John Gee leaves bizarre message as he steps down from editorship, also his inappropriate Ritner review

[Dr Moore]

Jenkins can say he brackets his own spiritual views as much as he likes, but that doesn’t make a lick of difference.

Can religious persons not be trusted to do science, then?

[Dr Exiled]

Mormonism is pure fantasy and so is Christianity. Sure, Dr. Jenkins lives in a glass house, but the glass in his house is a little thicker than the Mormon glass house and he pointed that out in spades. Also, where the hell were Hamblin's supposed friends during the beat down? Midge and Dr. P were cowards, leaving their supposed buddy wounded on the battle field while they retreated.

[Kishkumen]

Alright Mr sophisticate. No ones suggesting anyone should be disrespectful for disrespects sake. But talking through ideas, sharing findings and working out the logic in a public way is nothing near disrespect and certainly should not be seen as such.

Calling someone else’s canonical scripture pseudo-history is both disrespectful and intellectually sloppy. In itself it is going out of one’s way to be disrespectful, and, yes, it should be viewed as such. I don’t go around calling the New Testament “pseudo-history” just because it isn’t history. I fundamentally disagree with his choice and use of the term as offensive.

I agree that he is a nice person and a great scholar, but I don’t have to agree with or approve of his choice to single out Mormon canonical scripture for this treatment.

[Kishkumen]

Can religious persons not be trusted to do science, then?

We are talking about different things here, Dr. Moore. I never said that his argument that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text is incorrect. I take issue with the propriety of calling another religious group’s sacred scripture “pseudo-history.” Rhetoric does, after all, matter. One of the worst and most misleading of all sayings is, “it’s just rhetoric!”

[Dr Moore]

Can religious persons not be trusted to do science, then?

We are talking about different things here, Dr. Moore. I never said that his argument that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text is incorrect. I take issue with the propriety of calling another religious group’s sacred scripture “pseudo-history.” Rhetoric does, after all, matter. One of the worst and most misleading of all sayings is, “it’s just rhetoric!”

Fair enough. Let’s say we agree that calling another religious group’s sacred text “pseudo history” is a dick move, totally improper. So if I follow the logic, it isn’t actually relevant whether Jenkins was a Christian or working for a Christian school, correct? He may have been an curious agnostic plumber with a blog, or a Buddhist forest ranger with an online following, no? His secondary biases don’t matter, so long as those biases point anti parallel to the religion in question — eg, what makes Jenkins’ commentary on Book of Mormon historicity improper is that he wasn’t Mormon when he labeled the Book of Mormon “pseudo history.”

Does this rule extend to making any anti-supportive comments about the beliefs of a religion not your own?

Two logical corollaries seem to follow such rules of propriety:

1) that people of all religions (or none) should never attempt to win converts, except through non-comparative feature sharing. Like a completely positive political campaign.

2) only current members of a religion or cult may properly highlight errors in the organization’s beliefs or teachings.

I like the idea of #1, but would gladly sacrifice #1 to eliminate #2. Bad ideas deserve to be attacked. Mormon leaders have said as much, “If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” So I can’t agree with your assessment that Jenkins acted improperly, nor Ritner (back on topic).

[dastardly stem]

Alright Mr sophisticate. No ones suggesting anyone should be disrespectful for disrespects sake. But talking through ideas, sharing findings and working out the logic in a public way is nothing near disrespect and certainly should not be seen as such.

Calling someone else’s canonical scripture pseudo-history is both disrespectful and intellectually sloppy. In itself it is going out of one’s way to be disrespectful, and, yes, it should be viewed as such. I don’t go around calling the New Testament “pseudo-history” just because it isn’t history. I fundamentally disagree with his choice and use of the term as offensive.

I agree that he is a nice person and a great scholar, but I don’t have to agree with or approve of his choice to single out Mormon canonical scripture for this treatment.

I disagree. In the type of discussions Hamblin and he were having it is not at all disrespectful to state one's conclusion. I don't think religion's get passes simply because they have believers who hold to the sacred. We should definitely broach these subjects and be free to state clearly what the issues or problems are without feeling constrained by thinking a well-reasonend conclusion is going to be disrespectful.

[Lem]

Calling someone else’s canonical scripture pseudo-history is both disrespectful and intellectually sloppy. In itself it is going out of one’s way to be disrespectful, and, yes, it should be viewed as such. I don’t go around calling the New Testament “pseudo-history” just because it isn’t history. I fundamentally disagree with his choice and use of the term as offensive.

I agree that he is a nice person and a great scholar, but I don’t have to agree with or approve of his choice to single out Mormon canonical scripture for this treatment.

I disagree. In the type of discussions Hamblin and he were having it is not at all disrespectful to state one's conclusion. I don't think religion's get passes simply because they have believers who hold to the sacred. We should definitely broach these subjects and be free to state clearly what the issues or problems are without feeling constrained by thinking a well-reasonend conclusion is going to be disrespectful.

Jenkins himself made that point several times. This one is quite clear about his level of respect:

I don’t know if I have to make this point yet again, but can I stress once more that what I am criticizing here is “Ancient Book of Mormon apologists,” rather than Mormon advocates or apologists as such. I say nothing whatever about LDS church beliefs, practices, or theology, partly because I simply don’t know enough to comment usefully, and what I do know about ordinary LDS believers tends to be favorable and sympathetic. I see their everyday faith with deep respect, and acknowledge their zeal to spread Christ’s teaching as they understand it.

You might regard this as a silly and hyper-sensitive comment, but I have more than once refused to go see the musical of the Book of Mormon, on the grounds that (as I understand it) it mocks or trivializes religious practice. I am not condemning anything sight unseen. I don’t object to the musical being made, nor to anyone else going to see it, and I have no objection to people making religious satire of any kind, against any religion whatever. I’m told that much of the musical is an insider joke, and is even sympathetic. All fair enough, and the list of things I want to see censored is very short indeed. In terms of my own religious freedom, though, I don’t want to patronize that activity personally. I don’t want that mockery inflicted on my faith, nor do I wish it on others.

I am on completely different territory when I see one particular form of activism, namely the “Ancient Book of Mormon” folks who make literal historical claims that are simply unsupportable.

I am attacking their history and their pseudo-scholarship, not their religion. Could I make that more clear?

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... s#p1164096

Dr Moore mentioned this as well.

Bad ideas deserve to be attacked. Mormon leaders have said as much, “If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” So I can’t agree with your assessment that Jenkins acted improperly, nor Ritner (back on topic).

thank you!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for sharing that Jenkins quote. It was incredibly respectful and thoughtful. I hold him in higher esteem than I previously did.

- Doc

[Lem]

Thanks for sharing that Jenkins quote. It was incredibly respectful and thoughtful. I hold him in higher esteem than I previously did.

- Doc

You're welcome. I felt like it was really becoming necessary given some increasingly inappropriate assessments that culminated in someone describing the debate as "a dick-measuring contest."

I just say that the whole question of historicity and religion is problematic, and different groups engaging in dick-measuring contests where this is concerned are pretty sad.

Our dear Reverend said upthread "rhetoric matters" and in this case, I would heartily agree. Opinions are fine to give, however, but rooting them in actual detail helps.

[Kishkumen]

Fair enough. Let’s say we agree that calling another religious group’s sacred text “pseudo history” is a dick move, totally improper. So if I follow the logic, it isn’t actually relevant whether Jenkins was a Christian or working for a Christian school, correct? He may have been an curious agnostic plumber with a blog, or a Buddhist forest ranger with an online following, no? His secondary biases don’t matter, so long as those biases point anti parallel to the religion in question — eg, what makes Jenkins’ commentary on Book of Mormon historicity improper is that he wasn’t Mormon when he labeled the Book of Mormon “pseudo history.”

Does this rule extend to making any anti-supportive comments about the beliefs of a religion not your own?

Two logical corollaries seem to follow such rules of propriety:

1) that people of all religions (or none) should never attempt to win converts, except through non-comparative feature sharing. Like a completely positive political campaign.

2) only current members of a religion or cult may properly highlight errors in the organization’s beliefs or teachings.

I like the idea of #1, but would gladly sacrifice #1 to eliminate #2. Bad ideas deserve to be attacked. Mormon leaders have said as much, “If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” So I can’t agree with your assessment that Jenkins acted improperly, nor Ritner (back on topic).

Where to begin, eh?

I love it how we need are going to construct a simple set of rules that covers all cases. If only life were so simple.

The trouble begins with calling the work pseudo-history. The trouble begins with singling out Mormon scripture as a special example of this obviously derogatory label.

This is what I mean about the importance of rhetoric. You can say something that is arguably factually true, but if you are clumsy in the way you do it, you are begging to offend others. Simply begging. The cultural and historical problem here is that Mormons, being members of a small, fringe group, comparatively speaking, are a case that almost invites people to be clumsy and rude, as people often are when their cozy privilege tells them that they don't need to bother with the details and niceties.

How about this? Phil Jenkins writes a series of pieces on the difference between history and scripture. This applies to the Book of Mormon as it does other texts. The Book of Mormon, alongside texts from his own tradition as well as others, is set out as an example of the difference between history and scripture. We can set aside the problem with the entire category of scripture, which is implicitly Christian, for the sake of this exercise.

I don't need to ask you whether you think this would be different and perhaps a wiser way to go. Because you and I both know that it is. How something is framed makes all the difference. He can make excellent, educational arguments without provoking people through his rudeness, clumsiness, and I would further argue, intellectual sloppiness.

Does it matter that Jenkins is an American Protestant Christian? Absofreakinglutely. I can't believe that we would entertain setting that crucial fact aside. It is like asking me whether it matters that a criticism of Putin came from the mouth of a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign or not. LOL.

It certainly does matter when the very point being raised is one of motivation. You can't set aside Phil Jenkins' religious and cultural identity when considering his motivation for calling the Book of Mormon pseudo-history. What I see here is that people do not want to include the motivations of Jenkins and Ritner when talking about their deeds. All people seem to want to know is whether their criticisms are correct or not.