Reality: Compton on Yellow Journalistic criticism

[_MsJack]

You're not discriminating. I can tell.

You can tell that I'm not discriminating in my historical sources because I made a single off-handed reference to a historical work that won the "Book of the Year" award from both the Mormon History Association and John Whitmer Historical Association in response to a laughably obtuse claim from an Internet message board denizen who fancies himself an apologist?

Yup, those are some real powers of discernment you have there.

You're subjectively selective and can't weigh the sources.

Coming from someone who reached for Tertullian as an authority on the ordination of women in the early church, that's precious.

And you have to resort to vulgarities? Really now.

If it's in the Bible, I can say it. Hell, damn, ass, and pisseth are all on the approved list, so get used to it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Coming from someone who reached for Tertullian as an authority on the ordination of women in the early church, that's precious.
.

Tertullian is a great source for all things general. A whole lot better than your extremely thin source from Madigan and Osiek who only use the word "possible." Anything is possible.

Really now, feminist theology isn't all that interesting nor discriminating (along with queer studies in the same arena). I'll stick with Metzger, Bruce and Dummelow for measured, consistent and discriminating views, among many others like them.

[_MsJack]

Wow. You really are just an ignorant troll fishing for heated reactions from the gullible. I recommend you try a World of Warcraft account instead.

by the way, I'm pretty sure both Metzger and Bruce are egalitarians, so by all means, see that you do stick with them.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I wonder with all your blogging and amongst all your feminist ex-LDS apostates you have ever really been challenged by anybody about your views -- at least by somebody who says he or she has actually read the patristric literature? Anybody really try and challenge you on your feminist blog postings and papers? Somebody trained in the classical languages?

I'm just curious, because your immediate reaction is to challenge me as a troll. Madam, I can assure you, I am no troll. I admit to seeking out the pompous, a sort of reverse Scratch on this board, I suppose. Affected pomposity to defeat real pomposity.

Bruce an egalitarian? That's a hoot in a heartbeat. Metzger doesn't strike me as such; his entry on women isn't all that supportive of your view.

Your world must simply be filled with fawning admirers, am I right?

[_MsJack]

I wonder with all your blogging and amongst all your feminist ex-LDS apostates

Wait, are you accusing me of being a feminist ex-LDS apostate or of blogging amongst feminist ex-LDS apostates? Either way, you're wrong on both counts again (as usual).

you have ever really been challenged by anybody about your views -- at least by somebody who says he or she has actually read the patristric literature? Anybody really try and challenge you on your feminist blog postings and papers?

I certainly have been, but most of them were terrible. I welcome rigorous engagement as it can only make my arguments better. I'm sensing that I won't find it with you, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Somebody trained in the classical languages?

I welcome engagement from fellow classicists.

Madam, I can assure you, I am no troll.

Prove it.

I admit to seeking out the pompous, a sort of reverse Scratch on this board, I suppose. Affected pomposity to defeat real pomposity.

Don't care.

Bruce an egalitarian? That's a hoot in a heartbeat.

You must really, really enjoy being wrong.

Metzger doesn't strike me as such; his entry on women isn't all that supportive of your view.

I'm not 100% sure on Metzger, but he is an ordained PCUSA minister and that denomination takes an egalitarian position.

Your world must simply be filled with fawning admirers, am I right?

Nope. The extremely conservative evangelicals don't like me because I'm an egalitarian and married to a Mormon, the Mormon apologists don't like me because I'm willing to offer appropriate critiques of their church, and the liberal Christians don't like me because I don't support the ordination of homosexuals. I get rocks thrown at me from all sides.

And I wouldn't change a thing for the world.

[_bcspace]

BCSpace, you are a presumptuous idiot. I have never in my life owned a book by the Tanners, nor am I anything that can remotely be called a "Tannerite."

Avoision. When I asked for a CFR on...

Joseph Smith commmitted adultery many times over and used an alleged revelation to justify it.

....you gave Compton's entire work as a reference. Nothing specific. However, while you have admitted significant contact with the Tanner's work, I'm willing to acknowledge that you may be a Tannerite by coinkydink.

Oh, and for the record, it's Ms. Jack Jeffries. I have a legal name change under way, which is why I changed my handle in the first place.

I stand corrected though not on any other point. The bottom line is that neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide a reference for the above claim, preferring to dance around the topic using invective as a smoke screen. No better than the typical lay evangelical.

[_MsJack]

CFR for any evidence that I am in any way, shape or form a "Tannerite."

Thinking that Joseph Smith's marriages can be interpreted as adulterous unions operating under the cover of a "revelation" on polygamy doesn't make me a "Tannerite." Anyone who doesn't believe that the principle of polygamy was from God or at least that Smith honestly believed it was from God could fairly draw that conclusion. Anyone who believes that a marriage is only valid if it goes through the legal channels of the state could rightly believe that. Anyone who believes that Smith's polygamy was from God, but maintains that the first wife must at least be aware of each new marriage in order for it to be valid and not adulterous could think that.

The only potential intellectual dishonesty on this thread is to deny that those are valid possible interpretations of what happened with Nauvoo polygamy. Seems you've made yourself more of a "Tannerite" than I'll ever be in that you favor one biased, extremely partial interpretation of LDS history at the expense of all others.

That's the kind of history that I'm just not interested in. Not from you, not from the Tanners.

[_bcspace]

CFR for any evidence that I am in any way, shape or form a "Tannerite."

More avoision to escape the fact that there really are no references for the claim...

Joseph Smith commmitted adultery many times over and used an alleged revelation to justify it.

..which MsJack said there was. She gave Todd Compton's enitre work as a "reference" but nothing specific. Nor has anyone else taking her side in this or the other thread. Time to put up or shut up.

[_MsJack]

I already did put up, bcspace.

Now CFR for evidence that I am a "Tannerite" or it's your turn to shut up.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I certainly have been, but most of them were terrible. I welcome rigorous engagement as it can only make my arguments better. I'm sensing that I won't find it with you, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Name one person, the one with the most credentials in terms of being a New Testament scholar or a classisist, in the LDS community who has thought to challenge your feminist views of clergy ordination?

I mean, this field has been ploughed many times, deeply, and your shallow writings are those of a dilettante -- somebody who is out of academia but wants to be in it; who has challenged you?