I'm beginning to suspect you actually have an inferiority complex. Ever since reading this essay and seeing that you have yet to attain any higher education and have been a manual laborer throughout your life, your constant derision of academia smacks of resentment to me.
And, of course, the right-wing machines loves to foster such sentiment among its followers.
I was thinking the same thing. Here we have a guy dismissing the "pointy-headed intellectual" types yet doing an amazing amount of name-dropping and jargon-spewing. What gives?
I think it is interesting to compare this thread with one currently going on over at MAD about Seer Stones. Based on the poll results it would appear that a large number of LDS are willing to accept crystal gazing not only as an effective means of divining truth but as a LEGITIMATE means. I think that is highly telling about a person's own willingness to live with a "Magic World View" or at least their willingness to believe in hocus pocus to bolster their own religious beliefs and the actions of their founders. Once a person has opened the door to magical thinking and has accepted it as a de facto and inseparable part of their religion and world view, they have jumped the intellectual shark.
Call it magic, religion, witchcraft or superstition or whatever you like. It's still a load of complete and utter bull.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chonguey wrote:I think it is interesting to compare this thread with one currently going on over at MAD about Seer Stones. Based on the poll results it would appear that a large number of LDS are willing to accept crystal gazing not only as an effective means of divining truth but as a LEGITIMATE means. I think that is highly telling about a person's own willingness to live with a "Magic World View" or at least their willingness to believe in hocus pocus to bolster their own religious beliefs and the actions of their founders. Once a person has opened the door to magical thinking and has accepted it as a de facto and insuperable part of their religion and world view, they have jumped the intellectual shark.
Well, yeah, the seer stone is problematic. When you realize that Joseph used the same method to "translate" that he used to find buried treasure, you either have to accept that he could do both or neither. It's a precarious thing to say that he couldn't find treasure but he could translate with the stone.
Call it magic, religion, witchcraft or superstition or whatever you like. It's still a load of complete and utter bull.
Hence the reason people have to jump the shark. Most people understand that seer stones are bogus, but when their religious worldview rests on such things, they'll accept complete and utter b***s***.
Runtu wrote:Hence the reason people have to jump the shark. Most people understand that seer stones are bogus, but when their religious worldview rests on such things, they'll accept complete and utter b***s***.
I don't know how accurate this assumption is, but I think it far more likely for Internet Mormons to be willing to accept Seer Stones as legit than Chapel Mormons. Internet Mormons are more likely to know about Joseph's crystal-gazing past and therefore have to explain it away. Since the historical data is pretty much unimpeachable, the Internet Mormon has to work Seer Stones in to their religious world-view in order to keep Joseph as a prophet in their mind.
Chapel Mormons don't have this problem as the majority are unaware of these facts and they can state with more confidence that Seer Stones and similar Magic activity are bunk, since they have no reason to need to believe in such things.
Interesting how that works out, as one tends to assume that Internet Mormons are the ones more likely to be intellectually disciplined.
Runtu wrote:Hence the reason people have to jump the shark. Most people understand that seer stones are bogus, but when their religious worldview rests on such things, they'll accept complete and utter b***s***.
I don't know how accurate this assumption is, but I think it far more likely for Internet Mormons to be willing to accept Seer Stones as legit than Chapel Mormons. Internet Mormons are more likely to know about Joseph's crystal-gazing past and therefore have to explain it away. Since the historical data is pretty much unimpeachable, the Internet Mormon has to work Seer Stones in to their religious world-view in order to keep Joseph as a prophet in their mind.
Chapel Mormons don't have this problem as the majority are unaware of these facts and they can state with more confidence that Seer Stones and similar Magic activity are bunk, since they have no reason to need to believe in such things.
Interesting how that works out, as one tends to assume that Internet Mormons are the ones more likely to be intellectually disciplined.
That goes without saying. It's the people who know about these things and still believe them who have jumped the shark. When chapel Mormons are confronted with this stuff, they generally deny it or freak out.
Runtu wrote:Hence the reason people have to jump the shark. Most people understand that seer stones are bogus, but when their religious worldview rests on such things, they'll accept complete and utter b***s***.
I don't know how accurate this assumption is, but I think it far more likely for Internet Mormons to be willing to accept Seer Stones as legit than Chapel Mormons. Internet Mormons are more likely to know about Joseph's crystal-gazing past and therefore have to explain it away. Since the historical data is pretty much unimpeachable, the Internet Mormon has to work Seer Stones in to their religious world-view in order to keep Joseph as a prophet in their mind.
Chapel Mormons don't have this problem as the majority are unaware of these facts and they can state with more confidence that Seer Stones and similar Magic activity are bunk, since they have no reason to need to believe in such things.
Interesting how that works out, as one tends to assume that Internet Mormons are the ones more likely to be intellectually disciplined.
That goes without saying. It's the people who know about these things and still believe them who have jumped the shark. When chapel Mormons are confronted with this stuff, they generally deny it or freak out.
This is precisely why the Mopologetic haggling over terminology is so interesting to me. DCP, Gee, and Co. seem very much (as Quinn pointed out in his rebuttal) to want to put up this dividing wall between Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone (or as Dr. Shades humorously called it, a "magic rock") for treasure hunting and his use of it for translation purposes. Of course, we all know that the Mopologists would probably like to sweep the seer stone *entirely* under the rug, but, since they cannot do that, they have to resort to launching very lame attacks on terminology.
What I still don't get is why Prof. P. says that Quinn's use of the term "magic" in that book somehow makes him (i.e., Quinn) "untrustworthy"---so untrustworthy, in fact, that the Good Professor warns TBMs away from his works....
Runtu wrote:Hence the reason people have to jump the shark. Most people understand that seer stones are bogus, but when their religious worldview rests on such things, they'll accept complete and utter b***s***.
I don't know how accurate this assumption is, but I think it far more likely for Internet Mormons to be willing to accept Seer Stones as legit than Chapel Mormons. Internet Mormons are more likely to know about Joseph's crystal-gazing past and therefore have to explain it away. Since the historical data is pretty much unimpeachable, the Internet Mormon has to work Seer Stones in to their religious world-view in order to keep Joseph as a prophet in their mind.
Chapel Mormons don't have this problem as the majority are unaware of these facts and they can state with more confidence that Seer Stones and similar Magic activity are bunk, since they have no reason to need to believe in such things.
Interesting how that works out, as one tends to assume that Internet Mormons are the ones more likely to be intellectually disciplined.
That goes without saying. It's the people who know about these things and still believe them who have jumped the shark. When chapel Mormons are confronted with this stuff, they generally deny it or freak out.
As happened to me with my wife.
In another thread, I pointed out a discussion we had about the seer stone, and she said she had never heard of it.
Someone (can't remember who, sorry) pointed me to an Ensign article with this information in it.
I haven't had a chance to show her yet, but it will be interesting.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk
Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
Mister Scratch wrote:This is precisely why the Mopologetic haggling over terminology is so interesting to me. DCP, Gee, and Co. seem very much (as Quinn pointed out in his rebuttal) to want to put up this dividing wall between Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone (or as Dr. Shades humorously called it, a "magic rock") for treasure hunting and his use of it for translation purposes. Of course, we all know that the Mopologists would probably like to sweep the seer stone *entirely* under the rug, but, since they cannot do that, they have to resort to launching very lame attacks on terminology.
What I still don't get is why Prof. P. says that Quinn's use of the term "magic" in that book somehow makes him (I.e., Quinn) "untrustworthy"---so untrustworthy, in fact, that the Good Professor warns TBMs away from his works....
One of the things that stopped me dead in my tracks in Rough Stone Rolling was Bushman's treatment of the seer stone. He goes on at length setting the background for such "folk religion" practices (I hope that satisfies the mopologists), and then when he begins talking about the Book of Mormon, he says something about Joseph ending his participation in such practices and focusing on religious things. I read that and thought, WTF? How on earth do you make such a clean break when the same damn "tool" was used for both things?
Mister Scratch wrote:What I still don't get is why Prof. P. says that Quinn's use of the term "magic" in that book somehow makes him (I.e., Quinn) "untrustworthy"---so untrustworthy, in fact, that the Good Professor warns TBMs away from his works....
The whole argument over the use of the term "Magic" is, in my opinion, just the pretense to start the smearing. Earlier, DCP gave such a glowing endorsement of the young Quinn. And why not? I am about half way through Early Mormonism and the Magic World View and it is obvious that Quinn is no slouch as a historian. And all Mopoligists would still love Quinn and his writings, if only he had continued to tow the party line.
The moment that it was clear that his histories would lean more to the factual rather than the faith promoting, it was clear that he was an enemy that needed to be taken down through character assassination and vague insinuations about untrustworthiness because he dared to label crystal-gazing as "magic."
Yeah, that's a totally inaccurate and untrustworthy description of scrying. (rolls eyes)
It's those types of shallow arguments and clever misdirections that undermines Mormonism and its defenders. Far more so than Quinn's use of the word "Magic".
Mister Scratch wrote:This is precisely why the Mopologetic haggling over terminology is so interesting to me. DCP, Gee, and Co. seem very much (as Quinn pointed out in his rebuttal) to want to put up this dividing wall between Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone (or as Dr. Shades humorously called it, a "magic rock") for treasure hunting and his use of it for translation purposes. Of course, we all know that the Mopologists would probably like to sweep the seer stone *entirely* under the rug, but, since they cannot do that, they have to resort to launching very lame attacks on terminology.
What I still don't get is why Prof. P. says that Quinn's use of the term "magic" in that book somehow makes him (I.e., Quinn) "untrustworthy"---so untrustworthy, in fact, that the Good Professor warns TBMs away from his works....
One of the things that stopped me dead in my tracks in Rough Stone Rolling was Bushman's treatment of the seer stone. He goes on at length setting the background for such "folk religion" practices (I hope that satisfies the mopologists), and then when he begins talking about the Book of Mormon, he says something about Joseph ending his participation in such practices and focusing on religious things. I read that and thought, WTF? How on earth do you make such a clean break when the same damn "tool" was used for both things?
Bushman seems to want it both ways.
Shame on him for seeing things differently than you.