Gadianton wrote:This is an outrage! Are you telling me that the apologists set out to buy academic credibility?
You should check out Givens' book on the Book of Mormon, which was published, sadly, by Oxford. He presents a sugar-coated version of the case for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Hey, it was published by Oxford. Those who know no better might actually believe him on that point.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Here's an excerpt from the sunstone link that John Larsen provided:
In hallway conversations, some attendees, especially those attuned to the internal politics of events of this kind, expressed feelings that while the conference was an important step toward vigorous academic exchange on LDS ideas, it felt in some ways like a “BYU road show,” and that perhaps the influence of their sponsorship created a conference structure (with only LDS presenters, Shipps excepted) that allowed Mormon ideas to be blessed by the glow of an ivy league setting without really having to be subjected to rigorous give-and-take.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Trevor wrote:I was under the impression that both theology and history were the subjects of the conference, so Quinn would be an obvious choice as a participant. It is also somewhat amusing that Blake Ostler, who isn't even an academic or trained as such, but a lawyer, should be preferred over Mike Quinn. While it is true that he has written on Mormon theology extensively, he has also horrifically wrenched the text of the KFD, and plays the part of the apologist almost as much as the amateur theologian.
You are quite right. The formal title of the conference had the word "history" (or some variation) in it. And as you point out, one presenter, Ostler, is a lawyer by profession, and DCP (another presenter) is certainly no theologian.
EDITED TO ADD:
Here is the official name of the conference: "God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History" (emphasis mine).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
This is an outrage! Are you telling me that the apologists set out to buy academic credibility?
Well, that definitely seems to be the case. You know, something else strikes me as being very suspect---namely, the supposed fact that this conference was "organized" by some graduate student. I find that very hard to believe, and wonder instead if the grad student was some kind of "front man" for whomever was actually pulling the strings.
Ultimately, it seems that those involved in the planning of this conference operated according to the same "stacked deck" policy that governs peer review at FARMS Review.
Gadianton wrote:As Trever pointed out, Quinn is a real historian. Blake, while I like the guy a lot, is not a professional theologin, but at least he has a masters. Niether Kathleen Flake nor Daniel Peterson are qualified at all to speak on theology.
Kathleen Flake has an MA in Liturgical Studies from the Catholic University of America. Her doctorate is in the history of Christianity with a minor in theology. She is very qualified to speak on theology.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Dr. Shades wrote:Here's an excerpt from the sunstone link that John Larsen provided:
In hallway conversations, some attendees, especially those attuned to the internal politics of events of this kind, expressed feelings that while the conference was an important step toward vigorous academic exchange on LDS ideas, it felt in some ways like a “BYU road show,” and that perhaps the influence of their sponsorship created a conference structure (with only LDS presenters, Shipps excepted) that allowed Mormon ideas to be blessed by the glow of an ivy league setting without really having to be subjected to rigorous give-and-take.
That is pretty much what I recall. Non-LDS, and even more measured, conscientious LDS scholars rolling their eyes at the more celebratory and less rigorous moments in the presentations. Unfortunately, this kind of intra-faith back patting is not all that uncommon in the world of religious scholarship.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Just a minor huh? I guess that's better than DCP, but quinn is still far more qualified.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Trevor wrote: That is pretty much what I recall. Non-LDS, and even more measured, conscientious LDS scholars rolling their eyes at the more celebratory and less rigorous moments in the presentations. Unfortunately, this kind of intra-faith back patting is not all that uncommon in the world of religious scholarship.
To think: the apologists pumped all this money into buying the credibility and gravitas of the Yale location, and then could not control their glad-handing and back-patting. Such a shame.