Hamblin and Peterson: Might as well be a couple of rocks.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Another blog post up concerning Mopologetics.

I hate literary pablum. I hate it even more when pablum is presented to a large audience in the place of thoughtful and informed writing. Bill Hamblin and Daniel Peterson gave the internet another steaming bowl of pablum with all the usual pretense of scholarship and intelligent writing but it fails to deliver on every front.

I’ve seen these two whine on Facebook about how they only have 800 or so words and that they can’t publish some detailed account of someone’s philosophy or belief. Such whining is baseless, because that isn’t being asked of them. Is it so hard to express something interesting about Aristotle’s God in 800 words? Not really.

Conclusion:

So there is a consistent way for someone who holds to an Aristotelian kind of philosophy to conceive of God as this prime mover who doesn’t directly meddle in the affairs of creation, but that a righteous paragon (I dunno, like Abraham maybe) is ever turning his mind to God and exercising his ability to close in on the perfection of his being that he is able to better apprehend the will of God and share that inspiration. Such an event might look like God is giving something to Abraham directly, but a close inspection of categories and causation as expounded by Aristotle could reveal the opposite (Maimonides comes close to this view in his ‘Guide For The Perplexed’).

I know Deseret News isn’t exactly a shining example of informed commentary, but when it employs a couple of PhDs in good faith to produce a short and insightful column, it should get that. Instead, Peterson and Hamblin just sort of make crap up and don’t care about the consequences. It is a wonder why they got removed from NAMIRS.

SAUCE

[Guest]

I’ve seen these two whine on Facebook about how they only have 800 or so words and that they can’t publish some detailed account of someone’s philosophy or belief. Such whining is baseless, because that isn’t being asked of them. Is it so hard to express something interesting about Aristotle’s God in 800 words? Not really.

If one understands something well, one can state it succinctly. Verbosity is a product of ignorance.

[_Kishkumen]

The Peterson/Hamblin piece was infotainment. I agree with Stak's criticism of their distortion of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

[_DrW]

Last paragraph in the subject blog post from Stack:

I know Deseret News isn’t exactly a shining example of informed commentary, but when it employs a couple of PhDs in good faith to produce a short and insightful column, it should get that. Instead, Peterson and Hamblin just sort of make crap up and don’t care about the consequences. It is a wonder why they got removed from NAMIRS.

This is the third time in the last two days that this general idea of apologists lack of respect for their audience has come up on this board.

For example, a very few minutes ago, I noted this same kind of sloppiness with Carl Griffins description of the current situation an MI in terms of their projected production of books.

While Kish commented that he was sure that MI would "get over my disappointment in them" (I'm sure he is right), the larger issue of the general quality and relevance of what the apologists write and publish (IMHO) continues to be a problem for the image of the Church.

Given the recent performance by a spokesman for the new MI (Carl Griffin) not sure things are going to get any better any time soon.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28243

[_Sethbag]

I’ve seen these two whine on Facebook about how they only have 800 or so words and that they can’t publish some detailed account of someone’s philosophy or belief. Such whining is baseless, because that isn’t being asked of them. Is it so hard to express something interesting about Aristotle’s God in 800 words? Not really.

If one understands something well, one can state it succinctly. Verbosity is a product of ignorance.

What?





ps: just kidding.

[_Kishkumen]

For example, a very few minutes ago, I noted this same kind of sloppiness with Carl Griffins description of the current situation an MI in terms of their projected production of books.

While Kish commented that he was sure that MI would "get over my disappointment in them" (I'm sure he is right), the larger issue of the general quality and relevance of what the apologists write and publish (IMHO) continues to be a problem for the image of the Church.

Given the recent performance by a spokesman for the new MI (Carl Griffin) not sure things are going to get any better any time soon.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28243

The perception of sloppiness on Carl's part is your own imagination at work. He has represented things at MI as they currently stand, and that is something you don't have sufficient information to gainsay or any basis to doubt.

[_Sethbag]

Think of an inconceivably long chain of dominos standing in line. In order to start them collapsing, somebody or something needs to tip the first domino over. All the rest follow.

Yes, just like the "turtles all the way down" infinite chain of gods Mormons believe in. Did someone need to tip that first domino over? Or was there no first domino? Yea verily, it was dominoes all the way down!

[_Sethbag]

It's interesting to me that so many LDS believers and apologists attempt to throw out there the same kinds of logic that other people use when discussing belief in God, without acknowledging that these other beliefs simply do not apply to LDS theology at all.

Take the first mover arguments. In LDS theology they simply don't apply, because God came to his position through following the Plan of Salvation that his God laid out for him, and so on, recursively, through a literally infinite chain of gods. LDS theology posits no "first god".

Also, Hamblin and Peterson try to portray Elohim as somehow different from the God of Aristotle in that it can be moved by others, ie: the petitions of his believers. But that's not really true, is it? Whatever you pray for, it's always subject to "if it be thy will", is it not? Believers don't get what they ask for, they get what God decides is good for them. Whatever trials Mormons pray for help in avoiding, they get trials anyway, because God knows what's good for them. Whenever Mormons bless the sick, sometimes they live and God takes the credit, sometimes they die because, apparently, God needed another missionary in the Spirit World. Exactly how, in all of this, is God being influenced by his believers to do anything other than he was already, in his infinite wisdom, going to do anyway?

[_Philo Sofee]

It's interesting to me that so many LDS believers and apologists attempt to throw out there the same kinds of logic that other people use when discussing belief in God, without acknowledging that these other beliefs simply do not apply to LDS theology at all.

Take the first mover arguments. In LDS theology they simply don't apply, because God came to his position through following the Plan of Salvation that his God laid out for him, and so on, recursively, through a literally infinite chain of gods. LDS theology posits no "first god".

Also, Hamblin and Peterson try to portray Elohim as somehow different from the God of Aristotle in that it can be moved by others, ie: the petitions of his believers. But that's not really true, is it? Whatever you pray for, it's always subject to "if it be thy will", is it not? Believers don't get what they ask for, they get what God decides is good for them. Whatever trials Mormons pray for help in avoiding, they get trials anyway, because God knows what's good for them. Whenever Mormons bless the sick, sometimes they live and God takes the credit, sometimes they die because, apparently, God needed another missionary in the Spirit World. Exactly how, in all of this, is God being influenced by his believers to do anything other than he was already, in his infinite wisdom, going to do anyway?

Very interesting observation Sethbag.....

[_DrW]

For example, a very few minutes ago, I noted this same kind of sloppiness with Carl Griffins description of the current situation an MI in terms of their projected production of books.

While Kish commented that he was sure that MI would "get over my disappointment in them" (I'm sure he is right), the larger issue of the general quality and relevance of what the apologists write and publish (IMHO) continues to be a problem for the image of the Church.

Given the recent performance by a spokesman for the new MI (Carl Griffin) not sure things are going to get any better any time soon.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28243

The perception of sloppiness on Carl's part is your own imagination at work. He has represented things at MI as they currently stand, and that is something you don't have sufficient information to gainsay or any basis to doubt.

Kish,

Carl may be your friend and I'm sorry but, as I said on the other thread, I still find his statement regarding projected publications at MI to be amusing.

FTR, I absolutely did not accuse your friend of lying. I did suggest that he might think about tightening things up a bit when he writes "press releases" to message boards. Look at the section in question again:

(3) We currently have (by my count) 27 books in our editorial pipeline. These are all titles that have been accepted for publication, and more proposed titles are pouring in. Two more manuscripts have come under review just this past week. I have a full page, front and back, of proposed titles that came out of a single lunch meeting with a group of scholars last week. However, our publishing resources are modest and we have a number of priorities to balance. In addition to our journals, newsletter and website, we have launched an initiative to republish our entire back catalog, both books and periodicals, in modern digital formats. This is requiring a heavy editorial investment. Even so, I expect we will publish at least 6-7 new books this year, though we only announce specifics on our titles at the time of publication.

Please consider the following:

- He has 27 book manuscripts in the pipeline.

- All 27 book manuscripts have been accepted for publication.

- Proposed titles keep pouring in. In fact, he came up with two pages (one page front and back) of new proposed titles from one lunch meeting with scholars.

- They are going to republish their entire back catalog in digital format.

- They plan to publish 6 or 7 new books in 2013.

Now, and especially in light of the fact that they have hired an individual who they claim is capable of pushing more than 60 titles a year out the door, can you really tell me, with a straight face, that the internal inconsistency evident here is not amusing?