Once again you insult our intelligence. You quote Coe and refuse to give us his bona fides regarding the Book of Mormon. I have now placed you into ignore mode.
I can't help but wonder if he's doing this purposely or if his reading comprehension is really that bad.
The problem with what "What's up, Chuck?" Dowis is saying is that he has some harebrained notion of "Book of Mormon bonafides" in his head. Just what might these be, I wonder? Can one earn a degree in Book of Mormon studies somewhere? Is there some test you have to take after reading it?
But you see, I never quoted Coe, so why should I have to defend his "bona fides"? I read his article and said that it was clear to me that, despite what Sorenson said, he was quite familiar with Book of Mormon scholarship. That's it. Seemed pretty clear. But Charles went off on some rant about how I needed to show where Coe had done an in-depth study of the Book of Mormon; "utterwise" (I couldn't bring myself to mock that one), I was just being rude and insulting.
I can't help but wonder if he's doing this purposely or if his reading comprehension is really that bad.
It is. Charles is one of the first defenders of the faith I learned to ignore. Information, not matter how carefully detailed for him, goes in one ear and out the other, with very little to interrupt its journey.
Last edited by Tator on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Mister Scratch wrote:I am looking for instances of LDS scholars attempting to present LDS theories in a secular, mainstream academic venue. What I have in mind would be something like, say, DCP attending a history conference and discussing the Nephites use of metal. Or, for another example, Sorenson publishing an article in which he discusses his theories about Zarahemla.
This isn't going to happen. Preaching to the converted at MAD is one thing, going in front of a bunch of what DCP would consider his intellectual "peers" (I doubt he considers message board posters his peers by the way) is quite another.
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
This isn't going to happen. Preaching to the converted at MAD is one thing, going in front of a bunch of what DCP would consider his intellectual "peers" (I doubt he considers message board posters his peers by the way) is quite another.
It's always possible he, and his other LDS intelligentsia, actually view the regular MADdites as barely one step up from the folklore-ish Wyoming Mormons.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
charity wrote:I think the Church "dumbed down" the introduction for the ignorant and the idiots who couldn't understand that "principle" and "principal" are two differenet words with two different meanings.
On first reading, my response about your reference to "the ignorant and the idiots" was going to be why would you refer to fellow church members that way. Then I realized you must be referring to non-LDS who don't believe LDS doctrine. That fits with a lack of awareness and respect that I have noticed emanating from some Mormons. I guess it's a big load to carry when a person thinks they know more than everybody else. Of course they do. There is only one truth and they have it.
I think the Church "dumbed down" the introduction for the ignorant and the idiots who couldn't understand that "principle" and "principal" are two differenet words with two different meanings.
Well, I think it's rude for Charity to talk about Joseph Smith that way.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Mister Scratch wrote: Oh, really? When was the last time you received an issue of even, say, National Geographic containing an article by DCP which discussed the validity of the Book of Mormon as a historical document? When was the last time Bill Hamblin, or any other Mopologist, presented this kind of stuff at a legit academic conference? (No: FARMS/FAIR does not count.)
Just becauseyou can't recognize a legitmate academic conference from a walnut doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Mister Scratch wrote: Oh, really? When was the last time you received an issue of even, say, National Geographic containing an article by DCP which discussed the validity of the Book of Mormon as a historical document? When was the last time Bill Hamblin, or any other Mopologist, presented this kind of stuff at a legit academic conference? (No: FARMS/FAIR does not count.)
Just becauseyou can't recognize a legitmate academic conference from a walnut doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
??? C'mon, Charity. You know nothing about my academic status. Further, I am still waiting for you---or anyone else---to provide evidence that frankly LDS positions have been advanced in legit academic venues.
Mister Scratch wrote: Oh, really? When was the last time you received an issue of even, say, National Geographic containing an article by DCP which discussed the validity of the Book of Mormon as a historical document? When was the last time Bill Hamblin, or any other Mopologist, presented this kind of stuff at a legit academic conference? (No: FARMS/FAIR does not count.)
Just becauseyou can't recognize a legitmate academic conference from a walnut doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
??? C'mon, Charity. You know nothing about my academic status. Further, I am still waiting for you---or anyone else---to provide evidence that frankly LDS positions have been advanced in legit academic venues.
I will say it again: Legit and secular are not synonymous. You obviously cannot tell the difference bewteen the two, and until you can there is no point in even discussing it with you.