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

[Dr Moore]

Our reality is clouded. Infinity is hidden from our finite views, so that everything we perceive is distorted, even when we use evidence to justify what it is we are seeing. I suspect that goes for every single subject we humans have ever been exposed to in our experiences in our lives.

I like how you put this. Reminds me of the way Susskind explains that the whole universe could be represented as a 2-dimensional holographic shell, printed at the edges beyond our reach.

[dastardly stem]

...The juxtaposition used by Jenkins, as if contrasting a traditional Christian view with Mormonism, didn't come off very well. Mormons are completely dependent on the claims of Christianity as any traditional Christian is. One reason he could use that juxtaposition is because the majority view falls to his side as a matter of majority and for no other reason it seems. That is listeners are either other Christians or ex-Mormons or I suppose, Mormon apologist types. There seemed to be some grandstanding in there--"you can't give evidence for the Book of Mormon.....but Christianity works.." Nah...if we want to be serious about it, they both come up short. That is the nature of religion or faith or whatever.

Except that juxtaposition wasn't his starting point. His first three or four blog entries before Hamblin started responding were about scholarship vs. speculation. From his first entry of the series:

In my next few columns, I want to suggest just why that scholarly consensus matters, whether we are dealing with alternative scriptures, bizarre historical claims, or pseudo-archaeology. I’ll also try to explain how we can tell the difference between real scholarship and fringe speculations.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbe ... to-believe

Fair enough. All I have is memory and I do recall at some point I felt a bit of what I described. And it was but a bit, because for the most part, far and away, I think he held serve.

[Kishkumen]

Jenkins can say he brackets his own spiritual views as much as he likes, but that doesn’t make a lick of difference. Oh, sure, if you want to believe that this rhetorical pose validates what he is doing, you are entitled to do so. Certainly we can all agree, as I already have conceded, Jenkins is a gentleman and a great scholar.

But, seriously, structural inequality and injustice are not fixed by fine sentiments. Sticking to his own lane would be a better policy in this case. If he wants to talk about all of the historical problems and likely fictions in the Bible, he can certainly do so. As things stand, when he writes as a Christian professor at a Christian university, he does so as a partisan. Even if everything he says may be true, he does so as a member of a force of oppression on the political, social, and spiritual landscapes.

My guess is that my saying this will do little to persuade people here that Jenkins probably should not have done this, and a lot if that has to do with the predominant view of people on this board. We like to feel validated by things such as this. We believe Jenkins when he brackets and sounds like a reasonable, nice fellow. None of that changes the facts about what he is actually doing and its impact. He is contributing to bias against Mormons and Mormonism in the public square as an esteemed professor at a large Christian university.

Of course, I see American Protestantism as being in some ways not unlike a white supremacism of religion in its consistent drive to oppress or marginalize other religious groups and impose its way of life on others. I don’t hold this against individual Protestants, but it does help me contextualize issues such as this one.

[dastardly stem]

My guess is that my saying this will do little to persuade people here that Jenkins probably should not have done this, and a lot if that has to do with the predominant view of people on this board. We like to feel validated by things such as this. We believe Jenkins when he brackets and sounds like a reasonable, nice fellow. None of that changes the facts about what he is actually doing and its impact. He is contributing to bias against Mormons and Mormonism in the public square as an esteemed professor at a large Christian university.

I'm not sure I understand who he owes holding is tongue to? If a question comes to him and he has no way to answer it, why not ask one who claims to be familiar with the topic and is willing to hash it out publicly? And why not walk through the steps of logic and evidence as a matter of letting people read and gain understanding? I suppose I hold too dear to the notion of free speech and sharing publicly in order to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. I don't see the harm in pressing on the difficult and uncomfortable. While it may cause some hurt feelings, it's worth enduring in order to get us past the insanity of pretending we need to hide from topics and hold on tongue to show particular respect. I don't think pretending shows respect.

[Lem]

Except that juxtaposition wasn't his starting point. His first three or four blog entries before Hamblin started responding were about scholarship vs. speculation. From his first entry of the series:

Fair enough. All I have is memory and I do recall at some point I felt a bit of what I described. And it was but a bit, because for the most part, far and away, I think he held serve.

No argument there. (speaking of tennis, and long indoor pandemic events, !!! the Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe movie is amazing, well worth the watch. )

[Chap]

Who was that very interesting and witty Exmo poster on this board who had the picture of the protagonist from The Life of Brian as his avatar?

Anyway, his signature line was something like 'Let me tell you a little secret. Mormonism is not only not true, it is obviously not true.' I am an exmember of another religion myself, and the historical problems of that religion were considerably more difficult to highlight, though they were there all right. It was a fascinating revelation to me to find another religion that could retain its adherents and even gain more adherents, despite the screamingly obvious problems about it. It proved to the hilt the fact that people follow religions almost entirely and solely because their parents acculture them to see their religion as normal, whatever weirdnesses may seem obvious to outsiders. Mormonism is fascinating, and a wonderful antidote to the apologetics of pretty well all other branches of Christianity. I find its continued existence very helpful in maintaining my own lack of faith.

What groups of people may legitimately and without being labelled as oppressors, point out the truth of that signature line quoted above, and explain why it deserves attention?

[Kishkumen]

I'm not sure I understand who he owes holding is tongue to? If a question comes to him and he has no way to answer it, why not ask one who claims to be familiar with the topic and is willing to hash it out publicly? And why not walk through the steps of logic and evidence as a matter of letting people read and gain understanding? I suppose I hold too dear to the notion of free speech and sharing publicly in order to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. I don't see the harm in pressing on the difficult and uncomfortable. While it may cause some hurt feelings, it's worth enduring in order to get us past the insanity of pretending we need to hide from topics and hold on tongue to show particular respect. I don't think pretending shows respect.

LOL! That’s really funny, stem. I just love this naïvely American view of free speech without social consequences. There is actual free speech, which allows Jenkins to write what he wants without legal repercussions, and there is the stupid idea that burning the Koran is something one should not have to face any repercussions of any kind for because “Murica!”

Look, I don’t hold this against Jenkins, anymore than I walk down the street calling everyone racists. I don’t approve of what he did, but I am not sure I would have it retracted now that it is done. It’s too late anyway. 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.

[Lem]

Who was that very interesting and witty Exmo poster on this board who had the picture of the protagonist from The Life of Brian as his avatar?

Anyway, his signature line was something like 'Let me tell you a little secret. Mormonism is not only not true, it is obviously not true.' I am an exmember of another religion myself, and the historical problems of that religion were considerably more difficult to highlight, though they were there all right. It was a fascinating revelation to me to find another religion that could retain its adherents and even gain more adherents, despite the screamingly obvious problems about it. It proved to the hilt the fact that people follow religions almost entirely and solely because their parents acculture them to see their religion as normal, whatever weirdnesses may seem obvious to outsiders. Mormonism is fascinating, and a wonderful antidote to the apologetics of pretty well all other branches of Christianity. I find its continued existence very helpful in maintaining my own lack of faith.

What groups of people may legitimately and without being labelled as oppressors, point out the truth of that signature line quoted above, and explain why it deserves attention?

Wow, I did not know you were an ex-member of a different religion, I would be very interested in your story if you are ever interested in sharing.

Your point about people discussing a religion without being labeled as 'oppressors' is well taken. It really shouldn't be that way, as no religion deserves a level of protection that allows them to masquerade fake documents as historical.

[Lem]

He is contributing to bias against Mormons and Mormonism in the public square as an esteemed professor at a large Christian university.

wow. No, he's not. Please start your own thread if you want to argue that.

Of course, I see American Protestantism as being in some ways not unlike a white supremacism of religion in its consistent drive to oppress or marginalize other religious groups and impose its way of life on others.

my goodness, that is extreme, and in my experience, completely untrue. You've said that now several times, so again, please be so kind as to start your own thread if you want to argue extreme points like that.

[dastardly stem]

I'm not sure I understand who he owes holding is tongue to? If a question comes to him and he has no way to answer it, why not ask one who claims to be familiar with the topic and is willing to hash it out publicly? And why not walk through the steps of logic and evidence as a matter of letting people read and gain understanding? I suppose I hold too dear to the notion of free speech and sharing publicly in order to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. I don't see the harm in pressing on the difficult and uncomfortable. While it may cause some hurt feelings, it's worth enduring in order to get us past the insanity of pretending we need to hide from topics and hold on tongue to show particular respect. I don't think pretending shows respect.

LOL! That’s really funny, stem. I just love this naïvely American view of free speech without social consequences. There is actual free speech, which allows Jenkins to write what he wants without legal repercussions, and there is the stupid idea that burning the Koran is something one should not have to face any repercussions of any kind for because “Murica!”

Look, I don’t hold this against Jenkins, anymore than I walk down the street calling everyone racists. I don’t approve of what he did, but I am not sure I would have it retracted now that it is done. It’s too late anyway. 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.

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.