The McClellan White Debates

[_Doctor Scratch]

Take home message: Mak in a landslide.

What was the basis of his "landslide" victory? I.e., in what substantive sense do you think he showed that James White was wrong?

[_stemelbow]

What was the basis of his "landslide" victory? I.e., in what substantive sense do you think he showed that James White was wrong?

You want to debate the debate? Well, I'll be, it appears Scratch has an itch to actually engage something substantive rather than whether Peterson is a good guy or not. Let's just say its a bit too far above me, so I'll leave Mak's words and White's to speak for themselves, while reveling in the tribe mentality that suits my needy disposition. or I'll look into it deeper and offer comments as time permits.

[_maklelan]

I'd be happy to answer Scratch's question. I still have one post left to finish however, in which I address his comments about the Trinity. Despite that, in my other posts I showed rather conclusively that White (1) based his conclusions regarding who is Christian on petty sectarianism and nothing more, (2) accommodated his definition of Christianity to whichever group he wanted to exclude, (3) could not engage my argument on an intelligent or informed level, and (4) grossly misunderstood and misrepresented critical biblical scholarship.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What was the basis of his "landslide" victory? I.e., in what substantive sense do you think he showed that James White was wrong?

You want to debate the debate? Well, I'll be, it appears Scratch has an itch to actually engage something substantive rather than whether Peterson is a good guy or not. Let's just say its a bit too far above me

It's all over your head, and yet you're convinced it's a landslide? Okay. I thought you had a real reason, though it's perfectly fine if you don't.

[_Kishkumen]

I would also argue that there is no heuristic value in the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy (besides the convenience of pigeonholing for those who prefer not to acknowledge the complexity and pluriformity of all religious belief and praxis). Case in point, a debate with those commonly assigned to the "Chapel Mormon" category would largely result in the same devolution. Broad stereotypes can no doubt be conjured up which distinguish the methods of the two, but as methodological variation within each category exceeds the variation between the categories, they are, again, heuristically worthless.

Heuristics are tools of interpretation. Tools. They help us think about issues. Very few people would argue that categories like these are much more than that. While some spend endless time quibbling over the accuracy and usefulness of various terms and categories, others continue to use them, whether these are brands of early Christianity (was there or was there not something called Gnosticism) or facets of the contemporary Mormon community. The fact that people continue to use these categories/terms puts the lie to your contention that they are "heuristically worthless." If they were, they wouldn't continue to be used.

[_stemelbow]

It's all over your head, and yet you're convinced it's a landslide? Okay. I thought you had a real reason, though it's perfectly fine if you don't.

In Wade-like fashion I will make a note that Scratch's sarcastasm meter is straight up broke.

But I'll happily concede that Mak himself can summarize the points better than I any day. After all he did all the leg-work to provide the slam-dunk, not I. Oh he did that. Well, my work is done, somehow.

[_Kishkumen]

Despite that, in my other posts I showed rather conclusively that White (1) based his conclusions regarding who is Christian on petty sectarianism and nothing more...

LOL. OK. Link?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'd be happy to answer Scratch's question.

I didn't ask you, Mak. I asked Stemelbow. He was kind enough to helpfully clarify that he didn't understand what you two were discussing, but that he nonetheless felt (or intuited?) that you'd managed a "landslide" victory nonetheless. Sure is interesting, isn't it? I bet you're thankful to have your "victory" celebrated in this fashion.

Oh, and you've got Simon, too, I suppose. How is it, I wonder, that Simon came to learn about your "battle" with White? Do you think he just stumbled upon it by chance? Or is he a regular reader?

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's all over your head, and yet you're convinced it's a landslide? Okay. I thought you had a real reason, though it's perfectly fine if you don't.

In Wade-like fashion I will make a note that Scratch's sarcastasm meter is straight up broke.

So you're saying that you were "sarcastically" claiming that the arguments sailed over your head, even while you fail to clarify (and, now, defer to Mak) why you think the arguments constituted a "landslide" victory?

But I'll happily concede that Mak himself can summarize the points better than I any day. After all he did all the leg-work to provide the slam-dunk, not I. Oh he did that.

You think he did, anyhow. Despite not understand the "how's" and "why's" of it, apparently. I'm sure he's delighted to have fans like you cheering him on.

Well, my work is done, somehow.

It sure is.

[_maklelan]

Heuristics are tools of interpretation. Tools. They help us think about issues. Very few people would argue that categories like these are much more than that. While some spend endless time quibbling over the accuracy and usefulness of various terms and categories, others continue to use them, whether these are brands of early Christianity (was there or was there not something called Gnosticism) or facets of the contemporary Mormon community. The fact that people continue to use these categories/terms puts the lie to your contention that they are "heuristically worthless." If they were, they wouldn't continue to be used.

Categories are tools for understanding. If the tools mislead us or fail to help us understand they are heuristically useless, irrespective of how much they are used. I don't see how the internet/chapel dichotomy helps anyone better understand anything about Mormonism. I don't personally know anyone who thinks the dichotomy serves any purpose other than to marginalize debate opponents. It's an artificial dichotomy. That certainly impedes understanding. I don't believe it helps us at all to better understand Mormonism. It's thus heuristically worthless.