More Questions Surface About DCP's Use of Sources

[_Morley]

Indeed. Even if Jones's anti-semitism didn't become fully visible until later, the fact remains that DCP was using this book to (1) defend his use of ad hominem attack, and (2) to suggest that books written by homosexuals are somehow "tainted." As I recall, there is that passage in his essay where he adduces Hugh Nibley's suggestion that Korihor was actually a "sodomite," and that this was the reason for Korihor's turning against the Church. It just doesn't get anymore whacked-out than that.

In his footnotes:

48. Alma 30:52-53 (emphasis added). Hugh Nibley ("Last Call: An Apocalyptic Warning," in The Prophetic Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1989], 510) suggests, on the basis of Alma 30:17-18, that Korihor may have been a homosexual whose theology flowed directly from his and his followers' need for self-justification.

[_Kishkumen]

I appreciate the insight on Jones' devolution down the path of bigotry and pseudo-scholarship in support of it. I agree with Blixa that the problems should be evident in Jones' unreasoning hatred of homosexuality in the farcical book that Daniel quotes. Daniel evidently does not agree, since it is the anti-Semitic tag that he understandably takes exception to, while he apparently stands by the anti-homosexual crackpot scholarship of Jones. He can speak for himself, of course, but he has not indicated that this was any error on his part, even in retrospect.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I’m not really convinced that Dan really cares about the audience of to whom he writes, I think he has a pretty low regard for the Mormon public, because he simply doesn’t give a crap about the quality or truth bearing properties of anything he writes.

He’ll use any author for any purpose he sees fit, and doesn’t care about the consequences.

[Guest]

Certainly you're all quite right about the essay and about Jones' longstanding conspiracy-mongering. The piece is reprehensible enough on its own without tying it to antisemitism. I don't think DCP is an antisemite, and I thought the good Doctor was painting with too broad a brush.

FARMS-style apologetics damns itself without its opponents having to stretch.

hc
http://theuseoftalking.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/mischling-of-the-first-degree/

PS: Unlike the rest of EMJ's effusions, Degenerate Moderns and its companion volumes, Dionysos Rising and Living Machines were published by an established Catholic publisher (I wonder how that happened?) and had the cachet of appearing on a list with Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger. Most of his oeuvre has been published by tiny presses or self published. No excuse for Dan, but at least he wasn't getting these from the Aryan Nations underground.

[_Chap]

48. Alma 30:52-53 (emphasis added). Hugh Nibley ("Last Call: An Apocalyptic Warning," in The Prophetic Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1989], 510) suggests, on the basis of Alma 30:17-18, that Korihor may have been a homosexual whose theology flowed directly from his and his followers' need for self-justification.

I'd like, if possible, to retain some regard for Nibley's intelligence.

But this is what Nibley actually wrote (download the pdf at:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/063-14-25.pdf )

This [Korihor's preaching] was good news to the beautiful people, “causing them to lift their heads in wickedness,’ enjoying unlimited criminal and sexual license, “leading away .. women and also men to commute whoredoms” (Alma 30:18) - a plain but discreet way of hinting at rampant homosexuality.

Can someone help me out here? I don't think even Droopy could manage to get homosexuality out of this citation.

By the way, it is clear that Nibley is not saying what DCP said he said, in that Nibley does not suggest that Korihor's " theology flowed directly from his and his followers' need for self-justification" as homosexuals - good use of sources again, Dr. Peterson!

[_Kevin Graham]

I’m not really convinced that Dan really cares about the audience of to whom he writes, I think he has a pretty low regard for the Mormon public, because he simply doesn’t give a s*** about the quality or truth bearing properties of anything he writes.

He’ll use any author for any purpose he sees fit, and doesn’t care about the consequences.

That's the FARMS way, established by Hugh Nibley. Load up the bibliography with a bunch of fluff, as much fluff as you can muster, because it leaves the impression that you're producing amazing scholarship. This especially has an effect on anti-intellectuals like Loran Blood. These guys know that people aren't likely to check their sources.

[_hans castorp]

That's the FARMS way, established by Hugh Nibley.

It's all there in No Ma'am, That's Not History. Follow your file leader.

hc