Mormonmaniac Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Its a chronic mental condition as the result of a schizophrenic dance between faith, hope, reason and skepticism. Well, hang in there.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Read the thread if you'd like to know what they do those who identify themselves by name. Coincidentally, are you the "Bob Smith" that participated in that thread? Here's Bob's participation: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/wheat-and-tares-apologetics-a-case-study/#comment-1390305871 For another relevant example of the kind of tactics employed see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/12/hamblins-misreading/I read that thread before I read your remarks, and I enjoyed it immensely -- thinking that "Yakov Ben Tov" made a series of excellent points. That reply is mine, of course, and I stand by it. Do you find fault with it? I still don't understand why you think that anonymous postings are a good thing, even though I treat such posters with the same respect as those who use their real names. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Really? Digital subscriptions cost just ten bucks and includes the other two periodicals. It's a bargain.If I had a spare $10, I would use it to boost my donation to the Interpreter Foundation or to FairMormon. Ironically, I can access all of their written output without a one-year waiting period, whether I donate or not. As bargains go, it's hard to beat free. Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) It's often helpful to know the author. But it's certainly not required in order to simply assess the arguments at hand. Some of our esteemed founding fathers often published under pseudonyms.All other things being equal, the author who stands behind his words with his true identity ranks higher on the credibility scale in my esteem. And garners more of my respect. As I said, maybe it's a generational thing. I notice Robert F. Smith (his true identity) pretty much agrees with me. Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 ... (I)f you intend to publish an entire blog, you ought to have the fortitude and bravery to stand behind it with your identity. ... I do! http://Greatgourdini.wordpress.com We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming from this shameless bit of self-promotion.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 I do! http://Greatgourdini.wordpress.com We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming from this shameless bit of self-promotion. And it's a fine blog, Ken K. Gourdin. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 And it's a fine blog, Ken K. Gourdin.Thank you, Sir. High praise indeed, coming from a wordsmith of your caliber.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 And it's a fine blog, Ken K. Gourdin.Some might wonder why I use the middle initial. My surname isn't all that common, but believe it or not, there's more than one of us. (My doppelganger teaches computer science in, I think, North Carolina )
omni Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Some might wonder why I use the middle initial. My surname isn't all that common, but believe it or not, there's more than one of us. (My doppelganger teaches computer science in, I think, North Carolina )I thought you were just trying to get used to it for when that future GA calling comes your way.
LifeOnaPlate Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Yes, and I notice that BYU Studies has adopted a similar subscription policy. From what I can tell, BYU Studies also charges for all their back catalog if you want a full pdf of the issue whereas the Institute makes the full pdf available free after one year. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 So Jared was at some other tower? And his language was at risk of being confounded... But not at the Tower of Babel?So basically if there's anything in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit with external history you just shrug it off and chalk it up to myth?There were lots of ziggurats (temple towers) in Mesopotamia over a period of thousands of years. The Tower of Babel is simply one known to the Jews in Exile in Babylon, and that is why the name "Babel" became attached to the story in Genesis -- as the stories were passed down and edited/redacted, before the canon reached final form. That is why there is no tower of "Babel" in the Jaredite account -- it predates the Babylonian Captivity by thousands of years. The same thing happened to the many versions of the Great Deluge which predate the biblical account. To understand this, you might want to read David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Part One, Genesis-Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford, 2014), 26-34, 110-113. 1
LifeOnaPlate Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 All other things being equal, the author who stands behind his words with his true identity ranks higher on the credibility scale in my esteem. And garners more of my respect. As I said, maybe it's a generational thing. I notice Robert F. Smith (his true identity) pretty much agrees with me.My sense is it's easier for people established in a career to use their real name. (Not always, of course.)
sethpayne Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) My sense is it's easier for people established in a career to use their real name. (Not always, of course.) Quite true, I think. Plus, I know of at least one very well-educated LDS blogger who uses a pseudonym to avoid his posts being read a certain way because he may, or may not (at least as far as his readers know) be an "expert." Edited April 3, 2015 by sethpayne
cinepro Posted April 3, 2015 Author Posted April 3, 2015 If I had a spare $10, I would use it to boost my donation to the Interpreter Foundation or to FairMormon. Ironically, I can access all of their written output without a one-year waiting period, whether I donate or not. As bargains go, it's hard to beat free. But conversely, some might say you get what you pay for.
cinepro Posted April 3, 2015 Author Posted April 3, 2015 I think this can be a healthy way to approach much of our scripture, however I rarely (if ever) see this championed by church leaders. Sure there's the token example that always gets brought up about Adam's rib, but the worldwide flood, Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc., these are all taught as literal events. Indeed... For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an “artful parable” and an “old tale.” 11 But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33). The Flood and the Tower of BabelEnsign January 1998
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 But conversely, some might say you get what you pay for.Does that include salvation? See Isaiah 55:1-2.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) My sense is it's easier for people established in a career to use their real name. (Not always, of course.) Quite true, I think.I don't know why it has to be that way -- unless their non-professional status causes them to lack courage to stand behind their convictions. But that would be begging the question. Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
canard78 Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 There were lots of ziggurats (temple towers) in Mesopotamia over a period of thousands of years. The Tower of Babel is simply one known to the Jews in Exile in Babylon, and that is why the name "Babel" became attached to the story in Genesis -- as the stories were passed down and edited/redacted, before the canon reached final form. That is why there is no tower of "Babel" in the Jaredite account -- it predates the Babylonian Captivity by thousands of years. The same thing happened to the many versions of the Great Deluge which predate the biblical account. To understand this, you might want to read David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Part One, Genesis-Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford, 2014), 26-34, 110-113. You might want to let the editors of the chapter headings know that. Such a shame that you scholars are still being ignored and that fiction is still being perpetuated as fact. [/sarcasm] Moroni abridges the writings of Ether—Ether’s genealogy is set forth—The language of the Jaredites is not confounded at the Tower of Babel—The Lord promises to lead them to a choice land and make them a great nation. Out of interest, of all the Mesopotamian towers being built, which of them lead to the confounding of languages? Ether 1:34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words. 35 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded.
LifeOnaPlate Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 I don't know why it has to be that way -- unless their non-professional status causes them to lack courage to stand behind their convictions. But that would be begging the question. Sometimes it can be as simple as employers not caring much for Mormons, and seeing an applicant who discusses Mormonism online can decrease the chances they'll hire the person. It's sad, but it happens. 2
sethpayne Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Sometimes it can be as simple as employers not caring much for Mormons, and seeing an applicant who discusses Mormonism online can decrease the chances they'll hire the person. It's sad, but it happens. I know for a fact this is true. It hasn't happened to me because of the industry I work in, but it has negatively impacted some of my friends who are looking to go into other fields.
sethpayne Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) I don't know why it has to be that way -- unless their non-professional status causes them to lack courage to stand behind their convictions. But that would be begging the question. Scott, I think you are just really way off here. As much as we don't want to admit it, people are generally suspicious of Mormons, think we are "weird", etc... Especially in the Eastern US. Besides, who would want to get on a person's bad side and have their name dragged through the mud (this happens to both believers, liberal mormons, and critics). Just look at Dan. The guy gets beat up online literally every week. I imagine that were he just starting his career he wouldn't want a potential employer to google his name and have second or third link go to the "Mormon Curtain" where Dan is accused of being all sorts of nasty things. As a person who is involved in the hiring process I can tell you that the online "baggage" people carry is important to hiring managers. If a person can't properly manage their online activity/identity, how can a firm possible trust them to manage the good name of the company? This has nothing to do with cowardice. But we could do an experiment. Try applying to a job at an out-of-state paper. Report back and let us know how they react to having your name slandered on the "other board." Do you think they are going to take the time to suss out the nonsense? I Given the way Dan, and to a lesser extent you, have been treated by those with different views, I can see why one would want to use a pseudonym. You may wear it as a badge of honor but young people don't have that luxury when they are first starting out. Edited April 3, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Scott, I think you are just really way off here. As much as we don't want to admit it, people are generally suspicious of Mormons, think we are "weird", etc... Especially in the Eastern US. Besides, who would want to get on a person's bad side and have their name dragged through the mud (this happens to both believers, liberal mormons, and critics). Just look at Dan. The guy gets beat up online literally every week. I imagine that were he just starting his career he wouldn't want a potential employer to google his name and have second or third link go to the "Mormon Curtain" where Dan is accused of being all sorts of nasty things. As a person who is involved in the hiring process I can tell you that the online "baggage" people carry is important to hiring managers. If a person can't properly manage their online activity/identity, how can a firm possible trust them to manage the good name of the company? This has nothing to do with cowardice. But we could do an experiment. Try applying to a job at an out-of-state paper. Report back and let us know how they react to having your name slandered on the "other board." Do you think they are going to take the time to suss out the nonsense? I Given the way Dan, and to a lesser extent you, have been treated by those with different views, I can see why one would want to use a pseudonym. You may wear it as a badge of honor but young people don't have that luxury when they are first starting out.Without risk, there would be no need for courage. Which is why, as I said before, all other things being equal, I have greater admiration for an author who boldly puts his personal imprimatur upon his own words than one who hides behind a pseudonym. Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
LifeOnaPlate Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Without risk, there would be no need for courage. Which is why, as I said before, all other things being equal, I have greater admiration for an author who boldly puts is personal imprimatur upon his own words than one who hides behind a pseudonym. I have greater respect for people who can honestly engage the strength of ideas themselves regardless of their source, whether pseudonymous or otherwise. Of course, I think we must always determine the likelihood that engaging is worthwhile. It takes two seconds reading YouTube comments or comments at the Trib to know that anonymity can be abused and can lead to egregious online behavior. It doesn't take too long to know whether an anonymous writer is worth engaging or not. Anyway, this is besides the original topic at hand. Apologies for contributing to the derail.
sethpayne Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Without risk, there would be no need for courage. Which is why, as I said before, all other things being equal, I have greater admiration for an author who boldly puts is personal imprimatur upon his own words than one who hides behind a pseudonym. You see no value in pragmatism? If you had a young wife and family that needed your support perhaps you would feel differently. Courage is taking care of your family responsibilities. Posting on message boards or blogs, discussing controversial topics or subjects that most others would find very odd, is just plain dumb if it puts your livelihood at risk.
Recommended Posts