Mister Scratch wrote:I'm still waiting for Dan to show us where LDS scholars have been submitting their most controversial secular theories to wider academia.... He claims he won't reply simply because I am the one doing the asking, so, is anyone else up for it? Beastie? Rollo? Bond? Anyone?
No thanks. (Of course since DCP said he'd only do it on MAD I'm a prime candidate but I'll be off the Net for 10+ days going into the New Year.) Although I don't know why DCP wouldn't answer your questions....perhaps if you agree to meet him halfway (as it were). Perhaps agree to:
Scratch not bringing up Quinn (or gossipmongering in General) and Dan will agree to converse with Scratch on the issue on this board?
Doc Peterson may be more receptive to conversation on the topic of LDS scholarship in wider academia if you agree to shelf the Quinn issue (for at least one thread). A special thread in the Celestial could even be set up (with moderators watching the thread to babysit the thread).
Perhaps if you guys are willing to settle ONE issue, then you might be willing to go from there and settle other ones.
How about it guys?
(Edit: After reading this post I wonder if I'm stoned on Christmas Spirit...)
Absolutely. I'm more than happy to make whatever a priori concessions are necessary. Will DCP be fine with this, and will he engage the issue? No, because he is too afraid of getting his butt kicked. It doesn't matter, though. His silence proves my point for me.
It's not in Daniel's vested interest to debate the topic at all, which is why he's putting all sorts of binders on it. Never in a million years will he participate here or on MAD on a thread of that magnitude. Daniel isn't about explaining anything; Daniel is all about clouding the issue, smoke and mirrors, red herrings, and generally directing every thread he participates on any board into being about him, his colleagues, his detractors, anything but the LDS church. He may start out actually putting up an apologetic post or two or three, but he will eventually move the subject to something besides the difficulties with the church.
harmony wrote:It's not in Daniel's vested interest to debate the topic at all, which is why he's putting all sorts of binders on it. Never in a million years will he participate here or on MAD on a thread of that magnitude. Daniel isn't about explaining anything; Daniel is all about clouding the issue, smoke and mirrors, red herrings, and generally directing every thread he participates on any board into being about him, his colleagues, his detractors, anything but the LDS church. He may start out actually putting up an apologetic post or two or three, but he will eventually move the subject to something besides the difficulties with the church.
That's me, alright.
I've written and published hundreds and hundreds of pages on Mormon topics, and edited several thousand more for publication, but I've never dealt with an issue. Anywhere. Not one. Not even poorly. It's something of a tour de force, when you reflect on it.
harmony wrote:It's not in Daniel's vested interest to debate the topic at all, which is why he's putting all sorts of binders on it. Never in a million years will he participate here or on MAD on a thread of that magnitude. Daniel isn't about explaining anything; Daniel is all about clouding the issue, smoke and mirrors, red herrings, and generally directing every thread he participates on any board into being about him, his colleagues, his detractors, anything but the LDS church. He may start out actually putting up an apologetic post or two or three, but he will eventually move the subject to something besides the difficulties with the church.
That's me, alright.
I've written and published hundreds and hundreds of pages on Mormon topics, and edited several thousand more for publication, but I've never dealt with an issue. Anywhere. Not one. Not even poorly. It's something of a tour de force, when you reflect on it.
The fact is, I'm terrified of controversy.
Amazingly, not a single one of those "thousands" deals with controversial LDS secular claims, and nary a one of them has ever appeared in a "real" academic journal.
Mister Scratch wrote:Amazingly, not a single one of those "thousands" deals with controversial LDS secular claims
That's simply false.
Then prove it.
"You missed me! You missed me! Neener neener neener!"
Good grief.
There are hundreds of pages of my own material up on line, and thousands of pages of things that I've edited. That they repeatedly deal with LDS claims, engaging in analysis and adducing evidence, is transparently obvious. One can argue about whether the analysis and evidence are convincing or not, but to deny that issues have been engaged on the basis of analysis and evidence is either dishonest or delusional. (You may fool poor Harmony, because she reads nothing and knows nothing, but you won't fool any normally-reasoning person who's actually read such things as my essays on Asherah, Psalm 82, the motif of the "Weeping God," etc.)
This is just one of the reasons that attempting to have a serious substantive conversation with you would be an exercise in maddening futility. Either by choice or out of incapacity, you are not a worthy candidate for a genuine discussion of any substantive issue that would interest me.
Mister Scratch wrote:Amazingly, not a single one of those "thousands" deals with controversial LDS secular claims
That's simply false.
Then prove it.
"You missed me! You missed me! Neener neener neener!"
Good grief.
There are hundreds of pages of my own material up on line, and thousands of pages of things that I've edited. That they repeatedly deal with LDS claims, engaging in analysis and adducing evidence, is transparently obvious. One can argue about whether the analysis and evidence are convincing or not, but to deny that issues have been engaged on the basis of analysis and evidence is either dishonest or delusional. (You may fool poor Harmony, because she reads nothing and knows nothing, but you won't fool any normally-reasoning person who's actually read such things as my essays on Asherah, Psalm 82, the motif of the "Weeping God," etc.)
Prof. P.---How many of these deal with secular claims, such as those pertaining to the history of the Book of Mormon? How many of these essays appeared in non-LDS-related publications? *That* is what the issue has been about all along.
Are you serious? You cannot see the difference between believing the LDS church could change and actively wanting that change????*
Wow. Usually I can think of at least one way to rephrase or simplify a statement to help someone not getting it, but, geez, Ray, this is already so simplified that I can't think of a single way to rephrase it.
Let's hope your "more later" has more substance that this first one - otherwise, you're just hanging in the wind. It's not even an example of hypocrisy, and you're going to have to come up with a doozy to beat the hypocrisy you and Dan have demonstrated on this thread.
*to say nothing of how strange it is for Ray to imagine I'm trying to change the LDS church by posting on internet boards!!
But:
beastie wrote:I'm not trying to change Mormonism or anyone, Ray. I gave that up long ago, and I never wanted to change Mormonism
beastie wrote:I actually believe that criticisms of exbelievers do eventually have an impact on the direction of the church.
Beastie is an ex-believer.
Beastie does numerous posts criticising Mormonism.
But beastie believes her criticisms don't count to changing the Church.
Beastie is muddled.
Does beastie deny that she has called for change in the Church?
Ray A wrote:I just want to make sure every poster on this board realizes that crocket has insulted scratch by repeatedly calling him a woman. I want everyone to know this guy is a misogynist arsehole.
--Beastie in all her PC glory.
You might want to be correctly quoting beastie here if you're going to use her comments for a sigline.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.