|
View Poll Results: What is your opinion of FARMS? | |||
Den of liars and cheats | 3 | 15.00% | |
Perfect acronym; I think of a funny farm | 2 | 10.00% | |
High powered academics doing ground breaking work | 1 | 5.00% | |
Honest advocates | 9 | 45.00% | |
Option 1 & 2 | 5 | 25.00% | |
Option 3 & 4 | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-22-2007, 06:03 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
|
My understanding was that SU was asking for "a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking." I have given a list of scholars from reputable universities that accept the Book of Mormon as being true. If he's molded his question into something else, as is typical of him, he may ask another question.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
07-22-2007, 06:05 PM | #32 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Some of the guys are learning. There is no money in it. Paulsen has published in the Harvard Theological Review and I would encourage the others to do the same. Stop publishing at BYU and start outside. The best thing for the Church is Quinn. I've been critical of him and still will, but as I read more of his stuff, his work is better than I thought. He is also free to push the envelope. I wish he could get a job, because we need that level of professionalism to challenge people. Most of the FARMS guys are lazy and unchallenged.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 07-22-2007 at 06:09 PM. |
|
07-22-2007, 06:08 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
He's doing the best he can with what he's got, just as any MA, PhD, or high school graduate would. I would encourage him, just as I would any, to keep seeking for answers, but to be true to the answers they have received.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
07-22-2007, 06:09 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
That sounds awfully circular criteria. He's demanding evidence of a religious book from work outside the realm of religious studies?
|
07-22-2007, 06:10 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
|
He's looking for credible scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true-- but if they believe the Book of Mormon is true, by definition, they cannot be credible scholars. It's not circular-- it's self-evidently true.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
07-22-2007, 06:13 PM | #36 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Scholarship takes lots and lots of time. The true intellectuals I've known, only a few, are never satisfied even with their own answers. They are driven. Disquieted and comforted. The more I discover, the more I discover how ignorant I always was, am and will be. Form tentative conclusions but keep them tentative. After a while we become comfortable and they are no longer tentative. Nietsche is more right than postmodernists, it is closer to believe, "Nothing is true and we can know nothing."
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-22-2007, 06:16 PM | #37 | ||
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
||
07-22-2007, 06:20 PM | #38 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
He sets up a strawman. It's a classic case in the law. "Legitimate scholars would have studied Mormonism and found it to have been of ancient origin. Show me just one." Why the hell is that assumption even true? Scholarship costs money and money exists for things that are largely predominant Mormons are so unimportant outside our sphere, nobody gives a hoot and holler about us. There is no money in it, so nobody will fund it, to debunk it or to prove it. So the only ones interested are Mormons and exMos. To compound the problem, Mormon religions comes from an anti-intellectual tradition. So we're not equipped to even attack it empirical. We haven't translated the language of the debate. Most Mormons don't even know the language of the debate. People ridicule my usage of ontological, epistemological and axiological, but outside of the scholars here, how many have even considered those basic concepts in terms of our religion. Very, very few. Our view of the Godhead did not even consider the debates of Arius and Athanasius. St. Augustine is just a historical figure. So it is outright idiotic to suppose nonMormon sources to study us anything more than sociologically. Thus Seattle's "argument" is little more than a ruse. He knows this. And we show him the few authors who have reviewed it, he'll redefine the terms.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-22-2007, 06:39 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
By the way, have you read New Mormon Challenge? About 1/3 of its chapters are philosophy. |
|
07-22-2007, 06:43 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|