Hamblin "Just Trying To Understand"

[_stemelbow]

LOL. Right, stem. Peterson has made this connection more than once. For you to try to dismiss it with the most generous reading of one statement he made is disingenuous. I have no doubt that he has been pushing the idea that Bradford has acted incorrectly and is probably in some sense an apostate. It is the subtext of much of what he has posted, as anyone who is not a besotted Peterson fan can readily see.

I would imagine that he better hope people like you continue to back peddle on all of that and minimize it as much as possible, because he could get himself in a great deal of hot water.

Kish, your own explanation of why you prefer to demonize Dan, as you explained weeks ago, should be a side-note to all of your recent posts.

Here I'll provide a synopsis for those who might have missed it:

--Kish doesn't like Dan
--Therefore some things Dan does Kish will try to find an ulterior motive or attribute something negative to his actions.
--Kish explains he does this because his past observations of Dan prove he is naughty in some MDB weirdo sense.
--Dan's past naughty actions are said to be naughty now because Kish has credited to them poor intentions.

In sum it doesn't matter to Kish he can try and play both sides of the fence on this. He can easily acknowledge some of Dan's actions are okay or good, but he can also take any of Dan's actions and twist it into something bad. And that all get's plenty of respect and play around here.

Whatever, kish. Go play some more.

[_Equality]

He isn't questioning whether Bradford is an apostate.

So, when DCP and the other OMIDs use words like "Bradford Junta" and "coup d'etat" and the like, and say that the Junta are in basic agreement with Kishkumen, they are not questioning whether Bradford is an apostate?

Talk about blockhead.

Indeed.

[_stemelbow]

So, when DCP and the other OMIDs use words like "Bradford Junta" and "coup d'etat" and the like, and say that the Junta are in basic agreement with Kishkumen, they are not questioning whether Bradford is an apostate?

I think your confusion is in your lumping 'em all together.

I'm sure Kish and Dan can find plenty to agree on on many things too. Kish and Bradford? Yeah, I'm sure they agree on things and disagree on other things. You and me? We probably can agree on things too, if given half a chance. I don't even know that Dan calls Kish an apostate let alone Bradford.

[Guest]

Kish, your own explanation of why you prefer to demonize Dan, as you explained weeks ago, should be a side-note to all of your recent posts.

Where did I say anything like that? Please show it. Thanks.

--Kish doesn't like Dan

Doesn't like Dan? Um, I don't personally know Dan. I don't know whether I would like him or not. I don't like some of his writings.

--Therefore some things Dan does Kish will try to find an ulterior motive or attribute something negative to his actions.

Ulterior motives? I think the explicit motives are clear. There is no need to look for ulterior motives. Dan, Bill, and Lou are the ones cooking up conspiracy theories about the Institute.

--Kish explains he does this because his past observations of Dan prove he is naughty in some MDB weirdo sense.

You are welcome to believe what you like, but I think last year's events speak for themselves. Obviously Kishkumen was not the only person in whom, nor was MDB the only place where, disapproval of Daniel Peterson's methods in some areas existed.

--Dan's past naughty actions are said to be naughty now because Kish has credited to them poor intentions.

His many posts regarding Bradford and the Maxwell Institute speak for themselves. I don't have to say anything about any of it being naughty.

In sum it doesn't matter to Kish he can try and play both sides of the fence on this. He can easily acknowledge some of Dan's actions are okay or good, but he can also take any of Dan's actions and twist it into something bad.

So, you basically acknowledge that I have remarked on both the good and bad I have seen in Daniel's work, but you try to change that into a bizarre, underhanded ploy on my part. Um, it is called "calling them as I see them."

You are free to disagree. Neither of us has to be operating as part of a strange conspiracy in order to disagree on this.

[_Kishkumen]

I think your confusion is in your lumping 'em all together.

I'm sure Kish and Dan can find plenty to agree on on many things too. Kish and Bradford? Yeah, I'm sure they agree on things and disagree on other things. You and me? We probably can agree on things too, if given half a chance. I don't even know that Dan calls Kish an apostate let alone Bradford.

Maybe you don't follow his blog very closely.

[_DrW]

While I have heard statements similar to that made in the second paragraph of your post, I have never heard an adequate explanation about what the "middle ground" you refer to could possibly be.

Isn't the middle way on this issue described by Blake Ostler in his article
The Book of Mormon as an Expansion of an Ancient Source?

Equality,

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, it does not help Wayfarer's case or address my skepticism regarding a "middle way" when it comes to the Book of Mormon. From the first page of Bro. Ostler's paper:

It is my purpose to demonstrate that both extremes are too limited and to offer a theory of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's expansion of an
ancient work by building on the work of earlier prophets to answer the nagging
problems of his day. In so doing, he provided unrestricted and authoritative
commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights
from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV).
The result is a modern world view and theological understanding superimposed on the Book of Mormon text from the plates.

First of all, the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud (to put it kindly) is "extreme" only to those who have a need to believe that it is not a pious fraud. In terms of a scientific, objective look at the evidence, pious fraud is the best (and only viable) hypothesis as to the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

Accepting Ostler's theory, as described, would mean that one accepted the the Book of Mormon, or at least significant portions thereof, as factual. Again, the same basic issues that I raised in response to Wayfarer would be in play in evaluating Ostler's theory or hypothesis. There is just no evidence whatsoever that such is the case, and a mountain of evidence that this is not the case. Those mainstream scientific institutions that have been asked to comment publicly on this issue, and have been willing to do so, without exception, have stated that there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is factual, and a great deal of evidence that it is not.

Again, there is simply no possibility that the Book of Mormon describes factual events, even on a basic or skeletal level. Not only have dozens of falsifiable claims in the Book of Mormon been falsified, the Book of Mormon narrative itself is inconsistent with other canonized scriptures of the LDS Church.

Bro. Ostler certainly does not describe any kind of "middle way" for the Book of Mormon that would in any way be defensible based on physical evidence. What Bro. Ostler offers is a way for the faithful rationalize a belief that the Book of Mormon might contain some elements of historical fact, provided one is willing to discount or completely ignore the relevant physical evidence.

[_Molok]

I think your confusion is in your lumping 'em all together.

This, coming from the person who castigates this entire board as some kind of hive mind.

[_Equality]

Equality,

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, it does not help Wayfarer's case or address my skepticism regarding a "middle way" when it comes to the Book of Mormon. From the first page of Bro. Ostler's paper:

It is my purpose to demonstrate that both extremes are too limited and to offer a theory of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's expansion of an
ancient work by building on the work of earlier prophets to answer the nagging
problems of his day. In so doing, he provided unrestricted and authoritative
commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights
from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV).
The result is a modern world view and theological understanding superimposed on the Book of Mormon text from the plates.

First of all, the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud (to put it kindly) is "extreme" only to those who have a need to believe that it is not a pious fraud. In terms of a scientific, objective look at the evidence, pious fraud is the best (and only viable) hypothesis as to the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

Accepting Ostler's theory, as described, would mean that one accepted the the Book of Mormon, or at least significant portions thereof, as factual. Again, the same basic issues that I raised in response to Wayfarer would be in play in evaluating Ostler's theory or hypothesis. There is just no evidence whatsoever that such is the case, and a mountain of evidence that this is not the case. Those mainstream scientific institutions that have been asked to comment publicly on this issue, and have been willing to do so, without exception, have stated that there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is factual, and a great deal of evidence that it is not.

Again, there is simply no possibility that the Book of Mormon describes factual events, even on a basic or skeletal level. Not only have dozens of falsifiable claims in the Book of Mormon been falsified, the Book of Mormon narrative itself is inconsistent with other canonized scriptures of the LDS Church.

Bro. Ostler certainly does not describe any kind of "middle way" for the Book of Mormon that would in any way be defensible based on physical evidence. What Bro. Ostler offers is a way for the faithful rationalize a belief that the Book of Mormon might contain some elements of historical fact, provided one is willing to discount or completely ignore the relevant physical evidence.

I agree with your analysis, DrW. I hope I did not imply that I find Ostler's theory persuasive. I only posted it as an example of an attempt by a faithful Mormon to articulate a position somewhere between "it's all a 19th-century fraud" and "it's all ancient". I think Ostler's theory does this, at least in part: it acknowledges the numerous instances of 19th-century influence evident in the text while at the same time arguing that those elements that are a product of Joseph Smith's imagination do not necessarily require one to believe that the entire production was fraudulent. Again, I don't find it persuasive, but it does seem to me to qualify for some kind of a middle position between the two poles Hinckley drives into the ground.

[_DrW]

I agree with your analysis, DrW. I hope I did not imply that I find Ostler's theory persuasive. I only posted it as an example of an attempt by a faithful Mormon to articulate a position somewhere between "it's all a 19th-century fraud" and "it's all ancient". I think Ostler's theory does this, at least in part: it acknowledges the numerous instances of 19th-century influence evident in the text while at the same time arguing that those elements that are a product of Joseph Smith's imagination do not necessarily require one to believe that the entire production was fraudulent. Again, I don't find it persuasive, but it does seem to me to qualify for some kind of a middle position between the two poles Hinckley drives into the ground.

Understand.

And again, thanks for the reference.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Of my friends and acquaintances that ended up in a academic field that someone intersected with their Mormonism I'd guess that 80%+ have abandoned belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Some have left the church, others are NOM, and others hold to a very heterodox belief that lets them stay in the church and keep their doubts on a shelf.

This includes quite a few at BYU that don't believe but stay for career and family reasons. Examining the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a slippery slope.


Phaedrus