Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Tobin]

Nobody sees that and likely won't simply due to my choice not to participate in in the conversation that has gone too fast for me or for which I'm too busy. So they miss a part of who I am and what defines me.

I notice that "in the real world" I get very different comments about me than some I see online, and that's precisely because of what you note above. Posters really only see "parts" of you online, no matter how much you post, and that's not to say it's impossible to be correct in some, or even many online assessments, but not "the whole" of you.

For years I've been trying to express online what I believe, yet so many just don't "get it". I have to be frank in saying, though, that sometimes even I don't "get it", and how to more clearly express myself in this "journey", and that's what it is. By chance, I came across the following article this morning, and realised that I finally found an article that comes very close to my own personal beliefs; my own personal journey, if you like. For me it was a eureka moment, and because I know you're an intelligent and reflective person, perhaps you might also enjoy it:

Patrick White and unprofessed faith.

Cheers.

I've always enjoyed your posts Ray, so don't give up posting online or on this forum. I think you bring a very interesting perspective to topics and I value it.

[_J Green]

By chance, I came across the following article this morning, and realised that I finally found an article that comes very close to my own personal beliefs; my own personal journey, if you like. For me it was a eureka moment, and because I know you're an intelligent and reflective person, perhaps you might also enjoy it:

Patrick White and unprofessed faith.

Cheers.

Great article, Ray. Best wishes for your own journey, and may you have fewer "oilskin" moments than Patrick White.

Regards

[_MrStakhanovite]

DCP talking about Mouw in print will depend on the likelihood of Mouw seeing what is written and responding.

[_Doctor Scratch]

2. I think the Hamblin comparison is a good idea. Out of all Hamblin's posts, how much has he actually focused on Dehlin as opposed to, say, ascension texts, or masonry, or ancient Christian iconography, or the temple in Ancient Israel? Could we graph the results? Now let's graph your interest in, say, (picking something at random) Dan as opposed to your posting on other subjects like ancient Christian iconography. Then let's compare it to Kish's interest in Dan as you suggest. Is one of these graphs not like the others? At what point does a quest for "accuracy" turn into an obession?

Joey,

Like I said: these kinds of things only demonstrate amounts, or numbers. (How familiar are you with methodology in the social sciences? Don't you have a background in linguistics?) So what is it that you want to show, exactly? Simply that I've posted a number of times on DCP's crappy behavior? Well, I have. Do you feel better? Does that make you feel vindicated in some way?

Perhaps more importantly, have you demonstrated something useful? I get that you want to apply this label of "obsession," and my reaction is twofold: (1) why is "obsession" necessarily a bad thing? (2) How do you define "obsession"? (It seems like it's based purely on your rather arbitrary assessment of numbers or amount.) You think that my posts are "unhealthy," but not everybody agrees with you. For somebody like Joe Geisner, who recently thanked me for "holding the apologists' feet to the fire," what you label my "obsession" has been productive. I've had a lot of people come to me over the years--dozens of them--who have either thanked me, offered words of encouragement, or who have asked me to post something knowing that Your Good Friend Dan Peterson would automatically respond. I don't know that I can take credit for, say, something like the revelations concerning the 2nd Watson Letter, or the bits about apologists getting paid to do what they do, but I would at least like to think that I've contributed in some way. I think that you are incredibly naïve in terms of how much damage the apologists have inflicted on a wide swath of people. You don't seem to care.

Maybe you should ask yourself: What good would come from me *not* criticizing Your Good Friend Dan Peterson? Maybe he'd feel less stressed out? Maybe you'd feel less conflicted about being friends with a person who is so widely despised? What point is it that you're trying to drive home, exactly?

Your arguments and defenses of Your Good Friend Dan Peterson are really easy to pick apart, Joey. I'm not going to tell you to drop him as a friend, or (God forbid) openly criticize him. But give me a break already with your dumb observation that I've subjected this guy to a lot of criticism. Of course I have. Ask yourself, instead, whether or not any of it is merited. A lot of people on your "side" (including most of the people you identified in your list of MDB posters you admire) have conceded that it is. Did you read Blair Hodges and the narrators' Facebook criticism of his misogynistic blog postings? That's what I'm talking about. Your attempts to undo my commentary by way of this "persona" thing is awfully weak.

What I'm saying, in short, is that it seems like your "graph" thing is really just a veiled way of you telling me to "shut up." That's pretty much the extent of the substance of your criticism.

Ultimately, Joey, I don't care two squats about you. You would never have even shown up on my radar if it weren't for the fact that you're helping to prop up bad behavior. I don't expect you to speak out, but for heaven's sake, man: at least get out of the way of the people who are actually trying to get something done. Either that, or provide a cogent defense of the ways that arguing with 13-year-olds on SHIELDS is helpful in the defense of the LDS Church.

[_J Green]

Like I said: these kinds of things only demonstrate amounts, or numbers. (How familiar are you with methodology in the social sciences? Don't you have a background in linguistics?) So what is it that you want to show, exactly? Simply that I've posted a number of times on DCP's crappy behavior? Well, I have. Do you feel better? Does that make you feel vindicated in some way?

I haven't pretented to lay out an entire argument here on the scope of your obsession. This is to make the same mistake as when you took my initial questions to Gad and turned them into a complete argument. But in terms of methodology, concentration is certainly one of several factors. I agree that there are others, but this is where I choose to start precisely because you have chosen to exclude it from your own methodology. In other words, I'm trying to make a point, just as the Ben Stiller piece was trying to make a point about your methodology as well.

Ultimately, Joey, I don't care two squats about you. You would never have even shown up on my radar if it weren't for the fact that you're helping to prop up bad behavior.

And this is the nub of the whole thing. What has been obvious to everyone all along. I've only ever been a means to end. A way to get to someone else. Casualty of war? Collatoral damage? My own fault for daring to speak up for someone I care about? I wonder if this kind of thinking is any indicator about obsession as well. Can we add something else to the idea of concentration now?

Well, so much for nuanced discussion. I think this is the point where I ask you for those headphones.

[_Drifting]

My own fault for daring to speak up for someone I care about?

I'm sure the person you care about will be along shortly to return the favour and help defend you...

[_Chap]

J. Green calls it an obsession. Me, I'd prefer to call it a specialty.

I find DCP a rich and strange intellectual phenomenon. I have never seen anyone else with the same combination of intellectual flexibility, polemical skill and energy in the service of what seem to most of the rest of us to be obviously indefensible propositions.

When I see one of Dr Scratch's finely crafted posts on this subject, and also on the wider institutional context of mopologetics, I therefore expect to be amused and intrigued, and I usually am.

I suspect DCP also homes in on Dr. Scratch's posts with eager appreciation. It gives him such a lot to blog and post about, and all on the same fascinating subject!

[_Drifting]

J. Green calls it an obsession. Me, I'd prefer to call it a specialty.

I find DCP a rich and strange intellectual phenomenon. I have never seen anyone else with the same combination of intellectual flexibility, polemical skill and energy in the service of what seem to most of the rest of us to be obviously indefensible propositions.

When I see one of Dr Scratch's finely crafted posts on this subject, and also on the wider institutional context of mopologetics, I therefore expect to be amused and intrigued, and I usually am.

I suspect DCP also homes in on Dr. Scratch's posts with eager appreciation. It gives him such a lot to blog and post about, and all on the same fascinating subject!

This is a good point.
I would challenge DCP to go a whole twelve months without mentioning, refering to or in any other way acknowledging Dr Scratch or anything that the good Dr does or says or posts.

DCP - bet ya can't!

[_J Green]

Hi, Chap. It's been a while.

J. Green calls it an obsession. Me, I'd prefer to call it a specialty.

I'm not sure that these ideas are exclusive. Couldn't they be both? Aren't most of our own weaknesses related to our strengths in some fashion?

But I'm interested in taking the measure of your argument, so perhaps you'll forgive me for coming at it from an oblique angle:

Droopy's singular focus on politics: obsession, specialty, or both? Why or why not?

Regards

[Guest]

Nephi/Lehi display the characteristics of three different vocations from the ancient world: priest, scribe, and metalworker. All of these vocations were regulated by guilds by clan, and there weren't actually metal workers among the Israelites. Metalworking was found among the Phoenicians to the north and the Kenites/Rechabites to the south in the Arabah/Trans-Jordan.

If Nephi is a pure Israelite, how is he a metalworker?
If Lehi is a priest, why doesn't he know his Israelite geneology?
If Lehi is an Israelite priest, from whence the Melchizedek priesthood?

The Kenites, however, included family clans of scribes who intermarried with the Israelites at different times during Israel's history. They worked metal in the same location to which Lehi and his family flee after leaving Jerusalem. And the Melchizedek priesthood is transferred through at least one Kenite/Midianite clan, where D&C 84 gives us the priesthood lineage of Melchizedek. If Lehi is from a similar clan whose family had intermarried with Israel at some point in the past, it would explain how he could be a priest and hold the Melchizedek priesthood without even knowing his Israelite geneology.

Short version. All speculation, of course.

Yes, that is quite interesting. I guess, because of my educational background, I see the association of metallurgy and esoteric knowledge as something that goes back quite a ways in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East (but also Africa, I believe). The Idaean Dactyls immediately spring to mind, but there are numerous other examples of the mysteries of artisans. I recall also Plato in the Apology attributing to Socrates a reference to artisans in his discussion of the relationship between knowledge of a limited skill and pretension to greater knowledge of the world. I think the choice of artisans there was not happenstance.

My reading of the Book of Mormon is quite different from yours, I would wager, but I am open to readings from those who believe it to be an ancient text. I believe it is ancient in the sense that it falls within an ancient tradition of mythography. As Robert Price has noted, and I agree, the believer will have intuitive insights into things going on in a text that others miss. Joseph Smith was, in my opinion, a very insightful and intuitive interpreter, which is one of the talents that made him, of all of his peers, a bona fide prophet.

I see some interesting things in your theory that lead me to suspect that there is more going on with the cultural and social location of Lehi and his family than I had supposed. Of course, the Nephite story is, on one level, the story of a royal dynasty that preserves its esoteric knowledge through rare, sacred texts, and the visionary experiences these prompt in the prophetically gifted members of the family. Whence it comes is something not sufficiently worked out, however.