Introducing this Section
 

We noticed a division in the types of religious discussions. Thus a suggestion from the audience arose that we could have one academic based discussion arena, where traditional academic formatting applied. It's not really intended to be a place where apologetics gets ramped up full force, testimony bearing or anything of the like.

If you wish to do that, use the standard religion section. Thanks for self-policing.

In other words, No Apologists Allowed

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia...s/noHomers.gif

Apologists are allowed. Apologia isn't.

I guess.

Apologists allowed, just use an academic technique, not just defensive argument.

SIEQ and Pelagius are well-acquainted with the academic techniques, but in some fields would be considered apologists.

Just for clarification, if there is a discussion about Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the American Indian and I post a link showing that mitochondrial DNA studies show how poorly mitochondrial DNA performed in Iceland trying to link known ancestors as little as 150 years back, does that amount to a defensive argument or an academic technique or something else?

Correct. It's more to discuss dispassionately scholarly, philosophical or theological observations. It can involve scriptural exegesis and the like.

The Icelandic study is a legitimate study, and citation to it is fine. I agree with your conclusions that the conclusions of the geneticists that no genetic links between the Middle East ancestry and Native Americans is overstated. Currently, no comprehensive studies have been conducted which would allow one to make that statement. The Cohen type mitochondrial studies are interesting in that the lack of findings is not insignificant, just not conclusive and may suggest a reason to reject Pratt's hypothesis of a hemispheric application of BoM.

There is a fine line, I suppose. Argument with exegesis and studies is certain apologia, but where the line is crossed can only be determined on a case by case basis. Just police yourself. If you want pure argument with academic allowance for oneself to be wrong or without surveying alternative interpretations, you're probably in the field of apologia.

Indy, I thought your DNA link was well within the bounds of the forum (even though it happened before its creation). I think one could surround it with a discussion that was too polemical, but you didn't do that if I recall correctly.

I agree. His citation was proper and not polemical. If one wishes to discuss genetic heritage, it is proper to understand the current boundaries which given studies provide. The Icelandic study shows the limitations of maternal mitachondrial studies.

I would like to officially lodge my protest of this new category. I think splitting the religion category like this is a BAD idea. I think both categories will be worse than the original religion category.

Just to be clear, I didn't try to assert that the study proved anything specifically regarding Native American DNA other than to call into question the absolutist assertion others have made that the current absence of Middle Eastern genetic markers in mitochondrial DNA proves that the Book of Mormon is false.

To be even more succinct, mitochondrial DNA currently can't be relied upon to fully resolve the issue of Native American ancestries one way or the other.

100% agree with your conclusion. I think it is an important point and I think it typifies the kind of discussion that Arch is hoping to foster in this forum.

Time will tell if this little experiment works. I'm frankly still fuzzy on what belongs where. In all likelihood, I'll probably just be replying to posts until I get a sense of what section a certain post belongs to.

My guess is that both forums will look virtually identical in a very short period of time.

The idea, I believe, is to foster a more favorable atmosphere to sharing religious/spiritual experiences in the Religion forum and reduce pissing matches in either forum. Again, time will tell.

what if you read an academic work and you want to talk about it in a devotional manner? it strengthened your testimony?

The experiment might not work, but who knows. We can always combine the two categories again. It is hoped we can engender a little bit of civility through this division and Lebowski's objection is duly noted.

What might be lost, so we can try to lessen or avoid the losses in your opinion?

Our hope was to allow sacred type experiences in the other forum, or apologia, and an intellectual or academic discussion here, to lessen acrimonious debates.

So if Nibley wrote it, it should go in this forum; if Packer wrote it, it should go in the other. More or less. Right?

You be the judge. Nibley wrote a lot of apologia, and Packer would generally be considered a preacher, not a professor. Preaching and apologetics seem more appropriate in the other forum.

Could be.

My problem is that I think any attempt to dictate what types of religious viewpoints are kosher in either forum will be arbitrary and unfair. Categorizing religious discussions into fully faith-based and academic-based groupings turns my stomach. Where do you draw the line? What the hell is wrong with both types of viewpoints in a single thread? I think both viewpoints are valid and worthwhile.

I could be wrong, but I think this is a bad idea.

An important perspective. What happened though is both perspectives used the one perspective to beat down the other.

It will be interesting to watch.

Let me put it another way, the interaction between the faith-based and academic-based approaches is one of the main things I enjoy about CG. Why on earth would we want to separate that?

Okay, I see your point. I'm not certain how to moderate the concern where the civility is maintained.

So you want a third sector for death matches with Tex to continue?

Well, this approach is akin to teaching your children to stop arguing by forcing them to live in separate homes. Gross overreaction.

This is a dumb idea. If I had more time I'd throw in a reference from an ancient philospher to satisfy the requirements for the forum.

To all you critics of this new forum, stop it! WHEN MIKE WATERS SPEAKS THE THINKING ENDS!!!!

Gotta agree with Lebowski. We now have a new forum and three pages of posts debating about whether a link to a DNA study is appropriate for inclusion.

This is a message board. It isn't relief society. Some people will say mean things, some things will be misinterpreted and taken out of context, some people will be insensitive, others will staunchly defend any and everything, and those who are interested will read and those who are not won't.

You are not wrong. It is a bad idea. Whenever I see the term "academic approach" I cringe. Out of curiosity, how do we differentiate between the academic approach and the pretentious approach?

I understood the split as this:

1) personal experience
2) non-personal experience discussion

A good distinction.

I'm with Lebowski on this one.

As am I. I understand what Mike is attempting to do here, but I hope it doesn't change what I think was one of the best parts of CG. If people can truly refrain from attacking each other in the other section then perhaps it will have been worthwhile, but after day 1 it doesn't look likely.

With "intellectuals" both approaches are often intertwined.

Pretention is an omnipresent bane to any field or method of learning.

Which of course is mostly displayed by "intellectuals" like I've already stated.

Anti-intellectualism is also a vice, perhaps one as big as pretension in intellectualism.