RevTestament Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So long story short that's why serious academics take on false names to blog on this board, and you have seen a dearth of real Mormon Scholars posting here anymore. Please excuse odd spelling and punctuation as this was dictated. Hinckleyism running amok.
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's odd because I had a conversation with someone who is quite influential in "Mormon inteligencia" today, and she was bemoaning the same issue. We can discuss it if you like. The issue is that since the shake-up in the Maxwell Institute, apologetics is considered a dirty word and scholarship now defines itself as being impartial Mormon studies. If one is to be considered a genuine scholar nowadays one must not do apologetics. The reason for that is non-member Scholars do not take Mormon Scholars seriously because they represent the Mormon position. Non-member Scholars of course do not consider the Book of Mormon to be historical therefore if you want to be a scholar you also must at least take the position that the Book of Mormon is not historical or at least cultured couch your discussion in terms which leaves the question of historicity out of the equation. On the other hand Mormon Academia wants to be taken seriously. They don't want BYU to look like a parochial school, but to be taken seriously as an academic center. So the upshot is that Mormon Scholars can either be considered seriously by other Scholars by not advocating the Mormon position or they can damage their academic reputation by taking the standard Mormon line. To sit at the cool table with the guys from Harvard and Yale you can't be a true blue Mormon. I was contacted a few years ago by a very well-known Mormon scholar who asked me to delete vast quotes that I had made of some of his posts because he was deleting his apologetic posts. Of course he will remain nameless. So long story short that's why serious academics take on false names to blog on this board, and you have seen a dearth of real Mormon Scholars posting here anymore. Please excuse odd spelling and punctuation as this was dictated. To be taken seriously as an academic can one give even a token credence to Joseph and Brigham?
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's odd because I had a conversation with someone who is quite influential in "Mormon inteligencia" today, and she was bemoaning the same issue. We can discuss it if you like. The issue is that since the shake-up in the Maxwell Institute, apologetics is considered a dirty word and scholarship now defines itself as being impartial Mormon studies. Hmm. In my limited perspective, I don't find the claim of impartial history to be an honest stand to take. (Thank you for restoring the topic.) 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If one is to be considered a genuine scholar nowadays one must not do apologetics. The reason for that is non-member Scholars do not take Mormon Scholars seriously because they represent the Mormon position. Non-member Scholars of course do not consider the Book of Mormon to be historical therefore if you want to be a scholar you also must at least take the position that the Book of Mormon is not historical or at least cultured couch your discussion in terms which leaves the question of historicity out of the equation. On the other hand Mormon Academia wants to be taken seriously. They don't want BYU to look like a parochial school, but to be taken seriously as an academic center. So the upshot is that Mormon Scholars can either be considered seriously by other Scholars by not advocating the Mormon position or they can damage their academic reputation by taking the standard Mormon line. ...Or, we can simply make rapid strides towards bridging the historicity gap. 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: To sit at the cool table with the guys from Harvard and Yale you can't be a true blue Mormon. I was contacted a few years ago by a very well-known Mormon scholar who asked me to delete vast quotes that I had made of some of his posts because he was deleting his apologetic posts. Of course he will remain nameless. So long story short that's why serious academics take on false names to blog on this board, and you have seen a dearth of real Mormon Scholars posting here anymore. Wouldn't even know what the cool table looks like. Used to bring sack lunch from Mom every day, with a reminder of her love written on my napkin. Please excuse odd spelling and punctuation as this was dictated. Amanuensis? Or something more automated? 1
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 16 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Hinckleyism running amok. ? I don't follow your meaning. Clarification please?
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: To be taken seriously as an academic can one give even a token credence to Joseph and Brigham? Well I am hardly one to speak as a representative of Mormon Academia since I have never been part of it. My education is fully secular. But I would guess that those kind of studies would presume a secular point of view regarding their leadership ability etc. We must understand this in the way we look at say, Roman Catholicism, and whether or not we would consider the Eucharist to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus himself. Even on this board I think no Mormon would seriously consider that. Similarly, non-Mormons are not going to see Joseph and Brigham as prophets of God. We do not regard Mohammad as a prophet, etc. Academics seek to be "objective" in studying religion. It is not something nefarious, it is a scientific attitude which as I have point out many times, deliberately "brackets" the question of God and looks at things strictly naturalistically. That is the scientific perspective in action, like it or not. Not everyone is Mormon and for a serious discussion of the nature of religion to happen, there must be the presumption that objectivity is possible and that it is the ideal. To me, that is a fantasy. When I am emperor of the universe I will dictate that presumptions of objectivity will be banned, and everyone will just express their opinions openly and duke it out saying whatever they think. That might take a little time though. Just remember to vote for Bukowski when the next Universal Emperor election comes around 4
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 44 minutes ago, hagoth7 said: Hmm. In my limited perspective, I don't find the claim of impartial history to be an honest stand to take. (Thank you for restoring the topic.) ...Or, we can simply make rapid strides towards bridging the historicity gap. Wouldn't even know what the cool table looks like. Used to bring sack lunch from Mom every day, with a reminder of her love written on my napkin. Amanuensis? Or something more automated? Just the google keyboard on my phone. Push the little mike button and speak. No way I can type that much on a phone.
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: ...We do not regard Mohammad as a prophet... What is your definition for "prophet"? "...the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng Isn't Muhammed's description above essentially how many Christians (including many LDS) view Moses? Edited June 9, 2017 by hagoth7
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: ..objectivity... To me, that is a fantasy. When I am emperor of the universe I will dictate that presumptions of objectivity will be banned, and everyone will just express their opinions openly and duke it out saying whatever they think. That might take a little time though. Just remember to vote for Bukowski when the next Universal Emperor election comes around Fun post. Question being, when that happens, what will your new clothes look like? Edited June 9, 2017 by hagoth7
Bobbieaware Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hagoth7 said: What is your definition for "prophet"? "...the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng Isn't Muhammed's description above essentially how many Christians (including many LDS) view Moses? There's a big difference between someone who receives "a portion of God's word" through the light of Christ and an actual empowered and duly authorized prophet of God who holds priesthood power and keys. Also, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob testifies that all true prophets of God bear witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose atoning sacrifice makes forgiveness of sin and forward spiritual progression possible. Since Muhammad rejected Jesus Christ as the atoning Son of God (he, in fact, proclaimed God needs no atoning Son to be able to do his work and that it is blasphemous to claim He does need one) , Muhammad falls far short of meeting the necessary criteria in order to be said to be a true prophet of God. Edited June 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
Alan Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 07/06/2017 at 2:19 PM, drums12 said: Really? I gather you know little of Brant Gardner's significant contributions to defending the Book of Mormon with scholarship rather than polemic. You gather incorrectly.
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) What you've said and what I said are not in conflict. That's not saying I completely agree with your assertion. As another LDS source has said, we do not know in full what that person actually received. We also don't know what he decided or was told to withhold. Other than the claim to have been visited by Gabriel, the one who visited Daniel, Mary, others, and Joseph Smith. Edited June 9, 2017 by hagoth7
USU78 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well I am hardly one to speak as a representative of Mormon Academia since I have never been part of it. My education is fully secular. But I would guess that those kind of studies would presume a secular point of view regarding their leadership ability etc. We must understand this in the way we look at say, Roman Catholicism, and whether or not we would consider the Eucharist to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus himself. Even on this board I think no Mormon would seriously consider that. Similarly, non-Mormons are not going to see Joseph and Brigham as prophets of God. We do not regard Mohammad as a prophet, etc. Academics seek to be "objective" in studying religion. It is not something nefarious, it is a scientific attitude which as I have point out many times, deliberately "brackets" the question of God and looks at things strictly naturalistically. That is the scientific perspective in action, like it or not. Not everyone is Mormon and for a serious discussion of the nature of religion to happen, there must be the presumption that objectivity is possible and that it is the ideal. To me, that is a fantasy. When I am emperor of the universe I will dictate that presumptions of objectivity will be banned, and everyone will just express their opinions openly and duke it out saying whatever they think. That might take a little time though. Just remember to vote for Bukowski when the next Universal Emperor election comes around Nobody in academe is going to accept a yBu professor's ouevre as "not Mormon." Embrace, therefore, the Mormonerdiness! 3
RevTestament Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: There's a big difference between someone who receives "a portion of God's word" through the light of Christ and an actual empowered and duly authorized prophet of God who holds priesthood power and keys. Also, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob testifies that all true prophets of God bear witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose atoning sacrifice makes forgiveness of sin and forward spiritual progression possible. Since Muhammad rejected Jesus Christ as the atoning Son of God (he, in fact, proclaimed God needs no atoning Son to be able to do his work and that it is blasphemous to claim He does need one) , Muhammad falls far short of meeting the necessary criteria in order to be said to be a true prophet of God. I'd say if he did receive "a portion of God's light" it got abrogated by the later portion he received elsewhere...
RevTestament Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 27 minutes ago, USU78 said: Nobody in academe is going to accept a yBu professor's ouevre as "not Mormon." Embrace, therefore, the Mormonerdiness! Yep. May as well. Hinckleyism didn't work. 1
Bobbieaware Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I'd say if he did receive "a portion of God's light" it got abrogated by the later portion he received elsewhere... I tend to agree. The Church's occasional positivity toward Islam is likely more an attempt at bridge building than anything else -- a hope of finding some common ground.
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Nobody in academe is going to accept a yBu professor's ouevre as "not Mormon." Embrace, therefore, the Mormonerdiness! Yes I agree. Quite honestly, were I my previous atheist self I would skim every article coming out of- sorry- Utah as a whole looking for Mormanity before taking it seriously anyway. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 6 hours ago, hagoth7 said: What is your definition for "prophet"? "...the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng Isn't Muhammed's description above essentially how many Christians (including many LDS) view Moses? Yeah yeah, you know what I meant. That's not what this thread is about. In your next testimony meeting bring that one up, that Mohammad is a prophet and see how far that gets you. 1
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah yeah, you know what I meant. Actually, no I didn't. In your next testimony meeting bring that one up, ...and see how far that gets you. Thx, but no.
stemelbow Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/6/2017 at 7:04 AM, champatsch said: Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean. Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text. The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship. I'm troubled by the example you have given. Brant acknowledged one point from a book you characterize as Anti-Mormon and that leads the question "why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments?" Seems odd you'd characterize Brant as "quickly" agreeing with anti-Mormon arguments, when he simply acknowledged one point out of a book. If Brant "uncritically" agreed with anti-Mormon treatments of the BoM why he wouldn't be a believer, no? That he seems open enough to accept that anyone, no matter their affiliation, can have a valid point should be seen as a good thing not a bad thing. 2
Physics Guy Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 If you want to argue against someone, it is best to agree as quickly as possible with all of their arguments that are good arguments. First of all that avoids wasting time attacking unassailable positions, and secondly it raises your credibility by showing that you are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to recognize immediately which opposing arguments are good. And thirdly, of course, it serves the truth. To concede a few points is not surrendering the whole battle. Only people who are so blind to reason that they weigh arguments by the pound would imagine that. Arguing is not tug-of-war, but judo. Give way completely where you can afford to give way; apply force only at the point of decisive balance. Even if someone is badly wrong, it is very unusual that they are wrong about everything. In fact they are probably right about some important things. Acknowledging those things about which they are right is the best first step towards straightening them out on the points where they are wrong.
hagoth7 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Physics Guy said: If you want to argue against someone, it is best to agree as quickly as possible with all of their arguments that are good arguments. First of all that avoids wasting time attacking unassailable positions, and secondly it raises your credibility by showing that you are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to recognize immediately which opposing arguments are good. And thirdly, of course, it serves the truth. To concede a few points is not surrendering the whole battle. Only people who are so blind to reason that they weigh arguments by the pound would imagine that. Arguing is not tug-of-war, but judo. Give way completely where you can afford to give way; apply force only at the point of decisive balance. Even if someone is badly wrong, it is very unusual that they are wrong about everything. In fact they are probably right about some important things. Acknowledging those things about which they are right is the best first step towards straightening them out on the points where they are wrong. Good sportsmanship. Fair play. And your screen name is fitting. Rhetorical physics. When decency and courtesy (love) are extended (how Jesus said to treat those who consider themselves our enemies), we more often see a visceral response mirroring that same level of kindness. Finger pointing vanishes. Drama dissipates. And instead of an enemy, we're suddenly genuinely seeing each other for the first time. And starting to appreciate perhaps for the first time what they bring to the table. Now to simply live up to that ideal better in my own communications... Edited June 10, 2017 by hagoth7
Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 The latest from champatsch: Stanford Carmack, “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History,” Interpreter, 25 (2017): 239-259, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+(Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+(RSS)) .
Tacenda Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 8 hours ago, hagoth7 said: Good sportsmanship. Fair play. And your screen name is fitting. Rhetorical physics. When decency and courtesy (love) are extended (how Jesus said to treat those who consider themselves our enemies), we more often see a visceral response mirroring that same level of kindness. Finger pointing vanishes. Drama dissipates. And instead of an enemy, we're suddenly genuinely seeing each other for the first time. And starting to appreciate perhaps for the first time what they bring to the table. Now to simply live up to that ideal better in my own communications... You are a fair man also, I need to learn from both your wisdom.
mfbukowski Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 20 hours ago, hagoth7 said: What is your definition for "prophet"? I am not concerned with semantics- obviously that question opens up a can of worms. If you are Mormon you have a different definition than others. The Mormon definition is one who has a testimony of Jesus Christ The rest of the world goes by this: Quote prophet [prof-it] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com noun 1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration. 2.a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people ofIsrael: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets. (often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and,according to popular belief, possessing magical powers. a person who practices divination. 3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after theapostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations andpredictions. 1 Cor. 12:28. 4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam. 5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader. 6.a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom. 7. a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement. Why are you asking?
mfbukowski Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The latest from champatsch: Stanford Carmack, “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History,” Interpreter, 25 (2017): 239-259, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+(Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+(RSS)) . Mystery solved, I suppose. Yep. I think he knows a little about the subject. 1
Recommended Posts