Credentials

[_Roger Morrison]

juliann routinely rejects arguments on the basis of credentialism. Case in point: her claim that Brent Metcalfe, one of the most important Book of Abraham scholars in the world, isn't a credentialed handwriting analyst (or whatever her term was), so therefore his arguments don't matter, aren't valid, etc. For juliann (and many other Mopologists), credentials are critical, and can, in effect, be said to function as an emblem of a person's intelligence. (At least according to them.)

What do people think about this? How important are credentials for

1) Historians
2) Scientists
3) Inventors

Hi Richard, are you getting any satisfaction with the answers? "Credentialism" seems very subjective from my reading of many posts here.

In my none-credentialed opinion: there seems to be, sometimes, tooooo much credibility given to credentials, and not enough given to creative thinking. From which all human advancements have come forth. Whether from 'credentialed' sources or not.

It appears to me that a larger percentage of credentialed, "Historians, Scientists" are better record keepers--i guess that's what 'Historians' are supposed to be--than they are at bringing 'new products' to market. (Your Dad, of course, being an exception :-)

"Inventors" (a VERY broad term) on the other hand, very often earn their 'credentials' post-invention.

I think a lot of folks are over-dependent upon "authority" to direct their thoughts &/or actions, than to accept personal-responsibility for them. Hence their necessity to quote some 'expert' to confirm their position. Just the way it is. Or more correctly, how "it" has been made by the establishmentS to retain their established influence over conditioned/indoctrinated/indentured servants, of whatever Institution...

The ongoing contest is between "Ignorance" and "Knowledge". It is only by the application of proveable truths that any dreams will ever be enjoyed consistently. Whether as an individual or for the collective, wrongness never establishes true abundance of life, for long. I respectfuly suggest that is THE reason this Nation, and its people are in such a calamity.

Might it be "History, Science, and Inventiveness" have not been used creditably??? Warm regards, Roger

[_charity]

So then it appears Charity concedes the point - DCP's degrees in Islamic studies and background in, say, Greek, have nothing to do with his "credential" to be an LDS apologist. So she must point to the same credentials many of us share - learning via the church through callings and BYU classes. In the end, he has no more "credentials" than most of us.

I do want to make one correction - Brant Gardner does have credentials that have to do with his area of apologetics. He has a master's degree in Mesoamerican studies, and had worked on his PhD. He has not made this his career, and his degree is dated, along with what he was probably taught while obtaining it, but he still has it.

Nice try, beastie. You thought you would slip that by us? DCP's degree is in Near Eastern languages and culture. Not limited to Islamic studies. That is what he teaches.


Just in case anyone doesn't recognize what "Near East" encompasses, please read the following from wiki:

The Near East is a term commonly used by archaeologists, geographers and historians, less commonly by journalists and commentators, to refer to the region encompassing Anatolia (the Asian portion of modern Turkey), the Levant (Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon), Georgia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia (Iraq and eastern Syria).

[_BishopRic]

In my none-credentialed opinion: there seems to be, sometimes, tooooo much credibility given to credentials, and not enough given to creative thinking. From which all human advancements have come forth. Whether from 'credentialed' sources or not.

Good point. When Grant Palmer asked a few of us to participate with him in his research, it was BECAUSE we were not church historians, but as doctors and lawyers, we (hopefully) had the ability to look at evidence and make reasonable conclusions based on what information was available.

Church apologists have grown up with a particular MO of looking at the challenges he (Grant) calls "Nibleyesque." Instead of looking at the evidence and being reasonable about what it means, they take some obscure twist on a small piece of information, confuse the issue with fancy words and unrelated research about it, then present it to the common member who hears it and says "I don't know what the heck you just said, but it sounds intelligent, so it must be true..."

That's "credentials?!"

[_JAK]

Your misconception here is revealed in your expression “the Church.” There is no “the Church.”

There you go again, JAK, going off topic. Your comments are 'way off topic.

The subject of this thread is Credentials, not multiple churches or your thoughts on Joseph Smith. Try to keep on topic. It will be a nice change.

That said, The Church to charity means the LDS church. It's her church. It's her world. So? Catholics refer to their church as the church. Neither interferes with the others' conception of The Church. And neither requires any permission from you in referring to their church as the church.

Good grief.

Harmony,

I just read the posts and occasionally respond to the words on the screen.

My point was and is that charity has a very narrow, distorted perspective. That is as on topic as one might get in response to her posts.

“Credentials” is hardly a term exclusive to the dogma of a single biased group. If so, it’s a misuse of the term.

“Her (charity’s) world” is one of distortion, deception, and the antithesis of academic honesty. It’s good to keep that in mind and my post was designed to focus on precisely that.

Your straw man attack is irrelevant as you stated:
“And neither requires any permission from you in referring to their church as the church.”

As this bb appears, “permission” to express descent or criticism has not been required.

You also stated:
“Catholics refer to their church as the church.” I would say the same thing about that church. It’s not “the Church.”

However, the Roman Catholic Church has a far greater claim to the phrase as it traces its identity to Peter.

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Now the church to which the Roman Catholic Church refers dates itself back to this biblical character.

And the Mormons, well, they date to Joe Smith whose history is well documented objectively and by those who are not indoctrinated in the LDS religious dogma.

So, the Roman Catholics have the superior claim to call themselves the Church.

However, I am not defending that. I’m pointing out the objective historical documentation of that church as opposed to anything which followed the Protestant Reformation.

Harmony states (regarding charity):
“It's her world. So?”

The “so” is obvious. Her world is one of distortion, misrepresentation, manipulation of language, dodging issues, refusal to address questions relevant to her claims, etc.

That is the “so” in response to your statement/question.

Realize, harmony, that the bias, dogma and doctrine of a single religious group is hardly representative of the larger religion, in this case Christianity. And that standard can be applied to any single group or split or start-up or version of Christianity set forward as the only true version.

Such noise is no more and no less than the noise from any other religious dogma which claims that only our version, beliefs, practices are “true.”

Blind belief can and should be challenged.

JAK

[_Runtu]

If you have expertise in literary theory, then if there are criticisms based on literary theory, you have credibility. Latin American history and culture, ditto. But on Joseph Smith and plural marriage? Not a drop based on your degrees.

Then Dr. Peterson has no expertise based on his degrees, nor does Jack Welch.

The way I'm reading you, if a critic does not have a specific degree, then his or her expertise is no better than a lay member's.

So, who has more credibility in discussing ancient scripture?

David Wright, chair of the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at Brandeis?
or
Daniel Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic?

Who has more expertise in discussing Book of Mormon biology?

David Stewart, MD
or
The Dude, PhD in molecular biology

John Gee, PhD in Egyptology
or
Robert Ritner, PhD in Egyptology

Richard Bushman, PhD in history
or
Michael Quinn, PhD in history

Chris Smith, grad student in theology
or
Juliann, sometime grad student in something or other

Terryl Givens, professor of literature
or
Blixa, professor of literature

[_charity]

If you have expertise in literary theory, then if there are criticisms based on literary theory, you have credibility. Latin American history and culture, ditto. But on Joseph Smith and plural marriage? Not a drop based on your degrees.

Then Dr. Peterson has no expertise based on his degrees, nor does Jack Welch. The way I'm reading you, if a critic does not have a specific degree, then his or her expertise is no better than a lay member's.

Actually, I am pretty sure you don't really believe that. A person who has gone through the discipline of study, research, writing, testing, etc. will have a very important set of skills to deal with information not in his field of study. Such DCP's ph.d. in Near Eastern languges and culture and then studying the Book of Mormon.

So, who has more credibility in discussing ancient scripture?

David Wright, chair of the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at Brandeis?
or
Daniel Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic?

Who has more expertise in discussing Book of Mormon biology?

David Stewart, MD
or
The Dude, PhD in molecular biology

John Gee, PhD in Egyptology
or
Robert Ritner, PhD in Egyptology

Richard Bushman, PhD in history
or
Michael Quinn, PhD in history

Chris Smith, grad student in theology
or
Juliann, sometime grad student in something or other

Terryl Givens, professor of literature
or
Blixa, professor of literature

I believe I said that if you have "dueling experts" then you would look at other factors. Such as bias. Agendas. Etc. For instance, Dan Vogel, as polished as his academic skills are absolutely refuses to believe in the presence of any supernatural beings or events. So any evidence he sees that would seem to support the clam of a vision, gold plates, etc. he refuses to consider. Or Robert Ritner, who was writing anti-Mormon statements before he weighed into any Book of Abraham things.

Just a note here about The dude. He keeps making arguments against the Book of Mormon which are erroneous, not because he doesn't understand gentics, but because he doesn't understand the Book of Mormon.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Chris Smith, grad student in theology
or
Juliann, sometime grad student in something or other

Ouch....that has to hurt Jules. LOL

[_Runtu]

Actually, I am pretty sure you don't really believe that. A person who has gone through the discipline of study, research, writing, testing, etc. will have a very important set of skills to deal with information not in his field of study. Such DCP's ph.d. in Near Eastern languges and culture and then studying the Book of Mormon.

And my degree in history taught me how to approach history, so I, like Dr. Peterson, have learned the set of skills I need to deal with Mormon history, right? And my graduate studies in literary theory have also given me a valuable set of tools with which to evaluate the Book of Mormon as a work of literature.

I believe I said that if you have "dueling experts" then you would look at other factors. Such as bias. Agendas. Etc. For instance, Dan Vogel, as polished as his academic skills are absolutely refuses to believe in the presence of any supernatural beings or events. So any evidence he sees that would seem to support the clam of a vision, gold plates, etc. he refuses to consider.

Just as DCP et al. refuse to consider nonsupernatural origins for the Book of Mormon. What you're saying is that you prefer 'experts' whose biases match your own.

Or Robert Ritner, who was writing anti-Mormon statements before he weighed into any Book of Abraham things.

Ritner was involved in anti-Mormon statements? When? Where? CFR

Just a note here about The dude. He keeps making arguments against the Book of Mormon which are erroneous, not because he doesn't understand gentics, but because he doesn't understand the Book of Mormon.

Hmmm. People keep saying this, but I've never seen The Dude make arguments against the Book of Mormon, just against a particular approach (the hemispheric theory). Do you have some examples of The Dude's erroneous arguments?

[_charity]

And my degree in history taught me how to approach history, so I, like Dr. Peterson, have learned the set of skills I need to deal with Mormon history, right? And my graduate studies in literary theory have also given me a valuable set of tools with which to evaluate the Book of Mormon as a work of literature.

Sure. Then we are left to examine the quality of your argument, as we are DCP's.

Just as DCP et al. refuse to consider nonsupernatural origins for the Book of Mormon. What you're saying is that you prefer 'experts' whose biases match your own.

I don't think the converse is necessarily correct. Anyone who comes to believe the Book of Mormon is of divine origin has considered the non-divine origin theory, and then learned, through personal experience that it is of divine origin.

[
Ritner was involved in anti-Mormon statements? When? Where? CFR

See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritners publication on the translation of the Book of Breathings. Clear evidence of bias, with attacks on Church doctrine, deliberately omitted references, etc.

[

Just a note here about The dude. He keeps making arguments against the Book of Mormon which are erroneous, not because he doesn't understand gentics, but because he doesn't understand the Book of Mormon.

Hmmm. People keep saying this, but I've never seen The Dude make arguments against the Book of Mormon, just against a particular approach (the hemispheric theory). Do you have some examples of The Dude's erroneous arguments?

Any argument against the Book of Mormon on the grounds of DNA is false. And any geneticist knows it. So, if he continues to make any such argument, hemispheric or LGT, it means he is just trying to sneak one over on people who don't know. And think his argument is valid because he is an "expert."

This is the problem with credibility.

[_Runtu]

Sure. Then we are left to examine the quality of your argument, as we are DCP's.

That's my position. You, however, argued that without specific academic expertise, we are at a handicap. You appear to be backing off from that.

I don't think the converse is necessarily correct. Anyone who comes to believe the Book of Mormon is of divine origin has considered the non-divine origin theory, and then learned, through personal experience that it is of divine origin.

Just as people like Dan Vogel and me have considered the divine origin theory and then learned through personal experience that it is not of divine origin. You seem to want it both ways: apologists are openminded, whereas critics are not. I call BS.

See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritners publication on the translation of the Book of Breathings. Clear evidence of bias, with attacks on Church doctrine, deliberately omitted references, etc.

You said he was involved in anti-Mormon statements before he opined on the Book of Abraham. You seem to be changing your tune yet again. Nothing Ritner has ever published on the Book of Abraham conflicts with what we know about it. Even Juliann et al. have said nothing worse than "he used an inappropriate tone." Stephen Thompson, a believing church member, reached the same conclusions as Ritner, but you guys don't go after him. Why is that?

Any argument against the Book of Mormon on the grounds of DNA is false.

He's not making any arguments against the Book of Mormon on the grounds of DNA. This is a strawman, pure and simple.

And any geneticist knows it. So, if he continues to make any such argument, hemispheric or LGT, it means he is just trying to sneak one over on people who don't know. And think his argument is valid because he is an "expert."

This is the problem with credibility.

So, going after The Dude with a strawman is acceptable? Can you not tell the difference between the following statements?

- DNA evidence makes a hemispheric model untenable.
- DNA evidence proves the Book of Mormon is bogus.

I'd say The Dude isn't the one with the credibility problem.