DiscussMormonism.com

When it comes to "slavish praise" who can compete with the Mopologists? The self-congratulatory antics at the Yale conferance are now a matter of record. As a current exhibit, I give you this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208612402

JLFuller, a serious-minded junior apologist asks,

The dean of the Harvard Divinity School reportedly said of Hugh Nibley that it was obscene that any one man should know that much. Surely Nibley was one of the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived. So I ask who is the next most brilliant LDS scholar living today? Is there anyone who approaches Nibley's abilities?

So who is next in line as "one of the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived"?

As one might guess, our very own Professor Peterson is nominated,

CJ wrote:Dan Peterson, but he is too modest to admit it.

(how about just thinking it?)

Mars wrote:At the risk of blowing smoke up his krispy kreme filled patootie, I'd vote DCP as well

Kerry Shirts gets a nomination, As does Bill Hamblin from Shirts, on the cjcampbell thread. Interestingly, as professor Peterson gets more and more votes, Bill Hamblin starts throwing in humorous jabs. Jealousy?

Mike Ash tries to keep things even:

MA wrote:it would definately be either Dan or Bill

David Bokovoy and even the hot-tempered young maklelan get a vote.

Anyway, as the thread plays out, it would seem the various members of the apologetic "collective", as Dr. Peterson refers to it in this very thread, have all virtually nominated each other as the most brilliant, most learned men who have ever walked the face of the earth.

And people think I'm too complimentary of Scratch, just because I say he writes well and makes good points once in a while.

Well, if Dr. Peterson is the third or fourth most learned of all those who have been born or ever will be born, I can say I feel honored to have had so many debates with him.

Gadianton wrote:When it comes to "slavish praise" who can compete with the Mopologists? The self-congratulatory antics at the Yale conferance are now a matter of record.

And exactly where is that alleged "record"? Is it a recording? A transcript? Can we examine it?

Gadianton wrote:Anyway, as the thread plays out, it would seem the various members of the apologetic "collective", as Dr. Peterson refers to it in this very thread,

I said nothing about a "collective."

You're misrepresenting what I said.

Gadianton wrote:have all virtually nominated each other as the most brilliant, most learned men who have ever walked the face of the earth.

I nominated nobody. Bill nominated nobody.

Gadianton wrote:I feel honored to have had so many debates with him.

We've had no debates.

The most brilliant and learned men who ever walked the earth were and are not LDS apologists.

Good grief. Who thinks up this stuff? Do these people all write for National Enquirer?

David Bokovoy posted this Nibley quote on the linked thread:

Nibley wrote:The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.

This quote was cherished by certain elders in my mission, including me. We loved Nibley, not for his esteemed scholarship, but for this "spirit of the law" over strict obedience message. I even used this quote as part of my homecoming talk. It was one of the messages that I wished would be heard by more of the leadership of the church. But it's still all white shirts and short hair for them. Oh well. Thanks for posting it, David.

I haven't read a lot of Nibley, but it does seem that he had a rebellious streak running through him once he got outside of discussing the scriptures and antiquities and turned to social and bureaucratic matters.

You and Scratch can compete with the apologists with your constant attribution of brilliance and Christlike humility to each other over the most minor points.

The Nehor, there is no competition here. I do think Scratch's writing is very good. Do you disagree? Can you disagree? Am I wrong to give credit here? I also think Scratch makes some brilliant points. I think others make brilliant points too. I think -- in the case that my theory is correct -- that the plan to identify with, popularize, and then turn resurrection proof logic to a defense of the three witnesses is also fairly brilliant. Brilliance is one thing.

A compliment of fantastic writing and a brilliant post once in a while is nothing, nothing though compared to elevating someone to the capacity of walking among the select handful of the most "learned" who have ever lived.

My compliments, which are truly felt and realistic, are nothing compared to this kind of overblown and very absurd worship. This kind of hubris only exists among the apologists.

Kerry Shirts gets a nomination

Gadianton wrote:I think -- in the case that my theory is correct -- that the plan to identify with, popularize, and then turn resurrection proof logic to a defense of the three witnesses is also fairly brilliant.

This is where you simply go off the rails.

The idea of writing on the resurrection is entirely mine. The only audience that has ever been exposed to even a hasty glance at a first draft of a part of the argument I intend to make was the audience in Mesa, Arizona, last Friday.

Nobody asked me to write on the subject. Nobody suggested it. It's come up in no meeting. I've asked for no permission. I've conferred with nobody. Nobody has committed to publish it. I've spoken with no publisher about it.

And I've told you that.

And I've told you that, although the parallel between the first-century apostolic witness to the resurrection of Christ and the testmony of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon is certainly not lost on me, and that I intend to mention it, the parallel doesn't play any central or even secondary role in my argumentation or my motive. The fact is that belief in the resurrection of Christ is fundamental to my own faith -- in its own right, and not as a way of sliding over to the Book of Mormon.

You're aware of what I've said on this, and yet you persist in your bizarre and utterly untrue fantasy that my personal decision to write on this topic is part of some nonexistent Machiavellian corporate plot by "the apologists" designed to maneuver evangelical scholars into checkmate, or some such nonsense.

It's ridiculous.

And there's no amount of sophistic argument that you can produce that will convince me that I'm wrong. I alone know the scope, motivation, and point of my project. I've scarcely even discussed it with anybody, except, to a certain extent, with my wife. There is no fact about my purpose in doing this that you can possibly bring to my attention that will overturn what I know, to which I have privileged and unique access.

I actually think the resurrection arguments of evangelical apologists is best turned on Brigham Young's transformation into Joseph Smith. Of course, I also regard that as a reductio of their arguments, but that's neither here nor there.