Daniel Peterson wrote:Take a random survey of Mormons (let alone of non-Mormons) and ask them if they've heard of this place, or of ZLMB, or of the board formerly known as FAIR. A minuscule percentage will have heard of them, and only a subset of that will have viewed one or more of them, and only a tiny subset of that will have posted on one or more of them. In LDS intellectual life, these places don't rate very high. Simple fact. And blogs and message boards are ephemeral.
I tend to agree, but I also believe that rank-and-file members will more and more come to know about these kind of places, thanks to growing Internet use. Let's face it, the typical TBM rarely (if ever) hears about many of the LDS topics discussed here, so when discovered on the Internet (in a discussion forum, no less) a real interest often sprouts. Most of us were in that proverbial boat when we began on the Internet (for good or bad). The old days of 'watering down LDS history' just won't cut it anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
I think as we become more and more interfaced with the Internet, the Mormon church will have to issue a fatwa against plugging in... I really don't see how a Mormon can avoid places like these boards where topics are discussed openly and with candor when using the Internet. The only other thing I can foresee is the Mormon church setting up its own servers, 'net, and authorizing limited use with heavily moderated web surfing. Lots and lots of firewalls is the only way these cats are going to be able to limit access to damaging information.
Mike Reed wrote:Bushman gave his brief opinion of EM&MWV in one of his MormonStories podcasts. He noted that there are problems in it, but overall, the "book is genius" (I think were his words).
I vaguely recall that. It would not surprise me. Bushman, unlike many of the apologists, does not denigrate good work out of prejudice.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Daniel Peterson wrote:In other words, he tends to have a somewhat higher opinion than certain others do of things that you tend to like.
Which reminds me of something from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:
ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves.
Actually, I think it is more a case of me relying on the expertise of a man who is an eminent scholar of American history over your opinion. But do keep on betraying your prejudice, please.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote:Actually, I think it is more a case of me relying on the expertise of a man who is an eminent scholar of American history over your opinion.
As long as you acknowledge that you're appealing to authority rather than to evidence and analysis, it's fine with me.
I respect the candid manner in which you betray your prejudice.
Daniel Peterson wrote:As long as you acknowledge that you're appealing to authority rather than to evidence and analysis, it's fine with me.
I respect the candid manner in which you betray your prejudice.
There is a significant difference between appealing to authority qua authority, and appealing to the professional opinion of a man whose widely-lauded and peer-tested work I have personally found no reason to distrust based on my own reading.
If you call that my prejudice, then I feel badly for you that you have managed to get this far in an academic career and have developed no sense of the difference.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Daniel Peterson wrote:As long as you acknowledge that you're appealing to authority rather than to evidence and analysis, it's fine with me.
I respect the candid manner in which you betray your prejudice.
There is a significant difference between appealing to authority qua authority, and appealing to the professional opinion of a man whose widely-lauded and peer-tested work I have personally found no reason to distrust based on my own reading.
If you call that my prejudice, then I feel badly for you that you have managed to get this far in an academic career and have developed no sense of the difference.
Maybe, but you've just accepted the purported Bushman quote without regard to its legitimacy or provenance. I consider that a far worse sin; what kind of authority do you rely upon?
How about chapter and verse for Bushman's quote -- come, on, cough it up; you're relying upon it (indirectly, through Mike Reed, and who is he? He's no authority.)
rcrocket wrote:Maybe, but you've just accepted the purported Bushman quote without regard to its legitimacy or provenance. I consider that a far worse sin; what kind of authority do you rely upon?
How about chapter and verse for Bushman's quote -- come, on, cough it up; you're relying upon it (indirectly, through Mike Reed, and who is he? He's no authority.)
rcrocket
My statement was in the subjunctive, as we Latin students like to say, and thus it was conditional. It was most certainly not an unquestioning and complete acceptance of Mike's claim. Come on, Bob, you should exercise a little more care in your reading and your accusations.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Daniel Peterson wrote:As long as you acknowledge that you're appealing to authority rather than to evidence and analysis, it's fine with me.
I respect the candid manner in which you betray your prejudice.
There is a significant difference between appealing to authority qua authority, and appealing to the professional opinion of a man whose widely-lauded and peer-tested work I have personally found no reason to distrust based on my own reading.
If you call that my prejudice, then I feel badly for you that you have managed to get this far in an academic career and have developed no sense of the difference.
If you study the semantic history of the term prejudice, you'll understand how misguided your criticism of me is here.