Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_beastie]

Yeah, max, I saw that. Still no one interested in discussing it. Evidently, lots of MADdites can't form opinions on the theory without knowing who the author is first. ;)

[_Maxrep]

Yeah, max, I saw that. Still no one interested in discussing it. Evidently, lots of MADdites can't form opinions on the theory without knowing who the author is first. ;)

This may sound like just the standard anti talking point, but are they just waiting to be given their opinion. By this I mean that if this paper is selected by the Maxwell institute they will have a reason to get behind it. The odd thing is that the Maxwell institute does not speak for the church so any member should be completely free to agree or not. Maybe the apologists just want to support one another and so are waiting to back the right theory.

[_beastie]

I think there is no other conclusion to be drawn. They don't know what to think until they know who wrote it.

One thing this indicates, to me, is that MADdites are willing to accept arguments that don't make sense to them personally, as long as the right person asserts it.

[_Nevo]

This thread is hilarious. Are you guys really this gullible?

No experienced LDS scholar would ever write something like this. The "scholarly" prose and arguments are laughable. My guess is it's either a really bad undergraduate paper or an outright hoax. In any case, there is no way that the author of this piece would be a "shoo-in" for the 2008 Joseph Smith summer seminar.

[_Sethbag]

I'm not sure we can conclude all that from the fact that the MADites don't want to opine on this yet, but I suspect you're probably right in the end. We can all guess exactly what would happen if it turned out that Daniel Peterson, David Bokovoy, Bill Hamblin, John Gee, Louis Midgely, or one of the other usual crew had written it, as compared to, say, someone like Paul Osborne, or anyone else outside of the accepted FARMS set.

[_beastie]

This thread is hilarious. Are you guys really this gullible?

No experienced LDS scholar would ever write something like this. The "scholarly" prose and arguments are laughable. My guess is it's either a really bad undergraduate paper or an outright hoax. In any case, there is no way that the author of this piece would be a "shoo-in" for the 2008 Joseph Smith summer seminar.

I'm not as interested in the authorship of the paper as I am in the fact that it appears most MADdites won't comment on it until they know who the author is. Even charity, who was interested enough to post parts of it on MAD, won't comment without knowing who the author is.

The "credibility thing" Charity referenced apparently means "if the author is a credible apologist, then I am willing to find the ideas credible."

Why is it not possible for them to judge the piece on the merits of its contents?

[_Nevo]

I'm not as interested in the authorship of the paper as I am in the fact that it appears most MADdites won't comment on it until they know who the author is. Even charity, who was interested enough to post parts of it on MAD, won't comment without knowing who the author is.

The "credibility thing" Charity referenced apparently means "if the author is a credible apologist, then I am willing to find the ideas credible."

Why is it not possible for them to judge the piece on the merits of its contents?

I'm not sure that charity's reaction ought to be extrapolated to "most MADdites." Probably most of them haven't even read it. And it's so badly written that those who did may have just ignored it.

[_Blixa]

The ideas may seem extreme, though in large part they are just taking the idea of the restoration to its most absurd conclusion [or is the conclusion really that absurd considering the premise?], but I don't think you can say its badly written. That's a pretty sad way to dismiss it.

[_Nevo]

The ideas may seem extreme, though in large part they are just taking the idea of the restoration to its most absurd conclusion [or is the conclusion really that absurd considering the premise?], but I don't think you can say its badly written. That's a pretty sad way to dismiss it.

"The doctrine of restoration we argue has been understated in relation to Joseph Smith's role. His position as a king could have in fact reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings. But his role of restorer might help to explain some of the even more important, peculiar and alarming actions of Joseph Smith, specifically in relation to polygamy, which practiced for a limited time may well have been a vestigial component of the restoration itself."

Joseph Smith's position reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings? That qualifies as bad writing in my book.

[_Sethbag]

Not to mention it actually says Joseph Smith was a King.

And EVs say Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Well, technically wrong, but he was a King, and he will be the one standing in Heaven judging us at the last day. Uhuh. I can see why the EVs are so confused.