Credentials

[_dartagnan]

I don't need to respond to most of your post, since it is just personal attacks on people you evidently feel threatened by.

You can't respond, which is the only reason why you won't. You never could.

Question: Why did Ritner "need" to put an anti-Mormon criticism in what was supposed to be a translation?

Only the persecution complex ridden Mormoons think that he did. Morris' job was to make his audience feel persecuted like him. That works for simple minds like you.

To demonstrate his "knowledge?" Or just do a drive by shooting. Too bad it richoeted and got him back.

How did it get him back? he made an observation that pissed you off. So what? Mormons generally hate it when anyone notes unpleasant facts that would have otherwise been unknown from LDS publications. This is nothing new.

I said "pretending to translate" but it is obvious that he used his translation as a vehicle to stick a dagger in a group he doesn't like. Not very scholarly. Pretty petty.

Ritner is extremely scholarly. Again, only idiot Mormons who have to play the victim role, think otherwise. You're essentially proving the point I made to Trevor on the other thread.

Your attacks on David Bokovoy sure sound like jealousy and sour grapes.

I haven't attacked Bokovoy. I've addressed his arguments, to the chagrin of his blind followers. You think every time I argue with someone it is about envy? Good grief, what is there to envy? That I won't be stuck in the world of Mormonism working an apologist using academia as a credibility disguise, making a crap salary? That I don't speak Hebrew? I speak three languages as it is, and I am currently working on a fourth. I don't see why learning Hebrew or Arabic is a test for real intelligence.

The fact that I am not a credntialed Hebrew linguist, and the fact that I have held my own in our debates, pisses you off even more so because it demonstrated just how unnecessary his educational credentials are in these kinds of debates. I don't argue about Hebrew translations, which is the only type of argument where Bokovoy would have an edge. Much of our argument is based on interpretation of historical events and citations. The celestial kingdom thread pretty much demonstrates how a Masters in Hebrew won't help you explain away the fact that Joseph Smith misunderstood Rev 1:6. It won't help you get away with inventing new concepts of revelation that suit apologetic agendas. The reiteration of the Hebrew degree is just window dressing used to captivate the attention of small minds, like your own.

An "attack" would be something like offering cheap psychoanalysis as to why a person leaves one group and joins another, while denying that person the right to explain his own reasons. This is what Bokovoy did on several occassions at MADB.

You call his presenations "diatribes" and yet you admit you have never heard one. What kind of honesty is that?

You're being dishonest right now. The diatribes are at MADB. Every once in a while he'll start a thread with a long diatribe attempting to connect Joseph Smith to the Ancient world in some convoluted manner.

Believe me, I don't compare to you to David at all. You were the one who compared yourself to him.

Call for references.

I really had to laugh when you repeated that "Daniel Petyerson is unknown oustide of Utah, and people in his own department didn't even know him." DCP is one of the best known and respected Islamic scholars in the world.

This is not true. The head of the department at his alma mater had never heard of him. Daniel Pipes had never heard of him either until I mentioned his name. The reason he is beginning to receive notice is because of the Islamic translation serious funded by BYU.

My point is simply this. You guys wail and moan about credentials and you constantly try to prop up the handful of scholars at BYU as though they are world authorities. They aren't. John Gee went to Yale, but hell, so did a hundred others who aren't "world class" scholars. John Gee was rushed through the Ph.D. process because he had already been promised a job at BYU. What does that tell you about how desperate BYU is? I suspect Bokovoy has a job waiting for him too. Friends and memberships have certain benefits, didn't ya know? And it isn't due to how smart they are. It is political. It is all about who you know, not what you know.

And those people who didn't know him? The lame brain who called or e-mailed to ask, got the wrong department, not even knowning what DCP's field was!

Call for references. Tal Bachman wrote the email. Do you know what the dept is and who was the head?

I think it is really laughable that a person who hates and rants and screams and calls names thinks he has a "balanced perspective" and nobody else does. And just told you that your perspective was balanced? Or did you have a warm fuzzy feeling about it?

My perspective is more balanced because it includes truth, whereas the general LDS perspective will involve spin and misrepresentation of any given traditional aspect of the LDS faith. It is a spin machine in constant overdrive.

I had no idea you really couldn't undestand the difference bewteen fact and opinion. But you don't.

Again I say, the two are not mutually exclusive. You really are this stupid aren't you?

Your example is a mental meander.

My example served its purpose to prove you're an idiot. Opinion and fact are not necessarily exclusive. So now you're going to whine because being gay isn't an opinion? OK fine, your argument is like saying the moon cannot have water (opinion) on it because the mooon is round (fact). So you're moaning about opinion and fact being two different things, is still idiotic, get it?
Probably not.

I don't think you are an idiot.

I think you are an idiot.

I just think your hatred has clouded your abilities to think coherently at times.

I think your stupdity precludes you from feeling strict hatred. You know no other way to deal with troubling facts. Just call the person who provides, hateful and bla bla bla. This is all you have.

[_Pokatator]

I didn't ever take the sacrament. (I know that there are more sacraments and the Lords Supper is only one of them and - among other things - Joseph Smith didn't know this.)

Sorry. You don't know what Joseph Smith knew.

Charity, before you are so quick to just blow Ludwigm off, why don't you address his point?

I think he raises a very good point about Joseph Smith and credentials. It is obvious that Joseph didn't even know the dictionary definition of the word, sacrament. Also Mormon today don't use it anymore accurately.

A sacrament is a rite or a ritual.

The Catholics have 7: baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, matrimony, orders, penance and unction.

The Protestants have 2: baptism and the Eucharist.

I am mainly citing Luther but the conditions to be a sacrament are:

1. The rite or ritual was instituted by God/Christ.
2. There are words of institution associated with the rite or ritual.
3. There is an tangible element associated with the rite or ritual, such as: water, bread and wine.
4. There is a blessing associated with the rite or ritual.

This why the Protestants don't recognize confirmation, last rites and etc. as sacraments, they don't match their definition.

No matter which definition is used, and I am not trying to argue the validity of the definitions it is not credible or even good language to say "take the sacrament". Which sacrament are you talking about to take? In the Mormon religion I think the argument could be made to include more rites and rituals than just baptism and the Mormon Eucharist.

You can take the "Mormon Eucharist" but how do you take the sacrament?

This is probably a minor blurp on the Mormon radar screen but I think is another example of the lack of credibility of Joseph Smith. More bad form. I question what Joseph knew.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Richard, are you getting any satisfaction with the answers? "Credentialism" seems very subjective from my reading of many posts here.

In my none-credentialed opinion: there seems to be, sometimes, tooooo much credibility given to credentials, and not enough given to creative thinking. From which all human advancements have come forth. Whether from 'credentialed' sources or not.

It appears to me that a larger percentage of credentialed, "Historians, Scientists" are better record keepers--I guess that's what 'Historians' are supposed to be--than they are at bringing 'new products' to market. (Your Dad, of course, being an exception :-)

"Inventors" (a VERY broad term) on the other hand, very often earn their 'credentials' post-invention.

I think a lot of folks are over-dependent upon "authority" to direct their thoughts &/or actions, than to accept personal-responsibility for them. Hence their necessity to quote some 'expert' to confirm their position. Just the way it is. Or more correctly, how "it" has been made by the establishmentS to retain their established influence over conditioned/indoctrinated/indentured servants, of whatever Institution...

The ongoing contest is between "Ignorance" and "Knowledge". It is only by the application of proveable truths that any dreams will ever be enjoyed consistently. Whether as an individual or for the collective, wrongness never establishes true abundance of life, for long. I respectfuly suggest that is THE reason this Nation, and its people are in such a calamity.

Might it be "History, Science, and Inventiveness" have not been used creditably??? Warm regards, Roger

I agree that degrees are overemphasized. For the last two years I've researched the origins of GPS, and consequently know more about it than certain folks with advanced degrees (or the 2003 Draper Award Committee).

[_charity]

"This is a living dynamic Church...." A nice clause but, really not very meaningful. With no disrespect, cancer has the same attributes. More to the point: The church has living leaders who, as any good CEOs would do, attempt to keep current in as many matters as possible while maintaining corporate objectives.

In so doing, Corporations/Institutions often come face-to-face with closet-skeltons. It is at this point that their integrity is called to the table, so-to-speak. Case in point: Australia has within the past few days issued an official apology to the indiginous Aboriginies of that continent. Setting an example for others, be they Parents, Corporations, Institutions or Nations. The RCC recently did the same re Galileo. And the LDS has quietly in the past reinstituted JD Lee and Hubert Hubner (sp?) the German youth ex'd during WWII for defying the Nazis.

As I read most of the exchanges between parties here, the anger could very easily be resolved IF/WHEN the Mormon Church demonstrates ITS humility by acknowledging the absence of truth in many of its legends, the suppositions in many of its claims, and that its 'authority' is no more, nor less, than any other self-made entity.

It isn't noble to deny truth. The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organzied religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed. It may not be perfect, but then God has only mortal men to work with and through.

To your credit you stated agreement that Joseph Smith was limited by his limited education. As we all are. So why not take it from there as it naturally flows.

(Except for those in denial who seem to think, as ??? "...my country, (Church) right or wrong..." and believe there is something noble in going down with the ship.)

There ain't, Sis. Warm regards, Roger

This isn't my Church right or wrong. This is my Church, God's true Church. What imperfections there are are insignificant. I don't throw out the bucket of popcorn, because there were a couple of unpopped kernels.

[_BishopRic]

"This is a living dynamic Church...." A nice clause but, really not very meaningful. With no disrespect, cancer has the same attributes. More to the point: The church has living leaders who, as any good CEOs would do, attempt to keep current in as many matters as possible while maintaining corporate objectives.

In so doing, Corporations/Institutions often come face-to-face with closet-skeltons. It is at this point that their integrity is called to the table, so-to-speak. Case in point: Australia has within the past few days issued an official apology to the indiginous Aboriginies of that continent. Setting an example for others, be they Parents, Corporations, Institutions or Nations. The RCC recently did the same re Galileo. And the LDS has quietly in the past reinstituted JD Lee and Hubert Hubner (sp?) the German youth ex'd during WWII for defying the Nazis.

As I read most of the exchanges between parties here, the anger could very easily be resolved IF/WHEN the Mormon Church demonstrates ITS humility by acknowledging the absence of truth in many of its legends, the suppositions in many of its claims, and that its 'authority' is no more, nor less, than any other self-made entity.

It isn't noble to deny truth. The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organzied religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed. It may not be perfect, but then God has only mortal men to work with and through.

To your credit you stated agreement that Joseph Smith was limited by his limited education. As we all are. So why not take it from there as it naturally flows.

(Except for those in denial who seem to think, as ??? "...my country, (Church) right or wrong..." and believe there is something noble in going down with the ship.)

There ain't, Sis. Warm regards, Roger

This isn't my Church right or wrong. This is my Church, God's true Church. What imperfections there are are insignificant. I don't throw out the bucket of popcorn, because there were a couple of unpopped kernels.

But it's all perception, Charity. If I have a bucket of popcorn that is 90% unpopped kernals, I am going to say it's not going to work for me. Yes, the few that are popped might be good, but I'm not satisfied with 90% being inadequate.

What I see from you is an excuse for each of those unpopped kernals..."Joseph wasn't perfect," the changed doctrines were only man's opinions (even thought they came from "prophets" who said other things you still consider 'God's word'), the Native Americans aren't really Lamanites anymore, etc.." To you, these are insignificant, to many of us, the summation makes the package unacceptable.

[_JAK]

"This is a living dynamic Church...." A nice clause but, really not very meaningful. With no disrespect, cancer has the same attributes. More to the point: The church has living leaders who, as any good CEOs would do, attempt to keep current in as many matters as possible while maintaining corporate objectives.

In so doing, Corporations/Institutions often come face-to-face with closet-skeltons. It is at this point that their integrity is called to the table, so-to-speak. Case in point: Australia has within the past few days issued an official apology to the indiginous Aboriginies of that continent. Setting an example for others, be they Parents, Corporations, Institutions or Nations. The RCC recently did the same re Galileo. And the LDS has quietly in the past reinstituted JD Lee and Hubert Hubner (sp?) the German youth ex'd during WWII for defying the Nazis.

As I read most of the exchanges between parties here, the anger could very easily be resolved IF/WHEN the Mormon Church demonstrates ITS humility by acknowledging the absence of truth in many of its legends, the suppositions in many of its claims, and that its 'authority' is no more, nor less, than any other self-made entity.

It isn't noble to deny truth. The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organzied religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed. It may not be perfect, but then God has only mortal men to work with and through.

To your credit you stated agreement that Joseph Smith was limited by his limited education. As we all are. So why not take it from there as it naturally flows.

(Except for those in denial who seem to think, as ??? "...my country, (Church) right or wrong..." and believe there is something noble in going down with the ship.)

There ain't, Sis. Warm regards, Roger

This isn't my Church right or wrong. This is my Church, God's true Church. What imperfections there are are insignificant. I don't throw out the bucket of popcorn, because there were a couple of unpopped kernels.

But it's all perception, Charity. If I have a bucket of popcorn that is 90% unpopped kernals, I am going to say it's not going to work for me. Yes, the few that are popped might be good, but I'm not satisfied with 90% being inadequate.

What I see from you is an excuse for each of those unpopped kernals..."Joseph wasn't perfect," the changed doctrines were only man's opinions (even thought they came from "prophets" who said other things you still consider 'God's word'), the Native Americans aren't really Lamanites anymore, etc.." To you, these are insignificant, to many of us, the summation makes the package unacceptable.

Propaganda became a science, but the word dates back to the Counter Reformation, a period when the Catholic Church paid new attention to improving the effectiveness of its efforts at persuasion designed to win the hearts and minds of the Europeans who were converting to Protestantism in large numbers.

Psychology based propaganda was developed earlier to create the modern science of mass persuasion, not based on reason but on the manipulation of subconscious feelings and impulses.

What makes the zeal of religious ideologues dangerous is their willingness to substitute dogma for reason. It is power that is key to understanding the cynical manipulation of faith and the assault on reason. Over time, religious zealots use propaganda to justify that attack on rational thought.

So we find the statements of charity entirely departing rational thought:

Charity:
This is my Church, God's true Church. What imperfections there are are insignificant.

The assertion claimed as fact becomes fact for the zealot. Notice:

Charity:
It isn't noble to deny truth. The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organized religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed.

Absent the availability of objective, reason based information, such dogma has charismatic appeal. Or to use your analogy, you look only at the 10% of popped kernels, praise the success, and throw out the 90%.

To use another metaphor, an ounce of sewage in a gallon of wine makes it all sewage.

And when we have truth by assertion as we do in dogmatic religion, the zealots must continually revise the assertions to cover those which fail when exposed to rational thought.

Leadership means inspiring us to manage through our fears. Dogma means exploiting fear for gain of power. There is a critical difference. The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hanged as traitors.

Yet in the face of those dangers, they insisted on establishing freedoms and commitment to reason. Religion opposes reason at every point that it cannot use it. The “package” is not rooted in reason but rather in fear and dogma quite outside reason. A well informed membership is not what religious organizations want.

Perception does not constitute reality. Focusing on convenient untruths presented with superficial, emotional, and manipulative appeals are not worthy of human intellect.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Charity, thanks for your reply. Part copied below, into which i'm in bold:

It isn't noble to deny truth. The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organzied religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed. It may not be perfect, but then God has only mortal men to work with and through.

RM: Some things might be coming through for me... First a qustion: Might there be "not-organized" religions that have THE authority to act in God's name? IF the LDS church is "God revealed", such as when scientists have truth revealed not in its advanced form--as with airodydamics--but then work on that basic 'truth' so that humans can now fly transocean and rocket into space--the work of not-perfect, mortal men... Are you suggesting a like process at work between God and mortal men in the Mormon Church? This could make sense...


Roger Morrison wrote:

To your credit you stated agreement that Joseph Smith was limited by his limited education. As we all are. So why not take it from there as it naturally flows.

(Except for those in denial who seem to think, as ??? "...my country, (Church) right or wrong..." and believe there is something noble in going down with the ship.)

There ain't, Sis. Warm regards, Roger


This isn't my Church right or wrong. This is my Church, God's true Church. What imperfections there are are insignificant. I don't throw out the bucket of popcorn, because there were a couple of unpopped kernels.

,

Well a bit of hair splitting about the "insignificant imperfections"... aw fergitit... But, ya don't chaw down the unpopped kerns do ya? ;-) I guess what really matters is one's comfort and happiness. Which we both seem to have in abundance. Glad you have yours! Warm regards, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Richard, you posted:

I agree that degrees are overemphasized. For the last two years I've researched the origins of GPS, and consequently know more about it than certain folks with advanced degrees (or the 2003 Draper Award Committee).

Congrats! Currently experiencing exposure to the litanies of "degree-holders" in private venues, that if they were delivered to the public there could be an a question of ignorance-peddling. First questions re "Degree", from where, under who/what? Thanks for GPS! Keeps me off the shoals. Warm regards, Roger

[_ludwigm]

After my comments on Joseph Smith deficiencies of knowledge,

I am sure there were lots of things Joseph Smith didn't know, considering his limited educaitonal opportunities. But when he said God revealed something to him, he was never wrong

RM confirmed it:

To your credit you stated agreement that Joseph Smith was limited by his limited education. As we all are. So why not take it from there as it naturally flows.

To repeat the essence:

Joseph Smith didn't know the meaning of the word "sacrament". Anyway, he (and since then all Mormons) use it incorrectly.
...
I don't know and don't want to know and don't care, what did - allegedly - Joseph Smith know.
All the time, I spake about the important things that Joseph Smith didn't know.

Additional help:

Charity, before you are so quick to just blow Ludwigm off, why don't you address his point?
...
(Here is the definition of the word. I recommend the reading to Mormons in general.)
...
This is probably a minor blurp on the Mormon radar screen but I think is another example of the lack of credibility of Joseph Smith.

Once again, Joseph Smith didn't know a lot. Words, ideas. Future consequences of his deeds (to list only a few: Kirtland Bank, United Order, polygamy, destroying a press).
But:

What imperfections there are are insignificant.

and again

But when he said God revealed something to him, he was never wrong.

Who has said this? He, the same Joseph Smith, who didn't know a lot. This thread is about credibility.
When he said this, he was wrong. When he said that, he wasn't. Wonderful.

The Church has THE authority to act in God's name, and none of the other organzied religions do. It is not self-made, but God revealed.

- said the same Joseph Smith.
And yes, it is not self-made, it is JS-made.

Nota bene "none of the other organzied religions".
Did we reach again the point, where other christian churches don't count? Didn't want the LDS be a part of the "christianity as a whole"?
"The Church has THE authority to act in God's name" and the "mainstream" thing are incompatible.

[_Roger Morrison]

Good stuff Lud, around the World & in all Nations the truth is taught. To those who don't accept it, it is of naught. Warm regards, Roger, Canada :-)