Kishkumen wrote:I was recounting some history, EAllusion. Scripture is a Western term that got applied more widely in Western scholarship. It is much like the problematic term "religion." I don't have a "hang-up" on the word "scripture" anymore than I have a "hang-up" regarding the word "religion." Scripture, like religion, is a controversial term, and one can come at the issue from a variety of angles. Scholars continue to debate these issues. It is not as though these things are settled.
The conversation you engaged with Chap is about what sorts of qualities a work needs to have to have the potential to adopted as a work of religious significance or be considered divinely inspired by some group of people. Whether the term scripture is used to communicate that or not is not relevant.
EAllusion wrote:The conversation you engaged with Chap is about what sorts of qualities a work needs to have to have the potential to adopted as a work of religious significance or be considered divinely inspired by some group of people. Whether the term scripture is used to communicate that or not is not relevant.
I'm sorry, EAllusion. You may believe that you have some sort of authority to set the parameters of the discussion, but I don't have to agree to the terms you set.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote: I'm sorry, EAllusion. You may believe that you have some sort of authority to set the parameters of the discussion, but I don't have to agree to the terms you set.
If you want to have a discussion, you might effort to understand what your interlocuters are actually saying and address it. If you want to pick your battles over labels for concepts no one is married to, that's your prerogative. Observers like myself are free to point out how dubious that is.
EAllusion wrote:... It isn't difficult to imagine an alternative set of historical contingencies that might result in something none of us would peg as a candidate for scripture being revered as such.
(And if the Book of Mormon can be divinely inspired fiction, then why not the Cat in the Hat? Mormons in particular are generally friendly to the idea that ideas and beauty found in various works can be the result of divine inspiration.)
I wouldn't even entertain a notion that any intelligent person would honestly place "Cat in the Hat" on the level of scripture. But, "Oh the Places You Will Go" definitely could be considered as scripture, same author, and entirely different audience and intent....
A man should never step a foot into the field, But have his weapons to hand: He knows not when he may need arms, Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38
EAllusion wrote:If you want to have a discussion, you might effort to understand what your interlocuters are actually saying and address it. If you want to pick your battles over labels for concepts no one is married to, that's your prerogative. Observers like myself are free to point out how dubious that is.
Yes, I want a discussion that is well informed, where assumptions based on ignorance are not declared ex cathedra to be the standard that I must adhere to, lest my objections be mistaken for a "dubious" strategy.
The use of the term scripture in a certain way simply is a kind of colonialist gesture. Mormon Christians and other Christians are probably not going to accept the possibility that the Cat in the Hat could be scripture. Nor do they really have to. Simply because a Harvard religion professor applied the term scripture to anything he felt was treated as such (according to his own standard) does not make him right or oblige me to follow in his footsteps.
The fact that you find this dubious doesn't really trouble me.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:The use of the term scripture in a certain way simply is a kind of colonialist gesture. Mormon Christians and other Christians are probably not going to accept the possibility that the Cat in the Hat could be scripture. Nor do they really have to. Simply because a Harvard religion professor applied the term scripture to anything he felt was treated as such (according to his own standard) does not make him right or oblige me to follow in his footsteps.
The fact that you find this dubious doesn't really trouble me.
You're arguing over semantics that no one is interested in challenging. You aren't even attacking a strawman so much as having an argument with figments of your imagination. It simply does not matter if you think Christian norms are determinant of what can constitute scripture in a narrow sense of the term. If you don't like the term scripture to refer to the concept Chap was talking about, I'm sure Chap would be happy to oblige and describe the concept with other terminology. The terms don't matter in this instance. Yet you persist on, which suggests you are uninterested in actual discussion at best and dodging the real discussion at worst. I don't get the define the terms of your discussion, but I sure as heck can see when you stubbornly aren't having one.
EA, Chap's post wasn't an invitation to a serious discussion in the first place. And you don't know enough to be able to distinguish between a legitimate point and an argument over semantics in this case. So, let's just drop it. Your utterly clueless adherence to the stupid idea that the Cat in the Hat is a reasonable analog for the Book of Mormon is an obvious non-starter. Only he most prejudiced anti-religionists would fail to see that. Wait, or people who haven't read one or both books.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I haven't followed most of this seemingly rather odd argument, but I take it it's about chiasmus, no? The biggest problem with comparing chiasmus in Cat in the Hat to chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is that they're of a radically different quality. The difference has been quanitifed by Boyd and W. Farrell Edwards here: http://byustudies.BYU.edu/chiasmus/pdf/edwards.pdf.
CaliforniaKid wrote:I haven't followed most of this seemingly rather odd argument, but I take it it's about chiasmus, no? The biggest problem with comparing chiasmus in Cat in the Hat to chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is that they're of a radically different quality. The difference has been quanitifed by Boyd and W. Farrell Edwards here: http://byustudies.BYU.edu/chiasmus/pdf/edwards.pdf.
Nope, it is not, but it has been an odd turn. It's basically about whether cat in the hat can be compared to the Book of Mormon in regards to whether some could view them as scripture.
Fifth Columnist wrote:I believe Dan Vogel has said Joseph would have spent 6 hours on average dictating the Book of Mormon each day. If that is the case, what was he doing the rest of the time? Most likely thinking about things he had read, generating themes and story lines that he tested using the method in D&C 9 (making up ideas, seeing if his bosom burns so he knows the ideas are correct, etc.). I think it is almost beyond question that Joseph Smith was reading the Bible during the down time and possibly other books such as the Late War. I don't think this means he copied the Late War, but if he was reading it, those ideas and phrases could easily creep into the words he dictated.
Actually, he dictated an average of 8 pages per day, which I think can be done in about two hours.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)