Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

[_TAK]

Ummmmm.......what is this real world?
The religion is a large part of the world to me as I live it in the world.

You need to ask "what is this real world" ?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If this board was at the centre of the universe, it would be a decidedly inappropriate place for any discussion of LDS apologetics, a subject whose marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo) is one of the reasons why some of us find discussion of its intricacies so intriguing, and indeed diverting.

Missing the chance to dialogue with Hamblin on LDS apologetic topics is as much a lost opportunity for those of us who feel that way as a missed opportunity to observe the mating habits of the curelom and cumom would be for a mammalian zoologist.

LOL. I believe I'm being dissed.

Fortunately, I don't really care.

[_TAK]

LOL. I believe I'm being dissed.

Fortunately, I don't really care.

Of course .. when isn't it about you?

[Guest]

when isn't it about you?

When it isn't.

Which, in the relevant threads on this board, is fairly rare.

Case in point:

If this board was at the centre of the universe

Plainly referring to a post from me.

LDS apologetics, a subject whose marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo)

It's generally felt, on this board, that I'm linked with LDS apologetics. And I work, though I don't live, in Provo.

Missing the chance to dialogue with Hamblin on LDS apologetic topics . . . a lost opportunity

Another reference, though slightly more oblique, to a post from me.

[_The Nehor]

Ummmmm.......what is this real world?
The religion is a large part of the world to me as I live it in the world.

You need to ask "what is this real world" ?

I don't know what people mean when they talk about the "real world". Is it the Simpsons? Politics? War in the Middle East? None of those are as critical to me as my faith so I'm not sure what this higher 'real' thing is I'm ignoring.

[_Chap]

If this board was at the centre of the universe, it would be a decidedly inappropriate place for any discussion of LDS apologetics, a subject whose marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo) is one of the reasons why some of us find discussion of its intricacies so intriguing, and indeed diverting.

Missing the chance to dialogue with Hamblin on LDS apologetic topics is as much a lost opportunity for those of us who feel that way as a missed opportunity to observe the mating habits of the curelom and cumom would be for a mammalian zoologist.

LOL. I believe I'm being dissed.

Fortunately, I don't really care.

It seems to be an issue in subsequent posts whether my post was directed personally at DCP.

I certainly was not thinking of DCP in any personal sense when I wrote it: I was thinking about the substance of his post. Further:

1. My post made reference to the undoubted fact that LDS apologetics is not a very mainstream intellectual activity. But DCP is only one LDS apologist amongst many.

2. My post made reference to BYU, an institution with which a number of BYU apologists are I believe associated, and did so through the innocent literary trope of referring to its location in Provo UT. But DCP is only one of the many employees of BYU.

So while DCP is free to conclude that my post was about him in some personal sense, it wasn't. Do I care whether he thinks I was attacking him personally? Do I care whether he cares?

I suppose I do a little bit, but I shall try to learn from him and care less in future.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suppose I shouldn't claim so much credit. The post concerned not only me, of course, but all of the BYU-affiliated apologists who participate on this board.




.

[_harmony]

I suppose I shouldn't claim so much credit. The post concerned not only me, of course, but all of the BYU-affiliated apologists who participate on this board..

What other BYU affiliated apologists post here?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What other BYU affiliated apologists post here?

None, of course.

[_Chap]

My post was:

If this board was at the centre of the universe, it would be a decidedly inappropriate place for any discussion of LDS apologetics, a subject whose marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo) is one of the reasons why some of us find discussion of its intricacies so intriguing, and indeed diverting.

Missing the chance to dialogue with Hamblin on LDS apologetic topics is as much a lost opportunity for those of us who feel that way as a missed opportunity to observe the mating habits of the curelom and cumom would be for a mammalian zoologist.

Now DCP, in response to my statement (which he can disbelieve if he likes) that this post was not intended to be taken as specifically about him says:

I suppose I shouldn't claim so much credit. The post concerned not only me, of course, but all of the BYU-affiliated apologists who participate on this board.

This post seems (no doubt inadvertently) to be worded in such a way as to blur the distinction between:

(a) A post that is addressed specifically to DCP as an individual (as, for instance, if one was to speak disrespectfully about his personal appearance, or the value of his academic publications)

and

(b) A post that concerns a class of people of which he is only one member amongst others.

My post was clearly of type (b): it did not refer only to LDS apologists from BYU who post on this board, but addressed the status of LDS apologetics in general, specifically in the world beyond BYU. In such a case it would have been reasonable for DCP to construct a reply, using his own experience as an example, to show that LDS apologetics is not in fact always found (outside BYU) to be a subject that is marginal in intellectual terms and almost totally irrelevant to normal academic discourse outside Provo. (It would be interesting to see this done, by the way).

No-one could take issue with that, any more than anybody could take issue with my replying to a post containing general assertions about atheists by using my own experience as an example.

If on the other hand I replied to a post critical of the position of atheists in general by saying something like "I think I'm being dissed. LOL. But I don't care", some people might feel that I was showing myself to be just a little narcissistic.