A question about Fawn Brodie

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Call your behavior anything you like. I am familiar with what objectivity is.

Somehow I think the philosophical implications of the concept of objectivity may not have yet been considered in your case.

[_harmony]

This is where the historian in me disagrees.

You have a degree in history? I didn't know that.

I think Brodie used whatever source, no matter where from, to justify her theory from the outset. Rather than weighing certain historical anecdotes in terms of provinance, veracity, etc. it seems her selection was based on whether or not something made Smith look like a fraud. "Fact-based reporting" is quite far from how I'd characterize her aspproach, it borders on historical fiction, but I need to read it again now having read Bushman. I think he provides a good foil for Brodie, or vice versa.

If I recall correctly, this is a common charge leveled at LDS apologists... ignoring contrary sources, allowing only supportive material to be used, anything that challenges the truth claims of the church is kicked to the curb, etc. That being the case, the irony just drips out of this paragraph.

[_harmony]

Call your behavior anything you like. I am familiar with what objectivity is.

Somehow I think the philosophical implications of the concept of objectivity may not have yet been considered in your case.

Have that same call for objectivity been considered in your case? Because calling for someone else to have objectivity is always easier and more productive if one is known for being objective. I'm not sure I'd allow you that claim.


blip


blip


blip

[_Mercury]

Call your behavior anything you like. I am familiar with what objectivity is.

Somehow I think the philosophical implications of the concept of objectivity may not have yet been considered in your case.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/chomskyspain.html

Take this and post something in the morning.

[_Mercury]

Furthermore, review this paper and tell me what you think, as opposed to what you believe:

http://www.unc.edu/~jcduffy/faithfulscholarship.pdf

a quote from the piece:

But simply put, faithful scholarship is scholarship predicated on LDS orthodoxy. By orthodoxy, I mean affirmation of the historical reality of LDS faith claims, of the church’s exclusive claim to divine authority, and of the obedience owed to church leaders.

[_rcrocket]

I think Duffy, or whatever is his gay name, goes way too far into what I call, and self-definedly so, the fallacy of self-definition. Define it the way you want it and all else falls into your little petty world.

An example of self-definition is to characterize Mormons as Iron Rodders or Liahonas (Richard Poll), or to rip off that concept with Chapel vs. Internet Mormons.

John Charles-Duffy, I must concede fails to see the deeper issues of faith and sociology as he gets lost in his petty world of self-congratulation. And your posts are just naïve and [MOD: Edited out for gratuitous insults].

[_harmony]

I think Duffy, or whatever is his gay name, goes way too far into what I call, and self-definedly so, the fallacy of self-definition. Define it the way you want it and all else falls into your little petty world.

An example of self-definition is to characterize Mormons as Iron Rodders or Liahonas (Richard Poll), or to rip off that concept with Chapel vs. Internet Mormons.

John Charles-Duffy, I must concede fails to see the deeper issues of faith and sociology as he gets lost in his petty world of self-congratulation. And your posts are just naïve and [MOD: Edited out for gratuitous insults].

Classic. Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You have a degree in history? I didn't know that.

Nope, no degree. An amateur historian.

I think Brodie used whatever source, no matter where from, to justify her theory from the outset. Rather than weighing certain historical anecdotes in terms of provinance, veracity, etc. it seems her selection was based on whether or not something made Smith look like a fraud. "Fact-based reporting" is quite far from how I'd characterize her aspproach, it borders on historical fiction, but I need to read it again now having read Bushman. I think he provides a good foil for Brodie, or vice versa.

If I recall correctly, this is a common charge leveled at LDS apologists... ignoring contrary sources, allowing only supportive material to be used, anything that challenges the truth claims of the church is kicked to the curb, etc. That being the case, the irony just drips out of this paragraph.

I agree that some LDS publications have the same tendency, no doubt. This does not, however, vindicate Brodie's approach or conclusions.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Somehow I think the philosophical implications of the concept of objectivity may not have yet been considered in your case.

Have that same call for objectivity been considered in your case? Because calling for someone else to have objectivity is always easier and more productive if one is known for being objective. I'm not sure I'd allow you that claim.

Somehow I think the philosophical implications of the concept of objectivity may not have yet been considered in your case, I also don't believe you know my take on the subject. Ah, well.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/chomskyspain.html

Take this and post something in the morning.

Take this and post something in a few months.

http://www.amazon.com/That-Noble-Dream- ... 0521357454