beastie wrote:I do think the presentation of previously inaccessible information is likely the most valuable contribution of this work.
The presentation of previously inaccessible information is unverifiable and thus is useless, if it's unavailable to the qualified nonmember historians.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
But as our friend Antishock has pointed out, this thread has proven that faithful LDS give lip service to truth, but really are only interested in hiding truth!
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
James Clifford Miller wrote: I'm glad to see at least some critics over at MADB are pointing out this Wellsian doubletalk, which I think is deliberate.
Incidentally, Dr. Peterson -- you rejected my suggestion that your fellow apologists would jump in on the bandwagon of the traditional LDS "they had it coming" defense, but you can read their efforts in black and white in the two quotes above. I seem to have been right, after all, sir.
James Clifford Miller
So it doesn't read like Nancy Drew. I expected that going in. Having read the book and your comments on it I am left with trusting my own reading over yours.
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
LifeOnaPlate wrote: Having read the book and your comments on it I am left with trusting my own reading over yours.
And no doubt James trusts his reading over yours. And where does that leave both of you? Standing in the same place you started. No doubt that is not to be wondered at.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
So it doesn't read like Nancy Drew. I expected that going in. Having read the book and your comments on it I am left with trusting my own reading over yours.
What, exactly, does "it doesn't read like Nancy Drew" mean?
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.
So it doesn't read like Nancy Drew. I expected that going in. Having read the book and your comments on it I am left with trusting my own reading over yours.
What, exactly, does "it doesn't read like Nancy Drew" mean?
Essentially, there will be loose ends, ambiguities, guesses or suppositions, etc. in contrast to a nice and clean-cut ending where the crook is caught, the motives are explained, and everyone goes home satisfied all because Nancy cracked the case.
harmony wrote:And no doubt James trusts his reading over yours. And where does that leave both of you? Standing in the same place you started. No doubt that is not to be wondered at.
Looks like a good solution is for people to read the book for themselves.
How about a story to keep the thread interesting?
From Hugh Nibley:
“A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists’ assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.
“Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had even been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.
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
beastie wrote:I want to emphasize that I have not stated that the work is worthless, full of lies, a whitewash, or any of the pejorative statements that DCP has tried to attach to my words.
Could you cite some specific passages where DCP has tried to attach the epithets worthless, full of lies, and/or whitewash to your words?
It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.
Now, admittedly you didn't use the exact words "whitewash, full of lies, worthless", but "dishonest and distortion" is close enough.
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.
Essentially, there will be loose ends, ambiguities, guesses or suppositions, etc. in contrast to a nice and clean-cut ending where the crook is caught, the motives are explained, and everyone goes home satisfied all because Nancy cracked the case.
So is one of the loose ends, messy ending, crook not being caught, the idea that the Fancher party may have actually behaved in an aggressive and belligerent fashion, possibly triggering the LDS reaction?
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.
It's poisoning the well to suggest, on the basis of nothing (not even an acquaintance with the book), that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely going to be dishonest and a distortion.
Now, admittedly you didn't use the exact words "whitewash, full of lies, worthless", but "dishonest and distortion" is close enough.
So would you say that anything coming from Church historians who had the support of the Church is very likely not going to be dishonest and a distortion?
Last edited by Guest on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
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