An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Buffalo]

A non-professional, non-scholarly, non-credible, axe grinding opinion from Buffalo.

my regards, mikwut

Yes, but I'm just a guy posting on a forum. What's MI's excuse?

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

I think the first paragraph above is my answer. They don't have to have an excuse for not subjectively meeting your tastes. They objectively fall in line with other scholarly publications found within their genre as I listed.

best, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

I think the first paragraph above is my answer. They don't have to have an excuse for not subjectively meeting your tastes. They objectively fall in line with other scholarly publications found within their genre as I listed.

best, mikwut

No, they don't. Apologetics is not a scholarly endeavor, no matter who is doing it - especially when you try to mix apologetics with history. No credible historian can be an apologist.

Farms is the Mormon equivalent of the Discovery Institute.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

You opinion about scholarly is tomato/tomauto. The more important issue is seriousness. If someone is serious about design inference arguments like Stephen Meyer makes they will take the the Discovery Institute seriously. If one takes philosophy of religion seriously they will take the Society of Christian Philosophers seriously. If one takes Mormonism seriously they will take FARMS seriously.

A better critic will take FARMS seriously and not attempt to just call it names or diminish its importance.

my best, mikwut

I'll give you the last word I am off.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

You opinion about scholarly is tomato/tomauto. The more important issue is seriousness. If someone is serious about design inference arguments like Stephen Meyer makes they will take the the Discovery Institute seriously. If one takes philosophy of religion seriously they will take the Society of Christian Philosophers seriously. If one takes Mormonism seriously they will take FARMS seriously.

A better critic will take FARMS seriously and not attempt to just call it names or diminish its importance.

my best, mikwut

I'll give you the last word I am off.

The problem with groups like Farms and Discovery Institute is that they're mixing advocacy (apologetics), theology and philosophy with things like history and biology. What might fly in a softer field like philosophy does not work in fields like history and evolutionary biology. Scholars in those fields must be dispassionate and unbiased in their analysis of the evidence, not advocates of a philosophical position.

If Farms could limit themselves to theology and improve the quality of their output, they could be taken seriously, within that limited scope.

[_mikwut]

Hi Buffalo,

The problem with groups like Farms and Discovery Institute is that they're mixing advocacy (apologetics), theology and philosophy with things like history and biology. What might fly in a softer field like philosophy does not work in fields like history and evolutionary biology. Scholars in those fields must be dispassionate and unbiased in their analysis of the evidence, not advocates of a philosophical position.

If Farms could limit themselves to theology and improve the quality of their output, they could be taken seriously, within that limited scope.

Advocacy is unavoidable. I think your confusing advocacy as simply your adversaries and not including yourself in the definition. Dispassion can still result in advocacy on both sides.

my best, mikwut

I'm really out now ;)

[_Buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

The problem with groups like Farms and Discovery Institute is that they're mixing advocacy (apologetics), theology and philosophy with things like history and biology. What might fly in a softer field like philosophy does not work in fields like history and evolutionary biology. Scholars in those fields must be dispassionate and unbiased in their analysis of the evidence, not advocates of a philosophical position.

If Farms could limit themselves to theology and improve the quality of their output, they could be taken seriously, within that limited scope.

Advocacy is unavoidable. I think your confusing advocacy as simply your adversaries and not including yourself in the definition. Dispassion can still result in advocacy on both sides.

my best, mikwut

I'm really out now ;)

Advocacy in the sense we're talking about is antithetical to the scientific method and the historical method. Apologists put the cart before the horse.

[_mikwut]

Buff,

If you flesh that out a bit for me I can respond more substantively when I return tonight. I meaning how is advocacy and in what forms antithetical to scientific method?

mikwu

[_stemelbow]

The MI is definitely not a scholarly source - apologetics are anathema to scholarly inquiry.

Who cares what you categorize it? That's not the issue.

I'm not sure there is one right now, to be honest. Mormon studies is such a niche area of history. But it wouldn't be the MI. But I'd consider a scholarly view one made by an independent scholar without an axe to grind regarding defending or attacking Mormonism, who is capable of writing in a scholarly, professional voice.

uh...you realize then this excludes pieces produced by critics of the Church? If there is no actual "scholarly" piece as you view it, then why would you require the review to be the subjective classification of scholarly? hmm...this is interesting thinking, Buffalo, and somewhat revealing.

As it stands, MI has no more credibility than any amateur blog you might come across. Not professional, not scholarly, not credible. Certainly very partisan.

Well of course credibility is a subjective thing. So your subjective credibility meter is turned to the 0 position merely because it comes from MI. I think that pretty much explains it....sadly. Oh well. Ad hom aside, I wish there was more room to actually discuss ideas here. Too many minds are shut down, it seems.

[_jon]

My apologies. They haven't installed the alarm bell and the fireman's pole in my house yet, so I'm still sometimes a bit slow to respond to demands for my participation here while I'm sleeping or otherwise engaged.

Here are the reviews that we published

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=510
.

Daniel, I was intending investing some time reading through these and started with the first one numerically. Can you show me anywhere in this reference that adds factual value to this thread because I cannot find it (I read it twice)?
Are the other links better than this one?