Slavish Praise?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I completely disagree.

[_EAllusion]

I also think there is a strong parallel to the Book of Mormon witnesses. The transformation episode benefits from a larger amount of public witnesses at the same time and a more direct link between people following Brigham Young on an exodus and choosing danger. This more closely mirrors some of the points they are trying to make. I also think there is reason out there to think the transformation episode is unreal that isn't supplied for the resurrection, such as the tendency to mythologize the story more as distance between the alleged event and the retelling of it widens, but that's a function of the sketchier historical record.

[_The Nehor]

The Nehor, there is no competition here.

I agree. You win.

I do think Scratch's writing is very good.

I don't.

Do you disagree?

Yes.

Can you disagree?

Yes.

Am I wrong to give credit here?

You can if you wish.

I also think Scratch makes some brilliant points.

I suspect brain damage may be at fault here.

I think others make brilliant points too.

How ecumenical of you.

I think -- in the case that my theory is correct -- that the plan to identify with, popularize, and then turn resurrection proof logic to a defense of the three witnesses is also fairly brilliant.

I don't think such a plan exists.

Brilliance is one thing.

We agree on this.

A compliment of fantastic writing and a brilliant post once in a while is nothing, nothing though compared to elevating someone to the capacity of walking among the select handful of the most "learned" who have ever lived.

I agree, who's doing the latter?

My compliments, which are truly felt and realistic, are nothing compared to this kind of overblown and very absurd worship. This kind of hubris only exists among the apologists.

You are the one who ascribes 'Christlike' to others. Short of physical things like bowing I can't think of how to get closer to worship.

[_Gadianton]

I agree, who's doing the latter?

The people at MAD.

You are the one who ascribes 'Christlike' to others. Short of physical things like bowing I can't think of how to get closer to worship.

Well, Nehor, we are counseled to follow Christ and be "Christlike". That's not an unrealistic expectation, given it's a condition of salvation that all mankind can partake in if they repent. It's very possible to be Christlike, if it were not the case, then there could be no hope of salvation.

But, for one who calls himself "the Nehor", maybe there is some feeling that it's impossible? Well, you need to concentrate more on "faith" rather than Mormon "works" if this is the case.

On the other hand, being one of the most learned men in the history of the world is far more unrealistic. But here's the apologists, "Maybe it's Hamblin who's the next Socrates, or DCP, hey, maybe even Maklelan?"

[_Daniel Peterson]

On the other hand, being one of the most learned men in the history of the world is far more unrealistic. But here's the apologists, "Maybe it's Hamblin who's the next Socrates, or DCP, hey, maybe even Maklelan?"

Any who might be wondering whether Gadianton Scratch has fairly summarized the admittedly rather pointless discussion on this topic over at the board formerly known as FAIR -- for the record, my view is that he has grossly distorted it in order to create a Scratchist straw man; nobody is taking votes on "the next Socrates" or candidates to be "one of the most learned men in the history of the world" -- is entirely welcome to read the thread for himself or herself.

[_Gadianton]

The dean of the Harvard Divinity School reportedly said of Hugh Nibley that it was obscene that any one man should know that much. Surely Nibley was one of the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived. So I ask who is the next most brilliant LDS scholar living today? Is there anyone who approaches Nibley's abilities?

It's pretty straightforward folks, the premise of the discussion:

1)"Nibley was one of the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived." (the apologist words, not mine, exact quote)
2)"Who is the next Hugh Nibley?" (the apologist words, not mine, exact quote)

The characteristics of Nibley are a set within the set "the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived". Anyone who possesses those characteristics will also be in the set of the most brilliant and learned men who ever lived. The point of the discussions is clear, and every poster who participated that I read made their nominations without correction to Fuller's premise.

The junior apologists clearly worship the senior apologists with far more devotion than I (supposedly) worship Mister Scratch.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gadianton Scratch's analysis is transparently unfair and inaccurate.

The question that was being discussed over on the board formerly known as FAIR was plainly who will fill Nibley's vacated role within the Mormon community.

I simply don't understand the gratification that some people appear to derive from triumphs over straw men.

[_Gadianton]

lol, amazing. When I try to read between the lines a little and connect the dots of apologetic insinutation, I get accused of misrepresentation. But now, when I simply state the case exactly, word for word, as an apologist presented it, I'm apparently guilty of NOT reading between the lines.

[_Mister Scratch]

lol, amazing. When I try to read between the lines a little and connect the dots of apologetic insinutation, I get accused of misrepresentation. But now, when I simply state the case exactly, word for word, as an apologist presented it, I'm apparently guilty of NOT reading between the lines.

I think that you were extraordinarily fair, Dr. Robbers. Although we tried to engage The Good Professor in substantive conversation (and here I'm thinking of the MMM book, and the recent thread on Mormon art in particular) he seemed far more interested in kicking up fog and making dumb jokes.