harmony wrote:My problem with that thread is that the LDS contributors have contributed a grand total of nothing substantial. Attempts at derailing, red herrings, and jokes, that's all. Were there someone on that thread of the caliber of EE, someone with a level head and some knowledge of the issue, that would be awesome. Unfortunately, there is no one like that who is willing to step up to the plate. Instead we have hit and runs by the disrespectful and drive bys by the ego-driven. The closest we have come is Danna bringing Lindsey's comments (I won't say rebuttal because it obviously wasn't) here.
And I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that this is MDB. I think it's because so far no one's actually come up with an answer, and there is no one brave enough to actually enter the discussion unless they have (or at least think they have) the answer.
It's really disconcerting that all of the Mormon statisticians and historians and specialists in the Spalding/Rigdon theory who post here have so signally failed to rebut the Criddle paper and Uncle Dale's ruminations.
Their failure to post such a rebuttal on MDB, the premiere venue for such matters (and, indeed, the center of the Mormon intellectual universe), surely demonstrates that they have nothing whatever to say.
harmony wrote:I wonder how the Brethren reacted.
There's no indication of any reaction whatsoever, as far as I can tell. There's no indication, so far as I can see, that they know about it or care.
harmony wrote:If they just kicked it to Daniel and Co, I'm going to be disappointed once again.
An article is published in an academic journal, arguing for its conclusion on the basis of evidence and scholarly analysis. How very disappointing -- shocking, even -- if one or more academics end up critiquing it on the basis of evidence and scholarly analysis. (And, certainly, the thought of replying to the article would never occur to them on their own; they would need to be ordered to do it by their ecclesiastical leaders.) Wouldn't the more appropriate, credible, and convincing response be testimony-bearing by Church leaders who lack training in the relevant mode of scholarly analysis?
That's what would win the
critics over!
]
