago delenda est" (or "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") he ought to be able to tell you.

But can he?

The "scholar" in question (prominent MDB participant, vocal Scratch disciple and cloying Graham sycophant "Kishkumen") is part of something called "Cassius University." This is, of course, in no sense a "university;" it is merely an online club with a pretentious name. I don't actually know how much he has to do with its activities, but he is happy to associate himself with it. And it is well-known on MDB that his IRL job is as a professor at a real university in the southern United States. Thus, his prestige becomes the guarantor of scholarly rigour for "Cassius University."

And this becomes problematic when we look at what it has produced. Some may recall that I wrote a review some time back of an online book called "A Re-Interpretation of the Book of Mormon" by someone called "M. C. B." The author is yet another MDB participant and (yes, you guessed it) a "well respected critic." The book is still hosted on the "Cassius University" website, and is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. One particular portion is relevant to Kishkumen's area of expertise. On page 195, MCB writes:

My reading of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler believed that Joseph Smith was a weakling in returning to Nauvoo. He had been in hiding across the Mississippi, avoiding prosecution for destroying the printing press that exposed the truth about polygamy. Emma, his wife, had pleaded with him to return. When he did, the sheriff promptly arrested him, and put him in the Carthage24 jail; it was there that he met his end, abandoned by the other leaders of the Mormons. (MCB Re-interpretation, p.195)

The number of errors in that one little paragraph is staggering, but the author's support for her most egregious error is a passage from Mein Kampf in which Hitler comments on the fall of Carthage. However, it was not the murder of the prophet Joseph in Carthage, Illinois that interested Hitler, but the destruction of ancient Carthage, Qart-ḥadašt, at the hands of Scipio Africanus Minor.

One expects a professor of classical studies to know such stuff, and no doubt he does; but he fails entirely to educate anyone else at "Cassius University" in such matters. Like J. K. Rowling's Professor Umbridge, Kishkumen regards his little favourites with an indulgent eye, reserving his criticism for anyone wicked enough to have the temerity to defend the Church of Jesus Christ.

Now let us look at his hatchet job on Greg Smith. He begins thus:

What might a Greg Smith hit piece look like?

Note that the haters have decided, sight unseen that Smith's review of John Dehlin's work must necessarily be a "hit piece." Kishkumen, as usual, considers it a virtue to pander to the worst prejudices of his chosen audience. So let us be clear on this point: when he ends his review thus:

Verdict: Hit Piece.

He is actually telling us the verdict he reached, in advance, and then tailored his arguments to suit.

The Greg Smith article he slices into is in fact a fair review of the website it discusses. I have been to "Mormons for Marriage," read a considerable number of posts, and observed what goes on there. Unbridled criticism of the Church and its leaders is in fact tolerated; questioning of the homosexualist agenda of the place is not. President Boyd K. Packer comes in for considerable abuse. Smith's review has it right.

It was Kishkumen's review of the review that was really the "hit piece." And Xander, of course, enthusiastically approves.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

deleted for being off topic

Edited May 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Deleted for being off topic

Edited May 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

deleted for being off topic

Edited May 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Wiki Wonka]

Again, if you want Paharon's comments about your post deleted, I am happy to oblige, but it will result in your post he is responding to being deleted as well. It has been up long enough for Wiki Wonka to have considered anything of value he might have found in it though I don't see how a thread about who posts on MD has anything to do with the topic here myself.

This thread is only useful if it points out problems that currently exist in FAIR's materials - things that I can address.

That's it. I don't care about past history. I don't care what FARMS did or did not do over the past 15 years. I don't care what happened on the old FAIR message board. I don't care if someone from FAIR insulted someone else online, unless they insulted me, in which case I'll simply put them on my "Ignore" list like I just did with Mariner.

And I particularly don't care about whatever it is that is going on between Xander and Pahoran that results in massive walls of text being posted and causes anything useful to be buried in the noise.

WW

Edited May 16, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Calm]

Since the topic did not specific only current FAIR issues and was not originally set up to help with editing...but it's been a very nice unanticipated result, I am not going to limit it to only that, BUT I do intend to keep it more tightly focused on articles and not personalities so hopefully there won't be too much noises to distract you.

[Wiki Wonka]

Hi WW,

Although I strongly disagree with Mariner's tone, he does raise an interesting question. From what he laid out, it seems that the FAIR website leaves out the full immersion and population reduction to 8 even though this is commonly taught and, utilizing bcspace's Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine ( ), is official Church doctrine because it was published in the Ensign. How do you determine what Church teachings end up on the FAIR website?

Hi Seth,

We don't really leave it out. In fact, addressing those issues is the entire purpose of the article. (located here: http://en.fairmormon..._or_local_Flood)

Let me give you a bit of background first. One of my children left the Church because of this issue. He is currently a medical student and has always been interested in science. He learned of the biodiversity of plants and animals at BYU, and could not reconcile that with the idea that a global flood covered the planet and wiped out almost all life. I am an engineer who also likes science very much. I have to agree with my son on this one - the facts as they exist do not match up with what we are taught in Church about the Flood. This isn't a Latter-day Saint issue - this is an issue with the Bible and a belief in the stories recounted in Genesis. As a result of all this, my son is currently not even sure if there is a God at all. We have a very good relationship and talk all the time - just not about religion. The FAIR Wiki had an article on the Flood that was created back in 2006. When I joined FAIR in 2008, this was one of the first articles I chose to start editing.

So you can see why I might get a bit testy when Cinepro sarcastically implies that I'm deliberately hiding information in sub-articles, or when Mariner implies that I am simply obfuscating and "drinking the Kool-Aid." For me, this one is personal, and I won't suffer the sarcasm lightly.

Here are two paragraphs at the beginning of the "Supporting Data" section of the article. We start by showing what beliefs the two points of view have in common from a believer's perspective. Note that there is a link to a sub-article containing a lot of statements by Church leaders about the Flood (many of those references came from Cinepro's blog back in 2009):

Basic teachings and beliefs regarding the Flood

There are a number of basic teachings which we all accept regardless of the global or local scope of the Flood:

• There existed a prophet named Noah.
  
• Noah was commanded by the Lord to construct an ark.
  
• Noah warned the people of the impending deluge.
  
• The Flood was a literal event which did indeed occur.
  
• Noah, his family and the animals he collected were saved from the deluge.
  
• The Lord made a covenant with Noah and his descendants.
  

See also: Statements from Church leaders regarding the Flood of Noah

[edit]Belief in a global flood within the Church

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures. The challenge comes to those who examine scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the millennia required to achieve such diversity. The story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data, which may encourage some not only to doubt the scriptures, but to even question the existence of God. Therefore, can one believe that the Flood of Noah may have been of limited scope, yet still accept what is taught in Church? This article examines the scriptures from the point of view of the prophets who wrote the story of the Flood in order to answer this question.

Last year I taught a lesson about the Flood in Gospel Doctrine. I had no trouble at all teaching it, because I taught the six points described above, which I believe.

I know in the case of evolution there is significant disagreement (or has been over the years ...) have you found disagreemnt on the flood topic?

Seth

I don't believe that there has ever been as much disagreement about the flood topic as there has been about evolution. One of the few alternate views is found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127]. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism', "Earth")

As we state in the FAIR Wiki article, a global flood is currently taught, and will likely continue to be taught. I'm comfortable with the idea that it may have been local, and that those 8 people on the ark were the ancestors of Israel, since it doesn't really change my basic beliefs about Noah as a prophet or his role in the grand scheme of things.

WW

Edited May 16, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Libs]

If the flood was only local, wouldn't that sort of go against LDS doctrine that it was a baptism of the earth?

[Pahoran]

Response part II. Cal has graciously agreed that this post by Xander is in fact on-topic and that we can continue to discuss it within the parameters of this thread.

What might a Greg Smith hit piece look like?

For that, I think we can get a basic idea from the 2011 issue of the FARMS Review, where culture warrior Greg Smith does his best to defend Elder Packer's teachings on homosexuality and expose Laura Compton for the enemy to the true faith that she obviously must be (at least in his construction of her).

As we have seen, apologists have been combing the internet looking for juicy tidbits from Dehlin & Co. in order to use them against him. The same is true of the Laura Compton "hit piece," where a number of quotes are cherry picked to make Compton look personally disingenuous in the Mormons for Marriage board policy against criticism of the leadership and the church.

And this is what a Kishkumen "hit piece" looks like. Before attempting any actual analysis of the review essay, he "primes the pumps," telling his audience what it is they're about to see. This creates an expectation, so that whatever he then produces, his audience will assume that it is what he has told them it is going to be.

But in reality, Smith nowhere describes Compton as an "enemy to the true faith" or anything like it. Nor does he say that she is "personally disingenuous." Ms Compton is mentioned several times in the review, but exclusively and only in her role as founder and administrator of a website. It is the contents of that website that Smith critiques. And if "cherry-picked" quotes are a bad thing, what shall we say of Kishkumen's cherry-picking?

After all, we all know from experience how easy it is to babysit online discussions when determined characters are up at all hours sharing their viewpoints. In any case, I think it is fair to say that Smith has found evidence of that board policy being violated and the violations being inadequately addressed and not in a timely manner.

The question I have is this: is it accurate, much less realistic, to place all of the responsibility for what happens on the board on the shoulders of Compton? And, what is the reason for singling out Compton in this way? I will only judge this by what Smith presents.

How very magnanimous! However, it might be more truthful to say that Kish will judge this by what he chooses to select from what Smith presents. For example, his remark about "how easy it is to babysit online discussions when determined characters are up at all hours sharing their viewpoints" is already addressed by something Smith presented, namely:

The site uses a moderation system so posts cannot be read until approved by Compton or another administrator.

The moderation at M4M is not reactive, as here; rather, the mods act as gatekeepers. If it appears on their site at all, it's because they've approved it. Nothing has be be babysat; when the mods go to sleep, posts stop appearing.

It was nice of Kish to admit that Smith actually had a point. But his actual point is much stronger: the board policy is violated with the active co-operation of the administrators. Not that they are merely tolerating or overlooking naughty remarks, but that they are approving them in advance. Is it any wonder, then, that Smith regards the published forum rules as merely pro forma and not seriously or even-handedly applied?

Smith seems to be upset that Compton does not elucidate Packer's long history of teachings on homosexuality:

Smith shows no sign of being "upset." Smith legitimately argues that Compton et al have access to President Packer's teachings, and if they are going to tell the world what his position is, then they have a responsibility to get it right.

Of course, in saying this, Smith completely glosses over the central issue of the disagreement: the definition of homosexuality. Elder Packer considers homosexuality to be acting out on same sex desires, while Compton sees homosexuality as a matter of one's personal identity. Compton is in fact absolutely accurate in stating, therefore, that Packer believes homosexuality is a choice, and, in fact, Elder Packer would agree with her.

This is a clear equivocation. Nobody has asked President Packer about his "definition of homosexuality." What's really happening is that President Packer consistently addresses the issue of homosexual behaviour. As Smith has abundantly documented, President Packer has also consistently acknowledged the existence of homosexual temptations or tendencies, and these are what he generally does not address. When he does address them, it is to warn that those who experience them may have to cope with them throughout their lives.

What is confusing for all, and not entirely Compton's fault, is that the Church's teachings on the issue of homosexuality so directly conflict with popular and scientific understanding of the issue that few people outside of those who are personally burdened by the Church's teachings or geeks like Smith will be able to keep them "straight" (OK, bad pun.). She fumbles a bit, arguably, in saying that the Church accepts that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. This is, I think, not a result of maliciousness, but because she has in mind statements in which leaders of the LDS Church express their agreement that some people may be born more liable to same sex attraction. Compton is, in my view, not to be blamed for the confusion regarding the distinction between same-sex attraction and homosexuality on an unofficial online discussion board.

Glossing over Kish's cheap shot about "geeks," made for the entertainment of the community of shared prejudice to which he panders, I agree that Compton is probably not entirely to blame for the misunderstandings of the entire on-line community which she has chosen to gather. But if a "well respected critic and scholar (who earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania)" wishes to contribute to understanding on a subject, instead of merely riling up the villagers, it might help him to put his scholarly talents to work on the problem. To the extent that Church leaders have commented upon the "scientific understanding of the issue," they do not "directly conflict" such things at all. The call to repentance for wrong behaviour is, of course, entirely outside the competence of science.

More to come.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If the flood was only local, wouldn't that sort of go against LDS doctrine that it was a baptism of the earth?

If it was supposed to constitute an actual baptism, then that would be true. However, if it was merely used to symbolically represent a baptism, then it would only need to be "universal" from the standpoint of the covenant lineage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

If it was supposed to constitute an actual baptism, then that would be true. However, if it was merely used to symbolically represent a baptism, then it would only need to be "universal" from the standpoint of the covenant lineage.

Regards,

Pahoran

The "covenant lineage"? Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

A symbolic baptism, I could understand, yes.

[Robert F. Smith]

This video misleads and should be taken down. I was banned last time I brought it up on this board.

[media=]

You probably need to put in here the title of the piece since one can go to several other videos and it isn't clear which one you meant. The one I looked at ("Horses, Chariots, and Elephants") didn't seem offensive or misleading at all. Perhaps you could specify the academic standards which make you think it misleading, with appropriate citations. CFR

[Daniel Peterson]

I think I'll respond to the matters that involve me.

Cal, here is what is posted so far:

post 1:

For brevity's sake, and for Cal, a few problematic things (off the top of my head) would definitely include:

--Bill Hamblin's "k-word"-laced rant, which is posted on the FAIR Web site.

It wasn't a rant. That's a loaded word, and a distorting one. And, for years now, my Malevolent Stalker has (I think quite consciously) pretended that Bill Hamblin's use of that word occurred in an anti-Semitic tirade, which is indisputably false and defamatory. Professor Hamblin deliberately employed an objectionable word -- one that I have never heard him use, himself, to refer to Jews during the more than thirty years that I've known him -- in order to demonstrate how objectionable the tone was of those he was addressing. The use of that term was designed to make his point painfully obvious.

--"Metcalfe is Butthead" from the FARMS Review

That acrostic was, of course, never actually published. In any event, it was a joke that was not intended be noticed. (Acrostics aren't typically obvious, and this one certainly wasn't.)

And the point wasn't that Metcalfe actually is Butthead. I only saw a few minutes of that long-gone cartoon show, once, but I know Brent Metcalfe personally and he doesn't really look much like Butthead. (I think I could easily tell them apart in a police line-up.)

There was a serious point. Critics were claiming that complex literary phenomena like chiasmus appear in the Book of Mormon by chance. The point of the joke, if anybody ever noticed it, was that no one would ever, worlds without end, believe that "Metcalfe is Butthead" had appeared in the Review spontaneously, by sheer chance. But what is plainly implausible in the latter case is also implausible in the former.

However, when somebody leaked the news of the presence of an acrostic -- only two people had had prior knowledge of its existence -- and it began to be perceived as a personal insult rather than as a reference to a character in a then-popular television cartoon (that I never liked), it was removed. I know, because I'm the person who removed it.

--Dan Peterson's "Text and Context," the main argument of which is that ad hominem attack is a valid and useful kind of critique.

Read the essay. It makes a serious argument that, in certain kinds of writing, the character of an author is relevant. (In others, it's not.) I stand by the argument. It has nothing to do with advocacy of insults, nor with advocacy of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

This article also quotes extensively from a wildly anti-semitic author,

Whom I didn't know to be an anti-Semite -- and who, for that matter, may not have been an anti-Semite -- at the time. His anti-Semitic writings were, as far as I can tell, still in the future.

In any event, nothing that I quoted from him was anti-Semitic.

This complaint is a little bit like condemning somebody for having approvingly cited the French philosopher Louis Althusser in 1975 on the grounds that Althusser, who was mentally ill, strangled his wife in 1980.

and forwards the argument that homosexual authors should not be trusted because they are "traitors" and "Korihors."

That's a pretty crude and irresponsible misstatement of my actual position. (Of course, I know that it originates with my Stalker, and that's his standard modus operandi.)

--Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic," in which he boasts of training his students to think that D. Michael Quinn is a "bad historian."

Professional historians disagree with one another and negatively review one another's books all the time. That's the nature of the profession, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong or morally illegitimate in doing so.

Professor Hamblin was teaching, and I think still teaches, a senior seminar in historical method. That course necessarily focuses on both good and bad historical writing and analysis, how to tell the two apart, and how to do things right. Specific examples are the life blood of such a course, and of such wonderful books as David Hackett Fisher's classic Historians Fallacies. The Stalker, it seems, would like to rule all such things illegitimate and morally offensive, but no real historian is likely to follow him down that path. In fact, I doubt that he himself really believes it. It's just a cynical ad hoc weapon with which to beat up on me, Bill Hamblin, and our colleagues. (I know the Stalker all too well. He's in his seventh year of maligning me from within his safe cocoon of anonymity.)

--DCP's "Thoughts on Secular Anti-Mormonism," which has already been dicussed at length on Mr. Stakhanovite's blog.

The issue in this regard is about my use of a quotation from Albert Camus. It's been claimed that I misrepresented Camus's position. Even if true, though, that wouldn't make me guilty of uncivil behavior, which is, I believe, the topic of this thread. The two are distinct issues. I can still be sweet, even if utterly incompetent.

Following this is Camille Williams's review of Susan Easton Black's Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon. Williams attacks Black for being critical of scholars:

You really, really have to work hard in order to turn Camille Williams's review of Susan Easton Black's book into a "smear" or an "attack piece." Certainly Susan, whom I've known for more than two decades, has never complained to me about it, and anybody who knows Camille Williams will find this accusation pretty difficult to credit.

Quote:

I am puzzled by her attack against both the "gratuitous verbiage" of critics of the Book of Mormon (p. 10), also against the efforts of "sympathetic" archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scholars (pp. 10-12). Her assertion that some studies of the Book of Mormon "are intellectually stimulating but not always spiritually edifying," often missing "the Christ-centered purpose of the book" (p. 11), suggests in perhaps a too general sense that scholars lack or destroy faith. This seems an unhappy generalization, especially since it is followed immediately by a quantitative study of Christ's names and their frequency of use--a type of the analytical approach similar to those which she appears to condemn.

Pretty mild stuff.

Even positive book reviews often contain a criticism or two. That scarcely makes them "smears" or "attack pieces," let alone renders them morally illegitimate.

And:

Quote:

Professor Black's testimony permeates her writing. She has spent years studying the Book of Mormon, but for the most part her scholarly insights are less clearly communicated than they might have been.

Again, if that's the most brutal language the Stalker can find in Camille Williams's review, his case for its viciousness is looking pretty weak.

Two swipes here at a "Scholar Who is Testifying." This tack of going after LDS who are too "faith-oriented" and not "scholarly enough" will become a common theme in the Review.

"Swipes"?

The Stalker can't have read many academic book reviews if this sort of gentle criticism has him desperately grabbing for his smelling salts.

More to come....

I'm sure. But I'm into my seventh year as the Stalker's quarry and overall raison d'etre, and I've seen every weapon in his arsenal. It's not going to become any more impressive than this stuff.

.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Calm]

Specific examples are the life blood of such a course, and of such wonderful books as David Hackett Fisher's classic Historians Fallacies. The Stalker, it seems, would like to rule all such things illegitimate and morally offensive, but no real historian is likely to follow him down that path. In fact, I doubt that he himself really believes it.

Since he himself is using examples (though I requested it, he seems to have received the suggestion as a good idea) to demonstrate his belief that FARMS/MI is _______ (fill in the blank) or at least certain aspects of FARMS/MI are "bad" in his view (I don't know if he's used the word "bad", but if something is seen as "problematic" surely it is viewed as at least partially wrong somehow), it would seem he agrees with you at least to some extent.

Perhaps Mercy or xander can convey to us if he disagrees with my interpretation and does in fact view all of FARMS/MI as good in what it does and how it operates.

Edited May 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

Since he himself is using examples (though I requested it, he seems to have received the suggestion as a good idea) to demonstrate his belief that FARMS/MI is _______ (fill in the blank) or at least certain aspects of FARMS/MI are "bad" in his view (I don't know if he's used the word "bad", but if something is seen as "problematic" surely it is viewed as at least partially wrong somehow), it would seem he agrees with you at least to some extent.

Perhaps Mercy or xander can convey to us if he disagrees with my interpretation and does in fact view all of FARMS/MI as good in what it does and how it operates.

Cal,

I'm sorry, Cal, I forgot to come back and check in here. It looked like the thread had died and the it looked like it had picked up without the need for more of my magnificent cutting and pasting skills - lol.

Let me go back and read a bit and once I figure out what you're asking me to do, I'll post or ask or cut or paste.

[Calm]

xander has picked up the cutting and pasting so if you have other things to do now, I wouldn't worry about it. And if xander gets tired of it perhaps someone else can step in for a day's collection. That way no one is put to much work...at least in the information transfer.

[mercyngrace]

xander has picked up the cutting and pasting so if you have other things to do now, I wouldn't worry about it. And if xander gets tired of it perhaps someone else can step in for a day's collection. That way no one is put to much work...at least in the information transfer.

Awesome - it would definitely be better for the critics to actually post the criticisms since in most cases I have only a superficial knowledge of the personalities, history, and articles being discussed.

I'm almost embarrassed to say - given how much this matters to so many of you - but I rarely read book reviews anywhere (if I want to know if a book is worthwhile, I'll read it myself) and I use FAIR in the same way I use several anti-Mormon sites, not for any editorializing but because I'm looking for references so I can do my own research. Maybe a low brow approach but it works for me...

[Wiki Wonka]

The "covenant lineage"? Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

A symbolic baptism, I could understand, yes.

That's actually what I was trying to say when I said "that those 8 people on the ark were the ancestors of Israel," only Pahoran said it better.

I view Adam and Eve, and ultimately the 8 people saved on the ark, as the progenitors of the covenant lineage. I don't view the Old Testament as the "history of the planet" as much as I view it as a history of God's covenant people.

WW

Edited May 16, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

I'm almost embarrassed to say - given how much this matters to so many of you - but I rarely read book reviews anywhere (if I want to know if a book is worthwhile, I'll read it myself) and I use FAIR in the same way I use several anti-Mormon sites, not for any editorializing but because I'm looking for references so I can do my own research. Maybe a low brow approach but it works for me...

I look at Wikipedia much the same way. I tend to ignore all of the editorializing of the various editors and go right to the sources in order to research the subject myself. I have a shelf full of critical works (what some would call "anti-Mormon" books) that I've read for the purpose of understanding the sources that they use, and how they interpret them. I don't think that it is a "low brow" approach at all - I think that it is the approach everyone ought to take.

WW

[Log]

Um. That would lead to book sales and encourage more of the same, wouldn't it?

[Wiki Wonka]

Um. That would lead to book sales and encourage more of the same, wouldn't it?

Log, I assume that you are responding to my statement that I have a shelf full of critical works. I have bought a few brand new, such as Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View or several books from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. I consider those books valuable reference works, and have no problem with purchasing them.

However, most of them, such as Brodie's No Man Knows My History, Southerton's Losing a Lost Tribe, the Ostling's Mormon America, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, and Abanes' One Nation Under Gods and Becoming Gods were all obtained at used bookstores for a very steep discount. I also have a small collection of more "Decker-like" works that are pretty over the top, that I got for free.

WW

Edited to add: OK, in re-reading what you said, perhaps I responded to the wrong question. I'm not encouraging everyone to go out and purchase a bunch of critical books. What I'm doing is encouraging everyone to not simply take an author's opinion at face value without examining how they interpret their sources.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[cinepro]

That's actually what I was trying to say when I said "that those 8 people on the ark were the ancestors of Israel," only Pahoran said it better.

I view Adam and Eve, and ultimately the 8 people saved on the ark, as the progenitors of the covenant lineage. I don't view the Old Testament as the "history of the planet" as much as I view it as a history of God's covenant people.

WW

Here's what Apostle and Prophet-to-be Howard W. Hunter said about the scope of God's covenant:

The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind. (See Gen. 9:13.)

Depending on how you define "all mankind", it could create problems for the "limited covenant" view of Genesis.

Edited May 16, 2012 by cinepro

[Libs]

That's actually what I was trying to say when I said "that those 8 people on the ark were the ancestors of Israel," only Pahoran said it better.

I view Adam and Eve, and ultimately the 8 people saved on the ark, as the progenitors of the covenant lineage. I don't view the Old Testament as the "history of the planet" as much as I view it as a history of God's covenant people.

WW

Ah, I see...thanks for the explanation. So, that is what is meant by "covenant lineage"...the lineage of God's covenant people.