Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Whyme & Scott Llyod, up to post 41 less than a handful of the posts are attempts at legitimate discussions of the topic. Most of the posts up to post 41 are mockery. I agree with Chris assessment up that many of the post prior to post 41 are an embarrassment. There is little "vigorous defend[ing]" going on up to post 41.My attempt at "legitimate discussion" was to challenge his assertion that the First Vision accounts contradict each other. So far, the challenge has been ignored. If Chris has indeed left us for good, I feel at liberty to conclude that he has no good response to that challenge. Edited July 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
Calm Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Seems to me the fair et al v sunstone et al, is all just an exercise in relying on the arm of flesh in a vain attempt at supporting the things of God. Both groups seem to me to lack the spirit in their works.What FAIR tries to accomplish is to clear away the debris and weeds to leave a more fertile ground for people to nourish their faith in. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 What FAIR tries to accomplish is to clear away the debris and weeds to leave a more fertile ground for people to nourish their faith in.And FAIR does so very well. 1
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 They may not all specialize in Mormon Studies but seem neutral.Objectivity is a myth. Balance may be better achieved by having a variety of viewpoints of both pro and con. I think what is a concern (in the sense of judgment) with the panel listed is that it appears to lack this sort of balance, the viewpoints are not varied enough.The panel that UVU had awhile back was much better, in my view: Dehlin, Gordon and a nonLDS who was interested in the subject enough to give informed comments, Avance (I think I spelled her name right). 1
Nevo Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 My attempt at "legitimate discussion" was to challenge his assertion that the First Vision accounts contradict each other. So far, the challenge has been ignored. If Chris has indeed left us for good, I feel at liberty to conclude that he has no good response to that challenge.I can't speak for Chris, but one apparent contradiction that comes to mind is the following:In his 1832 account, Joseph recorded that he had already become convinced prior to his vision that Christ's church was not found on the earth: "I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament" (source).However, in his 1838 account, Joseph states: "I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join..." (source).
Popular Post rodheadlee Posted July 12, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 12, 2012 What is amazing is how uptight critics get when they are criticized. I mean they spend their whole life criticizing that which is Holy to me and all TBMs and then they get mad when the crticizism is not well recieved. What kind of life is that anyway, always being critical of others. I can understand being an art critic or a music critc but a Mormon critic? or a religion critic? I'm pretty sure none of those people give one whit about my salvation. 6
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Objectivity is a myth. Balance may be better achieved by having a variety of viewpoints of both pro and con. I think what is a concern (in the sense of judgment) with the panel listed is that it appears to lack this sort of balance, the viewpoints are not varied enough.The panel that UVU had awhile back was much better, in my view: Dehlin, Gordon and a nonLDS who was interested in the subject enough to give informed comments, Avance (I think I spelled her name right).I have to say I was quite impressed with UVU for allowing that forum and was much appreciative of it. It makes people like me feel less ashamed to have the doubts and not feel like an anomaly. And it enables others to have maybe some compassion.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 There is no neutral work when it comes to politics and religion. Anytime an author writes especially on these topics their own knowledge, understanding and biases are included. Nobody can cover Catholicism as well as a believing, practicing catholic. Nobody can do a study on Mormon issues as well as a believing, practicing Mormon, etc. It just stand to reason that somebody from the outside can not understand as well as from someone from the inside. If they could they would be members. That being said outsiders can offer their perspective as discussion points.So where do you place the very significant work on Mormonism by Jan Shipps? She is not LDS and is not likely to be. A good Methodist like her would have made an excellent member of that First Vision panel. We could expect her to be fair and to apply historiographical principle in a systematic way.I would also have appreciated having ex-evangelical Chris Smith on the panel. Again (despite his tantrum on this thread) very knowledgeable and professional. Those, together with Mike Quinn and Todd Compton might have been expected to say something significant. Having so-called TBMs on the panel is not even worth talking about. It doesn't matter. What does matter is commitment to professional application of excellent standards of historiography. Plenty of room for disagreement. 2
Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted July 12, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 12, 2012 So where do you place the very significant work on Mormonism by Jan Shipps? She is not LDS and is not likely to be. A good Methodist like her would have made an excellent member of that First Vision panel. We could expect her to be fair and to apply historiographical principle in a systematic way.I would also have appreciated having ex-evangelical Chris Smith on the panel. Again (despite his tantrum on this thread) very knowledgeable and professional. Those, together with Mike Quinn and Todd Compton might have been expected to say something significant. Having so-called TBMs on the panel is not even worth talking about. It doesn't matter. What does matter is commitment to professional application of excellent standards of historiography. Plenty of room for disagreement.I would be nice to have someone on the panel who actually believes in and would academically defend the historicity of the first vision. 6
Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I would be nice to have someone on the panel who actually believes in and would academically defend the historicity of the first vision.Mike Quinn is a believer, and I have heard tales of his personal testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon just infuriating George D. Smith.I don't know about Todd Compton, who may be a believer (I don't know him, but his work is top drawer).However, personal beliefs are often a distraction from the professional issues, and the excellent work of a believing Mormon is often automatically discounted by the hoi-polloi. There is a well-known interviewer who has adopted just such an automatic or a priori set of notions, thus sadly missing a great deal of relevance. 1
treehugger Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The whole vote thing is a mockery.Are you suggesting that we treat others the way they treat us?My attempt at "legitimate discussion" was to challenge his assertion that the First Vision accounts contradict each other. So far, the challenge has been ignored. If Chris has indeed left us for good, I feel at liberty to conclude that he has no good response to that challenge.Not sure what your statement has to with the mockery of many of the post prior to post 41. It seemed self evident that Chris was refering to every post prior to his.
treehugger Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) What FAIR tries to accomplish is to clear away the debris and weeds to leave a more fertile ground for people to nourish their faith in.I am.glad FAIR works for people. I personally do not find any use of their materials. Edited July 12, 2012 by treehugger
Bernard Gui Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Don't you mean ad hominoid? LOLThanks, -Wade Englund-No. You get hominoids from sitting on bowls of posole.Bernard Edited July 12, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Storm Rider Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I suspect the panelists would agree with you that historicity is not determined by a majority vote and that in many respects it's a silly exercise. It was probably proposed mainly for fun and comedic effect. However, as a pedagogical technique, it's not a bad approach. It requires a level of attention and thoughtful engagement from the audience that you wouldn't otherwise get.Chris, do you really think those who attend have not already made up their minds on the FV's believablility? Given the panel I think this is the equivalent of stating your hypothesis, ignore all conflicting data, and conclude your hypothesis was correct. I could think of more enjoyable things to do with my time rather than attend; like having a root canal or maybe a colonoscopy. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 How about conducting a vote before the discussion and then again after the discussionto see if anyone was persuaded by the evidence?Bernard
noel00 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think those who discuss the FV will have to admit now based on the evidence that the Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24 and that the revivals mentioned fit the 1823-24 time frame.
rodheadlee Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Are you suggesting that we treat others the way they treat us?No, but no one should be surprised when it happens.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think those who discuss the FV will have to admit now based on the evidence that the Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24 and that the revivals mentioned fit the 1823-24 time frame.You clearly haven't read the Mike Quinn paper which I mentioned above.
David T Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 You clearly haven't read the Mike Quinn paper which I mentioned above.FWIW, the Quinn paper is being expanded and issued as a book from Kofford. Date and price aren't set yet, and are placeholders. So don't be alarmed! 1
altersteve Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think those who discuss the FV will have to admit now based on the evidence that the Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24 and that the revivals mentioned fit the 1823-24 time frame.You have mentioned this a few times now. But what is it's significance? I really don't see why this matters.
treehugger Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 No, but no one should be surprised when it happens.Double-speak much there rod.
wenglund Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Double-speak much there rod.That's good....show no mercy, treehugger. Hang onto your agenda like a pitbull. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Not sure what your statement has to with the mockery of many of the post prior to post 41.It seemed self evident that Chris was refering to every post prior to his.My post in which I first challenged his assertion that the First Vision accounts contradict each other was #37. It was very much in earnest, and it was not mockery.Chris ignored the challenge and then announced that he was leaving the board.By the way, are you acquainted with the prohibition here against board nannying? Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I am.glad FAIR works for people. I personally do not find any use of their materials.Bully for you. But calmoriah was very much on point with her response to your blanket accusation about FAIR and other apologetics organizations "trusting in the arm of flesh." Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 FWIW, the Quinn paper is being expanded and issued as a book from Kofford. Date and price aren't set yet, and are placeholders. So don't be alarmed!Excellent. Thanks for the notice.
Recommended Posts