Ray A wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:You think the S/R theory is a dud?
I think it's an attempt to "explain" the production of the Book of Mormon while ignoring inconvenient facts from first-hand witnesses.
Okay.
How Wide The Divide?
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Okay.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: How Wide The Divide?
A fine post, Ray. Well, as I think I've stated before, even though I think Nibley wasted his brain defending a bunch of nonsense, he remains somone who I believe ultimately influenced me for the better. And I will always have a certain respect for him. And as I argued on ZLMB long ago, I think Nibley, given his education and importance level in Mormon thought to belief ratio might actually stand as the most significant borderline Chapel Mormon.
I believe in his Book of Mormon lectures, which I read, he stated that he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. Yet the apologists who followed him have not heeded this warning, and in fact have made Book of Mormon geography their central doctrine, to the point of waging war, with harsh words and harrassing articles, not to mention general nastiness, toward any Mormon who dares disagree with it.
The "intellectual ellitism" is also predictable. Well, the success and wealth of the church might not have been predictable, but the fantastic and odd success that it has enjoyed is bound to produce educated people who are willing to defend it's principles. (some great German intellectuals defended the Nazi principles as well)
But since no one else on earth takes Mormonism seriously beyond a cultural and social phenomena, there is little to no incentive for, let's say, Mesoamerican professionals to dig deeply into bizarre claims about Book of Mormon being a real history. But there is a huge incentive for a few LDS, out of the many millions of members, to take this seriously, and given the general level of success the religion has attained, it's not surprising that handful might come with legitimate degrees. So they laugh and point their fingers at "amateurs" who have other careers and take up Book of Mormon as a hobby, when the reality is that there is no market for "professionals" who aren't TBMs.
So it's kind of a sad pride and haughtiness of the apologists.
Anyway, Nibley's extremism has it's own set of problems, I won't go into it publically, but there's a few interesting tidbits I could relate offline.
I believe in his Book of Mormon lectures, which I read, he stated that he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. Yet the apologists who followed him have not heeded this warning, and in fact have made Book of Mormon geography their central doctrine, to the point of waging war, with harsh words and harrassing articles, not to mention general nastiness, toward any Mormon who dares disagree with it.
The "intellectual ellitism" is also predictable. Well, the success and wealth of the church might not have been predictable, but the fantastic and odd success that it has enjoyed is bound to produce educated people who are willing to defend it's principles. (some great German intellectuals defended the Nazi principles as well)
But since no one else on earth takes Mormonism seriously beyond a cultural and social phenomena, there is little to no incentive for, let's say, Mesoamerican professionals to dig deeply into bizarre claims about Book of Mormon being a real history. But there is a huge incentive for a few LDS, out of the many millions of members, to take this seriously, and given the general level of success the religion has attained, it's not surprising that handful might come with legitimate degrees. So they laugh and point their fingers at "amateurs" who have other careers and take up Book of Mormon as a hobby, when the reality is that there is no market for "professionals" who aren't TBMs.
So it's kind of a sad pride and haughtiness of the apologists.
Anyway, Nibley's extremism has it's own set of problems, I won't go into it publically, but there's a few interesting tidbits I could relate offline.
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.
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.
-
_Ray A
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Gadianton wrote:Anyway, Nibley's extremism has it's own set of problems, I won't go into it publically, but there's a few interesting tidbits I could relate offline.
His "Strange Ships and Shining Stones" isn't the best example of worthwhile apologia. He clearly, sometimes, resorted to abject nonsense.
-
_Ray A
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Gadianton wrote:I believe in his Book of Mormon lectures, which I read, he stated that he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. Yet the apologists who followed him have not heeded this warning, and in fact have made Book of Mormon geography their central doctrine, to the point of waging war, with harsh words and harrassing articles, not to mention general nastiness, toward any Mormon who dares disagree with it.
That's why I started this thread, in part. Don't think I agree with Nibley's apologetics, but I do agree with his skepticism of "academia" in general. While some of his history essays have made in into reputable journals, as far as I know none of his apologetic essays have done likewise. And Mesoamerican scholars wouldn't touch his thoughts on this with a 20 foot barge-pole.
-
_Ray A
Re: How Wide The Divide?
I'll come to the "crunch" of my feelings. I think almost all apologists are "emotionally invested" in this. I have no problem understanding why, but if "spiritual experiences" are the real bases of belief, then arguing them using logic is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. When you have to resort to "academia" to keep believing, then rest assured that in the end logic with win out with most (check out RFM). And that's why it's quite possible that apologetics might be harmful to "true belief".
Look, for example, at This.
Does anyone think the average "Chapel Mormon" gives a rat's arse about this?
Look, for example, at This.
Does anyone think the average "Chapel Mormon" gives a rat's arse about this?
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: How Wide The Divide?
dude, that is hilarious.
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.
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.
-
_Ray A
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Thus it can be summed up:
1) Revealed Mormonism: Nonsense.
2) Scholarly Mormonism: Authentic.
The "blend" is what makes it seem "authentic". Blacks are "inferior" in 1954, but in 1980 any form of racism is "intolerable", incuding Mark E. Petersen's comments about Blacks. The next edition of The Ensign, should publish his comments in full as a "test" of "orthodoxy", 1950s style. Anyone free of cognitive dissonance will be awarded The Congressional Medal of Honour for endurance beyond "reasonable expectations", in the field of apolgetic battle.
Never, in the field of apologetics, was so much owed by so many to so few.
1) Revealed Mormonism: Nonsense.
2) Scholarly Mormonism: Authentic.
The "blend" is what makes it seem "authentic". Blacks are "inferior" in 1954, but in 1980 any form of racism is "intolerable", incuding Mark E. Petersen's comments about Blacks. The next edition of The Ensign, should publish his comments in full as a "test" of "orthodoxy", 1950s style. Anyone free of cognitive dissonance will be awarded The Congressional Medal of Honour for endurance beyond "reasonable expectations", in the field of apolgetic battle.
Never, in the field of apologetics, was so much owed by so many to so few.
-
_marg
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Ray A wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:You think the S/R theory is a dud?
I think it's an attempt to "explain" the production of the Book of Mormon while ignoring inconvenient facts from first-hand witnesses.
And just when after reading a number of your recent posts I'm thinking how sensible and logical you sound, you go and spoil it for me. J Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon on his own little lonesome self and no Ray, no super powerful entity picked the meglomaniac Smith and helped him write it, no superpower was involved at all, the first-hand witnesses were either gullible, delusional or in on the scam. The Spalding theory is the only theory that makes any sense to fit with the majority of the evidence.
-
_Ray A
Re: How Wide The Divide?
marg wrote:
And just when after reading a number of your recent posts I'm thinking how sensible and logical you sound, you go and spoil it for me.
I can't please everyone all of the time, marg. Wish I could do more to help, but my reading of the evidence leaves me to this view. Ironically, lately I've thought your reasoning quite good, but on this one, I really don't think your reasoning squares with the facts. In fact, I'm sure of it.
-
_marg
Re: How Wide The Divide?
Ray A wrote:marg wrote:
And just when after reading a number of your recent posts I'm thinking how sensible and logical you sound, you go and spoil it for me.
I can't please everyone all of the time, marg. Wish I could do more to help, but my reading of the evidence leaves me to this view. Ironically, lately I've thought your reasoning quite good, but on this one, I really don't think your reasoning squares with the facts. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Perhaps eventually you'll come around to thinking logically about it.