The integrity of the research and argumentation in a book is best judged--far and away best judged--by careful and informed examination of the book itself. And nothing else will substitute for careful and informed examination of the book itself.
As previously noted, this will be difficult for anyone to do, considering the authors had access to information that others will not have access to.
So, unless and until all that information is also released to the public, we're left with assurances, and discussing whether or not those assurances are reliable is entirely justified.
How often do you make a trip to the archives? What has been your experience there? What did you find? What did you ask to see? Just curious!
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
How often do you make a trip to the archives? What has been your experience there? What did you find? What did you ask to see? Just curious!
I've never been to the archives.
Am I mistaken, or wasn't it specifically stated that these authors were going to have access to material other researchers did not have access to? And is this same material - unaccessed and thereby unreported by other researchers - going to be released to the public so we can evaluate the accuracy of the claims made in the book?
After all, you both admitted that a serious conflict of interest not only exists, but is so obvious as to not be worth the bother of admitting. In face of such a conflict of interest, as well as past statements of Packer and Oaks, how can anyone fairly judge the material without access to the materials that the authors - and the authors alone - had access to?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy.
20 by 20!
I know we're going to make it!
But perhaps we should raise our sights, elevate our vision. Can we get to . . . twenty-five before beastie receives her copy of the book? Can we reach thirty before she's read it?
I know we can!
Perhaps we can even settle the question of whether the book is fatally crippled by conflicts of interest and misrepresentations of the evidence before it arrives!
I can only assume the book is flawed and biased. I looked at the cover art you see. Blatantly obvious.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Perhaps we can even settle the question of whether the book is fatally crippled by conflicts of interest and misrepresentations of the evidence before it arrives!
I'd love to, but I'm not done with Twilight yet.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
You two are a hoot. Do you really think your diversions and (attempted) witty one-liners are hiding the fact that you are dodging my legitimate point?
See, this is how a thread like this reaches 19 (or more) pages. As I said, if I persist long enough and stubbornly enough, eventually one of you will break down and actually address the point. But in the meantime, lots of those pointless words will be your own.
Yes, DCP, no doubt, referring to the fact that past statements of church officials regarding suppressing history lend support to the idea that their reassurances about historical integrity may not be reliable, and pointing out that other people are not going to have access to the materials the authors had access to is the equivalent of judging a book by its cover image. No doubt. Your logic is impeccable.
Now let's have five more pages of witticisms that carefully avoid addressing this legitimate issue, directly connected to the previously acknowledged conflict of interest.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I know y'all think it is funny to try to make the thread long or whatever (I'm not quite sure what that is about), but I am curious about your response to Beastie's question.
Would you mind terribly just responding to her point?
:-)
td
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
I know y'all think it is funny to try to make the thread long or whatever (I'm not quite sure what that is about), but I am curious about your response to Beastie's question.
Would you mind terribly just responding to her point?
:-)
td
She had a point? I must have missed that one.
Edit: Oh, and we're almost to the magic 20.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
beastie wrote:You two are a hoot. Do you really think your diversions and (attempted) witty one-liners are hiding the fact that you are dodging my legitimate point?
Speaking for myself, I think your endless blatherings about bias, conflicts of interest, and Church suppression of relevant evidence are absolutely pointless in the absence of having ever seen the book.
beastie wrote:Yes, DCP, no doubt, referring to the fact that past statements of church officials regarding suppressing history lend support to the idea that their reassurances about historical integrity may not be reliable, and pointing out that other people are not going to have access to the materials the authors had access to is the equivalent of judging a book by its cover image. No doubt. Your logic is impeccable.
Try to keep your targets straight.
Confusing me with Nehor doesn't strengthen my confidence in your ability to comment meaningfully on the inadequacies in the research and objectivity of a book you haven't yet seen.
