A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _Gadianton »

The Agenda

One review in this edition of the "Review" struck me as not only rabidly orthodox to the apologetic agenda of an apologetic coup, but especially expressive in articulating this agenda in the collective voice of the eerie network itself. This is the essay by Patricia Gunter-Karamesines reviewing Keys to Successful Scripture Study by George A. Horton, Jr. Perhaps this review is so revealing because in aptitude, Patricia is a born dyed-in-the-wool apologist who can tow the party line with the skill and cunning of professors Hamblin or Migdley, but as one with junior or mid-level status and experience, a little less hesitant to state openly the goals of the cabal.

Listen to this blatent back-patting,

PGK wrote:Many readers of the Book of Mormon have undoubtedly been impressed with the results of careful reading manifest in work such as the reprints and working papers from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies


An elite craft,

PGK wrote:Much of such materials relies on scholarly methods and materials not generally available


Parroting what we've been instructed by Tvedtness. Up until recently, the world for instance, didn't have the six essays Tvedtness had published, and now, no one should be found writing on the Book of Mormon without quoting them.

PGK wrote:We often tell each other that we must read the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, more. We seldom have available the tools for doing any more than rereading in the same old way. As a result, though perhaps few will admit it publicly, most members have difficulty reading the Book of Mormon regularly and in a truly meaningful way.


This is the old priestcraft that Martin Luther fought so hard to extinguish centuries ago. Back then, the power moved toward the people when the sacred scriptures were made available by a press. In order for the priestly class to take that control back, it's only practical hope is to monopolize the resources by which to properly interpret the sealed book, no lower-case farmboys need apply. So Patricia mentions "literary methods" and these scholarly things the typical TBM does not have access to as requisite for "meaningful" scripture study.

PGK wrote:and only a short, confusing bit of instruction at the book's beginning suggests how to manage the rather eclectic substance of the book to one's benefit.


Of course, the style and structure is taken to task in the usual ways.

PGK wrote:To assert that the Spirit will provide a preface for each reader, so to speak, is not enough, because identifying the influence of the Spirit may be part of a reader's quest as he approaches scripture or books about scripture.


More of the "Gnat Straining" that Gee has famously admitted to be an integral part to reviewing a book apologetic style.

PGK wrote:there is no doubt that, compared to similar books available for public consumption, Keys to Successful Scripture Study is a welcome work in its interdisciplinary approach to scriptural analysis.


The readily identifiable "ABA" anatomy of the Review of "friendlies" gets under way. There isn't much more effort put into complimenting Horton. For instance, as typical, you won't find any details explaining how Horton did a good job. But plenty of energy is spent on the "gnats" and the supposed deeper flaws.

A lot of the criticism is a frontal assult on Horton's Chapel Mormonism,

PGK wrote:Second, Horton's discussion of parables proceeds in a similar way, with an argument that the language of the parables is designed to conceal their meaning from the wicked.


This gets a large paragraph of treatment, obviously.

PGK wrote:Just as a reader will not fail to notice occasionally unschooled and incomplete thinking


Of Joseph Smith? Or any other Chapel Mormon?

PGK wrote:manner in which Horton approaches other subjects, such as the value and use of scriptural commentaries. On the one hand is his opening statement that "commentaries have their place, but they are not to be the chief source of our learning


Clearly echoing Midgley's attack on McConkie's Chapel Mormonism.

PGK wrote:Perhaps Latter-day Saint audiences deserve such distrust in their ability to interpret and apply scriptural wisdom, since the ways in which they commonly do so


The disdain for the Chapel Mormon Commoner, again. The "B" section goes on and on. And finally the "A" at the end, which is by far the most telling passage of the review,

PGK wrote:Nevertheless, this kind of book, with its practical introduction of interdisciplinary scripture study techniques to the average Sunday School-teaching, talk-wielding Latter-day Saint, is a splash of brightness in the dark heavens of contemporary Latter-day Saint scripture study practices.


Tying this in to the introduction clearly expresses the apologetic battle cry to sieze the Chapel. Chapel Mormonism is trash. Internet Mormonism is our salvation. And Chapel Mormons like Horton while wrong on every detail, are to be commended if only for bringing up certain topics that Internet Mormons feel could be leveraged to eventually force their gosepl ideology in total on the entire Church.

Very effective in both the FARMS method, and in making clear the call to dominate the entire doctrinal and intellectual life of the Church.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

I just love this stuff about the devious and clandestine FARMS "cabal" seeking "to dominate the entire doctrinal and intellectual life of the Church."

Gad, you're doing Scartcholepsy on steroids!

Fabulous!
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _truth dancer »

Yep, God creates a one and only true church with a book that doesn't match with reality, so in order to understand it, have it make sense, or come close to real life one must have twenty PhDs or access to the works of church scholars.

OK then...

(sigh)

God can do whatever God wants but this human assertion we hear from some LDS scholars (and some of those who want to represent LDS scholars) just seems really contrary to what a decent God would do.

Then again, if God is as portrayed in the Judeo/Christian/Mormon scripture, well, never mind. :-(

~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _harmony »

truth dancer wrote:
Then again, if God is as portrayed in the Judeo/Christian/Mormon scripture, well, never mind. :-(

~td~


God's not the problem; it's the men standing between him and us.

Where you been, TD? You've been gone a while.
(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.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Thanks for identifying the "ABA" pattern of reviews of "friendlies," Gadianton. Sure enough, it's interesting how often that template holds true.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _truth dancer »

harmony wrote:
truth dancer wrote:
Then again, if God is as portrayed in the Judeo/Christian/Mormon scripture, well, never mind. :-(

~td~


God's not the problem; it's the men standing between him and us.


Yep, some folk seem to think they must be the mediators between the Divine and the ordinary.

;-)

This is one of the fundamental issues I have with the LDS church and apologetics; the idea that LDS scholars/apologists claim they must be the ones to bring forth (or disclose or clarify or explain or interpret) God's true gospel. I don't know, something just feels REALLy stange about this.

Seems to me history is replete with men claiming they are the sole conduit to God. (Or one of a handful of special men who are the elect). Whether they think they are brilliant enough to have discovered the real truth, whether they think they are so spiritual that they are the chosen ones, or whether they think they have some special gift... the phenomenon is pretty common.

Feels more like the wishes and desires of men for power and glory rather than a Divine design.

:-)


~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _The Nehor »

truth dancer wrote:This is one of the fundamental issues I have with the LDS church and apologetics; the idea that LDS scholars/apologists claim they must be the ones to bring forth (or disclose or clarify or explain or interpret) God's true gospel. I don't know, something just feels REALLy stange about this.


This is ridiculous. If scholars and apologists are truly a mediator between God and man then they suck at it. What percentage of the Church reads apologist and scholarly work about the gospel on a regular basis. I do but no one else I know does. A few read a new book every couple of years but most of these are devotional in nature.

I do read these books and I do NOT find them to be a conduit to God. When I want that in muted form I read scripture and the words of the Prophets. If I want the real thing I speak with God himself. I don't sit down to read DCP's or any scholar's book expecting divine confirmation and to understand better the mind and will of God. I do it out of casual interest.
"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
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _harmony »

The Nehor wrote:This is ridiculous. If scholars and apologists are truly a mediator between God and man then they suck at it. What percentage of the Church reads apologist and scholarly work about the gospel on a regular basis. I do but no one else I know does. A few read a new book every couple of years but most of these are devotional in nature.

I do read these books and I do NOT find them to be a conduit to God. When I want that in muted form I read scripture and the words of the Prophets. If I want the real thing I speak with God himself. I don't sit down to read DCP's or any scholar's book expecting divine confirmation and to understand better the mind and will of God. I do it out of casual interest.


Actually, I was referring to prophets, not apologists.

But hey! Whatever works!
(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.
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: A Closer look at FROB 3, Part 2

Post by _ludwigm »

FROB?
Acronym Definition
FROB Freight Remaining on Board
FROB Friendly Order of Battle (Air Force air operations)

FROB 3?

FROB 3 parts?

FROB 3 Part 2?



I'm sorry, the topic hits my nose and I see nothing. I can't look at it more close.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Post Reply