Well, I see your point. A prominent player in LDS apologetics told me that Kerry has caused some embarrassment in the upper circles of BYU academia but they just tolerate it in brotherly love.
I like Kerry. I think he is a nice guy – he is quite strange, but so am I!
Paul O
Dear Paul,
If you don't mind me asking---who was the "prominent player," and what was it that Kerry did that "caused some embarrassment"? I'm quite curious to know.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Paul Osborne wrote:Gee wizz, William, I think you have gone downhill in the way you relate to your opponents. Of course, that's my opinion, mind you. I don't think you are in a healthy situation. Eventually you will need to take a long break from all this. It's the only way to stay sane. Trust me, I know.
Paul,
If these Book of Abraham apologists weren't aspiring to be patron saints of the already lost cause, they would have joined you a long, long time ago in your sane approach to the question.
Indeed, my approach is sane. I’m baffled at the dishonest conclusions of some LDS apologists. However, I’ve basically concluded that for the most part good people are just trying to make sense of it all but are unwilling to think outside of the box that was built by Hugh Nibley. Nibley is the culprit.
I really believe that the whole Book of Abraham saga created by Joseph Smith was a supernatural trip taken by Joseph Smith in order to reveal truths that are hidden in the earth. Joseph Smith was a cool guy. The Lord dealt with him and played some interesting hands.
Well, I see your point. A prominent player in LDS apologetics told me that Kerry has caused some embarrassment in the upper circles of BYU academia but they just tolerate it in brotherly love.
I like Kerry. I think he is a nice guy – he is quite strange, but so am I!
Paul O
Dear Paul,
If you don't mind me asking---who was the "prominent player," and what was it that Kerry did that "caused some embarrassment"? I'm quite curious to know.
Me and my big mouth. I can't tell because of a confidence issue. But it's no real big deal. Kerry is loved by his fellow brethren who do tend to look down on him a little bit and are concerned about what he might say. But this was a few years ago so I don't know the latest. But with that said, BYU recognizes that Kerry has a right to express his views and opinions. However, I got the impression (from my source) that some would feel a little more at ease if he didn't express himself as much as he does.
Paul Osborne wrote:Indeed, my approach is sane. I’m baffled at the dishonest conclusions of some LDS apologists. However, I’ve basically concluded that for the most part good people are just trying to make sense of it all but are unwilling to think outside of the box that was built by Hugh Nibley. Nibley is the culprit.
I agree with you that many of them are decent guys who have sort of lost their way in some respects. The same could be said of many here at MDB, of course. I'd be interested in your thoughts on Nibley.
Paul Osborne wrote:I really believe that the whole Book of Abraham saga created by Joseph Smith was a supernatural trip taken by Joseph Smith in order to reveal truths that are hidden in the earth. Joseph Smith was a cool guy. The Lord dealt with him and played some interesting hands.
I know you do. I have been reading your posts for a little while. I respect your position. I don't share your belief, but I respect your position. It certainly works better than bogus arguments about missing texts.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Paul Osborne wrote:Kerry is loved by his fellow brethren who do tend to look down on him a little bit and are concerned about what he might say. But this was a few years ago so I don't know the latest. But with that said, BYU recognizes that Kerry has a right to express his views and opinions. However, I got the impression (from my source) that some would feel a little more at ease if he didn't express himself as much as he does.
I think it is relatively apparent that Shirts's problem is that he is a sincere truth seeker who is not in this apologetic enterprise for the game of it all. In this way he is far more like Nibley's good side than almost the entire remainder of the apologetic community combined. Kerry finds a place like this irrelevant because he is after bigger things. The apologists who do come around here can't let go of the game, which is very much attached to their personal egos and has far less to do with the gospel than they will ever admit to themselves.
I think the same applies to Paul. He has just gone the further step of jettisoning all of the bells and whistles of Mormon apologia and gone straight for faith.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
… who is not in this apologetic enterprise for the game of it all.
… after bigger things.
… jettisoning all of the bells and whistles of Mormon apologia …
… gone straight for faith.
Spoken like a true Scrotchman.
The apologists who do come around here can't let go of the game, which is very much attached to their personal egos and has far less to do with the gospel than they will ever admit to themselves.
Translation: “We don’t like apologists who refuse to play the game by our rules."
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
