Ya, but what's *your* opinion? It's easy to regurgitate a whole bunch of quotes, but you haven't demonstrated an ability to synthesize Boghossian into a coherent critical opinion.

Even I can see that, I've only taken two undergrad philosophy classes! I guess my school was just better than yours...

H.

See the above? Now, take that and sqaure it with this:



Explain what you quoted in your own words, demonstrating that Boghossian has no underunderstanding, of anti-realism, and that his points are totally irrelevant, and the entire book is a strawman, from that citation.

I know it can't be done, but I want to see how you actually read a philosophical text.

Hi everybody, I recently discovered this board, and wanted to say that I really appreciate the community of posters here.

As an initial offering of sorts, just a way of saying "howdy," I thought I would try to have my first post be a contribution to this thread. This quote isn't quite as much of a howler as some of the earlier ones, but it did make me stop and go wha?



I realize that throwing the pronouncements of Joseph Smith under the bus is hardly a new thing for mopologists, but Brant seems to be saying that the entire corpus of contemporary LDS "scholarship" refuses to make the connection between Palenque and the Nephites that a) Joseph Smith himself made and b) millions of TBMs (except the ones writing on FAIR) still make.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/541 ... ge__st__20

That is possibly the least perceptive post about Mormonism ever. I could not even begin to start unpacking the myriad problems in that terrible sentence.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/567 ... 1209082261



I weep. I just weep.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/567 ... 1209082428



The ever confused Deborah is sad that critics who leave the church because of historical evidence might not have access to all the new evidence coming forth that might be supportive of Mormonism.

LOL! Poor Bond. Your undergrad was in History, wasn't it?

Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."

More from the "I don't understand history" thread (which may be the worst MDD thread ever):



If it has "become some kind of ethnicity" then it's obvious it's NOT about the "power that Mormon theology holds over people."

Anyway, that's what is most interesting about an otherwise dreary thread: the deep chagrin over people who acknowledge their own history as Mormons at the same time rejecting their membership in the contemporary church.

I wish MFBukowski would weigh in and tell Sky a few things about "understood and permanent definitions." Like their non-permanence, i.e., their historical status. For a thread ostensibly about history, no one want to admit the possibility of change.

Also, Lightbearer says, "Do I believe some rabid Anti-Mormon scum or some faithless intellectual that depends on the testimony of traitors or liars for their history or do they believe the official Church history[?]"

I dunno. Ask Juanita Brooks for starters. Or Richard Bushman even.

In other words, read some history.

I don't say this lightly, however, I think she's not only a tad confused, but she's a rather malicious person.

Associates, Bachelors, A.B.T. to Masters, hopefully Ph.D....yeah I weep.

I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.

I fear that a lot of people don't understand that history is not usually replaced with a new version. Sure there are times when new information comes along that creates an entirely new narrative, but usually people just reinterpret existing facts or add to the narrative. A lot of the people at MAD seem to think that the "new" history they're waiting for is like a total software replacement; History 2.0 that totally replaces Mormon history 1.0 rather than expansion packs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.

Maybe someday they'll come to grips with the reality that the Mormon church's history (and North American history in regards to the B. of Mormon) is set and can't be replaced. Things will only get worse for Mormon history if science proves Joseph Smith fathered children on his polygamous wives or some other damning information comes to light.

Ironically, I think the nastiness comes from insecurity. The "nice" folks are comfortable acknowledging their doubts and struggles; the ones who are terrified that they might be wrong are those who most stridently attack the questioning or the unbelieving.

+1. An attack reflex almost where if they coat themselves in a teflon style defense nothing bad can stick to them because they don't allow any ideas contrary the established dogma to even penetrate the armor. (Of course nothing good a critic might say can stick either i.e. empathy for conflicted believers).

Exactly. The narrative will get increasingly refined, but not entirely replaced by an "affirmation" of all truth claims.

You don’t know pain yet until you’ve been in my shoes. For someone who is a total philosophy nerd, I’ve tried several times to alert the U.N. about the crimes against humanity perpetuated over there under the banner of my beloved discipline.

Harvey Milk had a 16-year-old boyfriend, and that makes him a child molester? What, pray tell, was Joseph Smith, then?

Um....

And that is why I am on solid ground in believing that the Republican party platform is the restoration of the true politics that were practiced in the lost city of Atlantis, and which Poseidon has divinely inspired to be brought back in our modern day.

I have yet to see anyone prove a lot to the contrary.