DiscussMormonism.com

Mister Scratch wrote:

I reiterate my challenge to go mano a mano with you in a debate on a topic of your choice dealing with Church history. Your silly rejoinder to me about debating me about something I have said in the past is rejected.

Sorry, Bob, if you are going to reject my choice, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do.

All the world thus knows that you refuse to debate me on topics dealing with Church history. Instead, you choose only to debate the prior contents of this board and what I may have said on it.

As I have constantly pointed out here, your "claimed" expertise is ethics (I don't get this, citing material you don't have and claiming to have it), rhetoric (you are certainly skilled at honing in on the little nits of what people say), rules of logic (you excel in the Latin, for sure), and the deft insult and malignment of the reputations of real people, but when it comes to being read or deeply read in Church history or doctrine, you just are not there. My challenge is meant to expose you for what you are -- a thinly read agent provocateur.

I challenge you to a debate on this board with respect to one of the following topics. We would begin at midnight on a selected day, and we would ask Shades if it is possible to lock everybody else out at least for the first 48 hours, and then all else would chime in. You will have the first shot at answering the question.

Topics:

1. Did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives, and if so, why?
2. Was there post-manifesto plural marriage
3. What is the purpose for the limited geographic theory of the Book of Mormon?
4. Should the Church publish its finances?
5. Does the Church cover up its history?
6. Does the Church have a legitimate basis to claim that it is the only true church?
7. Was the Book of Abraham a revealed work, or merely a fraud?
8. Was Joseph Smith deceived by the Kinderhook Plates?
9. What was the purpose for the Jupiter Talisman?
10. Did B.H. Roberts doubt the Book of Mormon, and if so, why?
11. Was Joseph Smith tried for fraud in the Bainbridge proceedings?

How about a debate on the simple question that Bob McCue has raised:

Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?

Jaybear wrote:How about a debate on the simple question that Bob McCue has raised:

Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?

That sounds like a good idea.

Although I really don't know how rcrockett will be able to argue against Scratch on that one.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Jaybear wrote:How about a debate on the simple question that Bob McCue has raised:

Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?

That sounds like a good idea.

Although I really don't know how rcrockett will be able to argue against Scratch on that one.

I am willing to debate specific topics on specific issues, not general ones where mere handwaves suffice as rhetoric.

But, Scratch just can't do it. You may recall that I wanted to debate him on this issue of peer review. I asked him to select any major university sponsored by a religious institution other than the LDS Church, and we would discuss its journals and their methods of peer review. (To compare to BYU's FARMS Review.)

Because he just cannot put himself out on a limb to expose his lack of knowledge, he refused to name a single institution so that we could get started.

rcrocket wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:

Jaybear wrote:How about a debate on the simple question that Bob McCue has raised:

Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?

That sounds like a good idea.

Although I really don't know how rcrockett will be able to argue against Scratch on that one.

I am willing to debate specific topics on specific issues, not general ones where mere handwaves suffice as rhetoric.

But, Scratch just can't do it. You may recall that I wanted to debate him on this issue of peer review. I asked him to select any major university sponsored by a religious institution other than the LDS Church, and we would discuss its journals and their methods of peer review. (To compare to BYU's FARMS Review.)

Because he just cannot put himself out on a limb to expose his lack of knowledge, he refused to name a single institution so that we could get started.

Out of curiosity, Robert, why is the standard the journals of other religious institutions as opposed to scholarly journals in general. That is, are we talking about 'in house' journals or 'scholarly' journals? The standards for in-house journals will typically be different and not as stringent as scholarly journals.

What precisely is your frame of reference here?

Thanks for clarifying.

guy sajer wrote:
Out of curiosity, Robert, why is the standard the journals of other religious institutions as opposed to scholarly journals in general. That is, are we talking about 'in house' journals or 'scholarly' journals? The standards for in-house journals will typically be different and not as stringent as scholarly journals.

What precisely is your frame of reference here?

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree that in-house journals may have less stringent review that scholarly journals, although finding that line is going to be difficult. For instance, USU publishes the Western Historical Quarterly. Is that inhouse or scholarly?

Moreover, with respect to journals dealing with metaphysics (angels, Gods and salvation), do you think an in-house journal has an ethical duty to find atheists to publish or be a peer reviewer? Must Concordia Theological Quarterly employ a non-believer as a reviewer, just to make sure that opposing points of view are aired?

rcrocket wrote:

guy sajer wrote:
Out of curiosity, Robert, why is the standard the journals of other religious institutions as opposed to scholarly journals in general. That is, are we talking about 'in house' journals or 'scholarly' journals? The standards for in-house journals will typically be different and not as stringent as scholarly journals.

What precisely is your frame of reference here?

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree that in-house journals may have less stringent review that scholarly journals, although finding that line is going to be difficult. For instance, USU publishes the Western Historical Quarterly. Is that inhouse or scholarly?

Moreover, with respect to journals dealing with metaphysics (angels, Gods and salvation), do you think an in-house journal has an ethical duty to find atheists to publish or be a peer reviewer? Must Concordia Theological Quarterly employ a non-believer as a reviewer, just to make sure that opposing points of view are aired?

I'd guess the criteria for in-house depends on who publishes there (mostly in-house persons) and whether authors are 'invited" by the journal, and whether persons from other institutions submit articles there uninvited. Something like that. Haven't given it a lot of thought.

No, I don't believe religious journals have a duty to find atheists. I don't disagree with what you say.

It depends on how we define "peer review." Maybe a better distinction rather than peer-review is scholarly vs. non-scholarly, whereas the former permits journals that cater only to believers but can still be rigorously peer-reviewed (within an accepted theoretical framework that is not questioned) whereas the latter accepts and publishes articles by adherents and non-adherents and does not hold any theoretical framework as given (at least over time).

What do you think?

rcrocket wrote:1. Did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives, and if so, why?
2. Was there post-manifesto plural marriage
3. What is the purpose for the limited geographic theory of the Book of Mormon?
4. Should the Church publish its finances?
5. Does the Church cover up its history?
6. Does the Church have a legitimate basis to claim that it is the only true church?
7. Was the Book of Abraham a revealed work, or merely a fraud?
8. Was Joseph Smith deceived by the Kinderhook Plates?
9. What was the purpose for the Jupiter Talisman?
10. Did B.H. Roberts doubt the Book of Mormon, and if so, why?
11. Was Joseph Smith tried for fraud in the Bainbridge proceedings?

My answers:

1. Yes. Reason: he did not recognize their prior civil marriages.

2. Yes.

3. Depends on who you ask, but I think it's running for cover from mounting scientific evidence.

4. Yes.

5. Depends on what you mean by "cover up," but I think the Church does this on occasion (or at least waters down or misleads).

6. Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." Certainly there is that belief (and doctrine per the D&C) in the Church.

7. Could "revealed" include the possibility it is not an ancient records of real peoples, but more allegory?

8. Yes.

9. You'd have to ask Joseph, but I think it was consistent with his belief in folk magic/occult.

10. Privately, and late in life, I think he did. Why, I'm not sure, but he analyzed the Book of Mormon from a scientific angle for many years, and perhaps the dearth of helpful evidence disheartened him.

11. I think it certainly was akin to fraud, even if that's not the legal term that was used.

Jaybear wrote:How about a debate on the simple question that Bob McCue has raised:

Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?

AWESOME!!

Jaybear is over here now!!

You are one of my fav's on MAD.