Tal Bachman wrote:[size=13][color=darkblue]Holy cow, Ray. You are really in a spot. I don't know whether to ignore you, pity you, or respond to you as though it would ever make a difference.
Ah well, what the heck...
It's more than likely your imagination. I'm fine with "the spot" I'm in.
Tal Bachman wrote:About the "obsession" - it may shock you to hear that I am as "obsessed" with the nonsense propagated by Mormon propagandists, as I am with a number of other sources of nonsense. I don't like nonsense; I don't like well-meaning people being duped by propaganda artists; I like things that are true. I also like people having access to the best information available about their choices. That may be difficult for you to comprehend, evidently having been broken emotionally by the church to an extent many of the rest of us weren't, but that's where I'm coming from.
I haven't been "broken emotionally" by the Church. I suspect, though, that it may have broken
you emotionally. Look at all the time you spend talking about how you were "duped". Tal, every time you open your mouth with your anti-Mormon b***s***, intelligent people see right through you.
Tal Bachman wrote:About FARMS writers being "world famous scholars" - I don't think even the propagandists in question are so crazy as to proclaim themselves that (though you never know). But certainly, enough starry-eyed idol-worshippers out there seem to think they enjoy just that status. One, for example, was my former home teacher. He and his wife once even dropped off a little essay, downloaded from the FAIR site, which argued to the effect that members with questions should not let those questions bother them, because "people much smarter than they, with doctorates, known around their world for their scholarship, still believed in Mormonism", and that that should be enough. His (grown) kids all said the same things. And, I've read the same thing numerous times online.
Now it's "FARMS writers"? I thought we were talking about DCP? WHO has talked about "FARMS writers" being "world famous scholars"? I suggest you have a terrible hangover from your Mormon experience. It's not
them (FARMS) who say these things, but the sniggering crackpots on RFM. They make claims that "FARMS" has never made. Is that so hard for you to understand, Tali?
They are the ones who blow this out of all proportion! And that includes you. You look like a man obsessed trying to kill a fly with a sldegehammer.
Tal Bachman wrote:These are sincere people who are devoting their lives to a religion which is actually entirely fraudulent (a fact which, if I remember correctly, you are well aware of);
I have
never said Mormonism is a "fraudulent religion". And I don't intend to say it now. Nor do I believe such.
Tal Bachman wrote:and one of the justifications for their mistaken belief is that bozos like John Gee and Dan Peterson, who are either unknown or reviled in what should have been their respective academic communities, who probably now couldn't even get a job at a community college, are something they are not.
Sure, which is why when DCP was here in Oz he was interviewed by the most prominent religious commentators in the media, and spoke at several of the most prominent universities in the country. Any university in Australia would hire him to lecture on Islamic studies, I think. Maybe you missed the links I posted on MADB. Even his critics had some praise for his talks at those universities. But you live in this sordid anti-Mormon world tarnished by your personal prejudices against
anything Mormon. It shows, Tali.
Tal Bachman wrote:The bozos in question must be perfectly aware that many of their admirers have an unduly exalted view of their status as "scholars", yet I've never seen a one of them disabuse them of that notion. Instead, they use it to foster more of their nonsense on to them. THAT IS NOT FAIR. I object to it just as much as I do iridiologist witch doctors preying on their gullible patients, or televangelist frauds soaking their followers by putting on fake faith-healing performances, or politicians lying about their past, or anything else. What decisions people make after they have opportunity to the best information available is totally up to them - but often, they are not aware of that information, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to access it.
Oh Gawd. And you expect to be taken seriously? Tal, seriously, your personal prejudices show here. If you want to compare LDS scholars like DCP to "witch doctors", maybe you should contact the Australian National University in Canberra, and Murdoch University in Washington, among many, and explain to them how they really had a "witch doctor" lecturing them. They would be shocked. And no doubt they will listen to the advice of a one hit wonder in the musical world, a "pop singer", on matters academic. You know it, Tal. Tal is da man.
Tal Bachman wrote:Final point - Hugh Nibley. Not even you could deny that he is lauded widely throughout the church as a "world famous scholar". The truth is that not one in a hundred, maybe not even one five hundred or a thousand, non-Mormon historians on this planet have ever heard of him. Why shouldn't members know that Nibley isn't what they think he is? That he's never made any notable contribution to history (his field)? That a number of comments made by Nibley himself sound suspiciously like acknowledgements that there was something not entirely straightforward about his Mormon apologetic maneuvering?
Sure, he's highly respect, and quoted, in the Church by those who know him. Even his critics, like Mosser and Owen, recognise his influence. I don't agree with some of his writing, but I see no reason to denigrate him or his brilliance. I don't think "members" even hold Nibley in the high regard you think they do. Most I talked to didn't even know who Nibley is!! When I mentioned FARMS most members would reply with something like, "I've heard of them". You live in this world where you
think all LDS know, or even care, about the things you are "warning" them about. You don't get it, Tal. There's more to spiritual belief than your raw logic. And you may never understand that.
Tal Bachman wrote:No doubt the evangelical Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, etc., all have their own versions of these types. And as long as they are purveying nonsense made more plausible to some by undue attributions of status, I think it is perfectly fair to....
say....
send emails to leading scholars in these people's fields and ask them their opinion of them. I did that. The department head at UCLA, Peterson's alma mater, had never even heard of him. He actually said, "I'll take your word for it he graduated from UCLA".
You still don't "get it". The
first thing Mormons reject is that you can "logically" analyse their beliefs. Do you ever really read MADB? If you do, you don't absorb much. You really don't understand the nature of belief. You have completely lost, if you ever had, an understanding of the nature of belief. You don't have to go to Mormons to understand this. Have you read any of the writings of C.S. Lewis? Or Leo Tolstoy? Or Alexandr Solshenitsyn? Or do you spend too much time reading anti-Mormon books? You are a fundamentalist, Tal. A material fundamentalist. Maybe you need to absorb some of Campbell's writings. But you'd probably label him an "apologist for fraud". Campbell had a great respect for belief, and with sound reasons. You, on the other hand, want to resize the world according to your fundamental materialist dogma. You fit Hoffer's definition of the zealot to a tee.
Tal Bachman wrote:I invite you to conduct your own little test, Ray. John Gee right now is making a living partially by trying to keep people believing that Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Breathing Permit of Hor isn't what it actually is: a fraud. So, why don't you pick five non-Mormon Egyptologists and email them, asking if they've ever heard of John Gee, and if so, what their professional opinion of him is. Then, you can post the results here.
Yawn. See Above. Maybe one day you'll "get it".
Tal Bachman wrote:Why so protective of fraud, Ray?
To me, it is not a fraud. And if you think that I think Mormonism is a fraud, you have a serious
re-think coming your way. Nothing that I have read in 33 years of studying Mormonism has convinced me to shout "fraud". Nothing. And I keep a very open mind. Life, and truth, are not so black and white as you wish to portray. If it
was so black and white, we would not be having these debates. I know you are settled in your mind, and I pity your disillusionment, but don't expect the world to think in black and white, like you do. We don't have "all the answers", and believe it or not - that includes you, Tali.