Saints, Vol 1 available now for free on Kindle

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you could explain the difference between hagiography and history for us?  

In a way that you would actually understand??? Yeah, nope, I sincerely doubt I know anyone who has that capacity. Sorry.

Keep raging, bro! 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you could explain the difference between hagiography and history for us?  

CFR that the new work is intended as a “hagiography.”

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I provided the preface and my interpretation of what it’s saying, the loosely based on history is essentially what the story is, but they aren’t going to come right out and say that explicitly or it could undermine the confidence of black and white thinkers in the church.  

So you have nothing, then, that expresses any intent to provide something just “loosely based on history.” That is your own hostile inference that doesn’t square with anything stated by the publisher or author. 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please...never mind if already done.

Do you dispute the above?

For the CFR on the sources, one example of not treating them critically would be the Mary Whitmer story with the plates.  The accounts are extremely late and second hand (her kids, she had passed away long before).  The narrative history doesn’t attempt to critically analyze the content of the elements they chose for the narrative.  They just include it because it tells a story they want to tell.  It’s just not how scholarly history is written.  

It’s not that they are making these accounts up or anything, I didn’t imply that.  All the content can be found in somebody’s diary entry.  They aren’t attempting to evaluate evidence or corroborate things against all the evidence available.  As I mentioned before, that wasn’t the purpose of this story telling.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This rather blatant attempt at well poisoning reflects poorly on your own credibility. 

It’s not well poisoning for me to point out what should be obvious.  This isn’t scholarly history.  The church isn’t even making that claim, but apparently you are, which is odd.  You are taking a position that is not even supported by the church’s own preface about the narrative. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In a way that you would actually understand??? Yeah, nope, I sincerely doubt I know anyone who has that capacity. Sorry.

Keep raging, bro! 

Are you saying you didn’t study the difference between a hagiography and scholarly history in your program, or that you just can’t explain it?  I can explain it just fine and I don’t have a PHD.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that the new work is intended as a “hapiography.”

For the same reason the church wouldn’t use the words loosely based on history, they likely won’t use the word hagiography.  But this is precisely what was written in the narrative.  Again, your position is so far away from what the church has actually said about these narratives its funny that you are arguing for a point that isn’t even suppported by church statements.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you have nothing, then, that expresses any intent to provide something just “loosely based on history.” That is your own hostile inference that doesn’t square with anything stated by the publisher or author. 

I love it when someone answers a question and the person comes right back with “you have nothing” statement.  Who’s raging now....

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you saying you didn’t study the difference between a hagiography and scholarly history in your program, or that you just can’t explain it?  I can explain it just fine and I don’t have a PHD.  

I don't know if you've unintentionally misread what I wrote above or if you've intentionally misrepresented it. Neither possibility suggests a fruitful outcome might arise from any further attempt at explanation.

'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'...

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I provided the preface and my interpretation of what it’s saying, the loosely based on history is essentially what the story is, but they aren’t going to come right out and say that explicitly or it could undermine the confidence of black and white thinkers in the church.  

I can think of no finer demonstration of black-and-white thinking than the notion that something written in a narrative style cannot at the same time be accurate and stand up to scrutiny. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can think of no finer demonstration of black-and-white thinking than the notion that something written in a narrative style cannot at the same time be accurate and stand up to scrutiny. 

Is this a good time to point out that my PhD thesis, which passed examination with unanimous approval and no request for any revisions or edits, was written predominantly in the narrative style?

Edited September 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CFR please...never mind if already done.

Do you dispute the above?

CFR still stands for the first claim please.

Also do you dispute the statement the entire narrative is founded on historical sources?

Edited September 4, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s not well poisoning for me to point out what should be obvious.  This isn’t scholarly history.  The church isn’t even making that claim, but apparently you are, which is odd.  You are taking a position that is not even supported by the church’s own preface about the narrative. 

The position I am taking is to oppose your a priori, contra-factual assertion that the intent was to produce a work that was "loosely based on history."

[rockpond]

As I read this, I’m reminded how many times I have been told (here and elsewhere) that it isn’t the Church’s responsibility to teach history.  That we shouldn’t look to the Church for historical accuracy.  The Church’s job is to promote faith. 

That’s why, for example, we chose one of the First Vision account to use in our canonized history, right?  Rather than presenting all four plus the second-hand accounts?

Will I read this new set of texts?  Certainly.  Do I look at it as an attempt to accurately tell an unbiased history of the church?  Of course not.  That would be foolish. 

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is this a good time to point out that my PhD thesis, which passed examination with unanimous approval and no request for any revisions or edits, was written predominantly in the narrative style?

Then you should be eminently qualified to explain the difference.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I love it when someone answers a question and the person comes right back with “you have nothing” statement.  Who’s raging now....

I'm merely observing the obvious. If you had something, you would have quoted it by now.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do I look at it as an attempt to accurately tell an unbiased history of the church?  Of course not.  That would be foolish. 

That would indeed be foolish since such a text could never be produced by anyone.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Then you should be eminently qualified to explain the difference.  

Thank you for acknowledging that. 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR still stands for the first claim please.

Also do you dispute the statement the entire narrative is founded on historical sources?

I believe I’ve answered every CFR.  Shared the preface and my interpretation of it.  I answered your question about the sources in my last response, here it is again in case you missed it.  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s not that they are making these accounts up or anything, I didn’t imply that.  All the content can be found in somebody’s diary entry.  They aren’t attempting to evaluate evidence or corroborate things against all the evidence available.  As I mentioned before, that wasn’t the purpose of this story telling.  

 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The position I am taking is to oppose your a priori, contra-factual assertion that the intent was to produce a work that was "loosely based on history."

Well, provide some evidence to the contrary to support your point then.  I gave the preface and my reading of it.  I’m also reading the narrative and making my observations along the way.  Your disagreements haven’t included any substantive commentary.   

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you could explain the difference between hagiography and history for us?  

I'm all for hagiography. I love the stories of Catholic saints. When the devil was tempting St. Francis, St. Francis told him, "Open your mouth again and I will <defecate> in it!" (except he didn't say defecate, he went vulgar). Now, isn't that a better story than reading about St. Francis being schizophrenic or something?

I like the book Life of Pi for this reason. What is the better story? Hagiography has its place, for sure. Don't dismiss it  

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you for acknowledging that. 

And yet you still choose not to elucidate us.  Curious

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I read this, I’m reminded how many times I have been told (here and elsewhere) that it isn’t the Church’s responsibility to teach history.  That we shouldn’t look to the Church for historical accuracy.  The Church’s job is to promote faith. T

I venture a guess that when you have been told this it was in the context of Sabbath day worship services or classes, where the priority is to build faith or motivate to righteousness.

The Church, in fact, has a proud history of recording, preserving and disseminating its history. The two multi-volume works by B. H. Roberts attest to that (History of the Church and A Comprehensive History of the Church). In the early days of the Church, the Lord decreed that "there shall be a record kept among you" (Doctrine and Covenants 21:1).

More than a century ago, the Church Historian's Office was established, a forerunner to today's Church History Department, which is second to none in its professionalism and historiography, having brought forth such products as the Joseph Smith Papers.

Quote

That’s why, for example, we chose one of the First Vision account to use in our canonized history, right?  Rather than presenting all four plus the second-hand accounts?

All of the accounts are readily accessible today, including in the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City.

Quote

Will I read this new set of texts?  Certainly.  Do I look at it as an attempt to accurately tell an unbiased history of the church?  Of course not.  That would be foolish. 

I'd call it foolish to assert without substantiation that the publisher is not attempting to give an accurate account. As for "unbiased history," do you know of an unbiased history of anything? Every author has a bias. It is naive to think otherwise.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Then you should be eminently qualified to explain the difference.  

May I ask what your academic background is? Do you have any advanced degrees in history? Or anything else, for that matter?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And yet you still choose not to elucidate us.  Curious

I think he's choosing not to engage you.