DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades wrote:

Mercury wrote:I think negative responses to those who do their research is systemic within Mormon culture. Your incident you described shades is somewhat different from that because you reacted to another's due diligence.

Forgive me, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that my reaction was different because I was no longer a part of Mormon culture?

If that's indeed what you mean, then I still think the mopologists' hypocritical stance (in light of recent Gee/Ritner events) is worth mentioning.

Sorry, that was clear as mud Mormons are predisposed to object to those who support their claims, and your reaction to KG's actions is different from the Mormon reaction.

The first edition of Abraham in Egypt was reviewed in Dialogue:

Extremes of Eclecticism

For ease of reference:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

Dr. Shades wrote:For ease of reference:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

Thanks. That was some reading. You could tell the reviewer was really pained to have to take down Nibley, but if the book is that big of a mess, it was well-deserved.

That was indeed edifying reading. It hit many of the essential problems with Nibley: the everything-is-connected hodge podge of history/mythology/religion, the overwhelming amount of seemingly-scholarly references and name-dropping citations, the many problems with footnoted references (which are themselves so numerous as to seem like a Heculean task to anyone wanting to check them out), the over-reaching and distorting attempts at fashioning the slightly-similar into "parallel" "proofs," all of which bleed so much into each other that they are hard to organized as distinct and separate problems.

I've always thought it was always just a show, just theater, really. Nibley was used in works like this to present the kind of charicature of an "academic" or "intellectual" that would impress a collection of rubes: an insult not only to Nibley, but also his audience.

I haven't come across anyone who I thought actaully "hated" the person using the online name of "Kevin Graham". I know a few on either side of the apologetic aisle who have found his cantankerous posting style and farcical hubris to be quite repelling at times. But, that doesn't mean he is "hated".

Besides, "hatred" is a rather strong emotion, and one that is typically reserved for those thought to be of significance. I am not sure these day whether "Kevin Graham" register anything more than a very dim and infrequent blip on the apologetic radar--not unlike myself.

So, what makes some of you believe he is "hated"?

My reason for asking (besides my finding the claim dubious at best), is that if such a hatred does exist, it may be helpful to explain to the alleged haters why it may be very much to their disadvantage to hate. I would need to know who the supposed haters are so that I could explain that to them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I do get a "hate" vibe from juliann's posts about him.

wenglund wrote:I haven't come across anyone who I thought actaully "hated" the person using the online name of "Kevin Graham". I know a few on either side of the apologetic aisle who have found his cantankerous posting style and farcical hubris to be quite repelling at times. But, that doesn't mean he is "hated".

Besides, "hatred" is a rather strong emotion, and one that is typically reserved for those thought to be of significance. I am not sure these day whether "Kevin Graham" register anything more than a very dim and infrequent blip on the apologetic radar--not unlike myself.

So, what makes some of you believe he is "hated"?

My reason for asking (besides my finding the claim dubious at best), is that if such a hatred does exist, it may be helpful to explain to the alleged haters why it may be very much to their disadvantage to hate. I would need to know who the supposed haters are so that I could explain that to them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not long ago you suggested that critics of the church are bigoted and hateful, and I've seen this site and other exmo sites decried as "hate speech." Yet when people question Kevin's honesty and integrity, say that he's merely stirring up the pot to get attention, you can't bring yourself to use such a word.

Of course Kevin was once praised for his diligence, when he was fighting for the "right" side, just as runtu was once praised for being a peace-maker when he was on the "right" side. Now Kevin is a malicious pot-stirrer, seeking destroy the careers of honest men, and runtu is a "board nanny".

Is anyone the least bit surprised by this?

I have noticed that there is a special antipathy reserved for apologists turned critics, even more-so than exmormons in general. Once you were part of the "team" that claimed to be able to provide scholarly, logical rebuttals to the issues that most less informed LDS would disregard as "anti-mormon lies" (such as Joseph Smith marrying other mens' wives), and now you're a turncoat. Your reversal is more personal and more threatening than the loss of faith of regular ole' chapel Mormons.

Runtu wrote:Not long ago you suggested that critics of the church are bigoted and hateful, and I've seen this site and other exmo sites decried as "hate speech." Yet when people question Kevin's honesty and integrity, say that he's merely stirring up the pot to get attention, you can't bring yourself to use such a word.

Wait, you mean religious appologists have stooped down to using double standards?! What ever is the world coming to when you can even rely on religious zealots to be fair and impartial towards people that don't hold with their ideas?

I'm calling Shananigans on this!