Yahoo Bot wrote:I don't think that justifies the abuse being heaped upon him by you and others -- excommunication, loss of position and employment and such other abuse. I don't get you and your pals here on this board; you seem to think it appropriate to seek the loss of your adversary's employment as a means of revenge for saying things you don't like. I don't get that at all.
lightning must have struck twice in the same place. You and I agree on something.
For the record, though, I don't think that Rollo has ever wished excommunication or unemployment on Hamblin. That was Paul's comment. I agree, however, that wishing that someone would lose their job and their Church membership simply because their views are different from yours is extremely mean-spirited.
Yoda wrote:For the record, though, I don't think that Rollo has ever wished excommunication or unemployment on Hamblin.
You're right; Yahoo Bot is confusing me with someone else.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
I certainly don't want Hamblin to lose his job over this stuff. The last thing the Mormon academic community needs is another precedent for throwing people out for saying obnoxious things (and/or having crazy ideas: madness lives very close to creative genius). I wish everyone would lighten up and let folks disagree and be morons without getting all worked up over a bunch of words that shouldn't be as important as they have become for determining the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Hardcore believers care about more than just history, right? Surely they must love the church for more than its invention of the tapir chariot? Hardcore nonbelievers definitely have better things to do than dwell on the tapir chariot. Even when it comes to attacking what they perceive as ecclesiastical misconduct, to dwell on the tapir chariot is to miss the unrighteous dominion (and risk turning a serious conversation about truth and justice among enemies into a ludicrous farce in which we make fun of people who aren't dumb precisely the same way we are).
Stranger, please don't shoot me Or hate me for a fraud: I am just the messenger Of your inscrutable God.
David Bokovoy wrote:Again, the issues are complicated and require time and space to articulate. However, I believe that genre labeling is an important guide to reading a text. A reader, for example, interprets a “parody” different than she would a newspaper editorial, science fiction book, or a college history text. Despite the fact that from an academic perspective, the Book of Abraham clearly lacks historicity, to impose our modern label of “fiction” upon the book would certainly misidentify its genre.
Ok. How about "religious fiction" then. Does that help?
kamenraider wrote:I haven't been following this situation, but I noticed that Hamblin said that Bokovoy believes that the Book of Abraham is a fictitious creation. Is that true? How does Hamblin know this?
He doesn't. It is his way of distorting what David does believe for polemic effect.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Hermes wrote:I wish everyone would lighten up and let folks disagree and be morons without getting all worked up over a bunch of words that shouldn't be as important as they have become for determining the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Amen, Hermes. You really are thrice-great.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
