My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Fence Sitter]

It's with considerable trepidation that I announce my latest "Mormon Times" column here on a message board where two of the finest English-prose stylists of our generation publish some of their finest work. But here goes:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1919 ... -of-Christ

Thanks Dr Peterson or Dan or whichever you prefer. I hope you will reconsider responding to some of the posts here, if only occasionally.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Make that three of the greatest prose stylists of our generation.

I'm humbled to be permitted to post on the same message board.

[_MsJack]

Make that three of the greatest prose stylists of our generation.

And this is a reference to whom?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Today's new column:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1929 ... privileged

[_Runtu]

Well, let me continue the derail that you started, Inc.

I've been a member of the LDS Church my whole life. The only year that "Smithmas" was an issue was 2005.

In the wards I attended growing up, there was, maybe, a passing mention of Joseph Smith's birthday. But the December subject matter of Sacrament Meetings in my wards was...surprise, surprise..Christ!

That's been my experience, too. It was indeed a big deal that year (coincidentally, the year I went over to the dark side to follow Satan), but it never was in any other year I could remember.

For LDS church members, it seems like the 200th anniversary of his birth would be appropriate to remember.

[_Runtu]

It's with considerable trepidation that I announce my latest "Mormon Times" column here on a message board where two of the finest English-prose stylists of our generation publish some of their finest work. But here goes:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1919 ... -of-Christ

Hey, I haven't published anything recently. Who's the other person? ;-)

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks for sharing the article, Daniel. I think it is interesting that you view the tension between science and religion in terms of the religious status or dispositions of the individual scientists you discuss. I have rather viewed it more in terms of the tension between the conservative tendencies of religious authority and agents of scientific inquiry and innovation. Obviously the conflict is over-simplified in popular discourse, but it has occurred and continues to exist, nevertheless.

Would you disagree that at times religious authority has resisted the implications of certain scientific arguments, while certain scientists have perhaps unnecessarily provoked religious authorities? I think that at its root this is an argument about what constitutes the legitimate basis of authority. On what does one base legitimacy: revelation or the scientific method?

I enjoyed Karen Armstrong's discussion of the evolution of this conflict and the role that religious acceptance of science (as an instrument for elucidating the divine order) played in it in The Case for God.

[_Eric]

It's with considerable trepidation that I announce my latest "Mormon Times" column here on a message board where two of the finest English-prose stylists of our generation publish some of their finest work. But here goes:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1919 ... -of-Christ

This post violates the Celestial Rule #3 and should be moved.

[_Eric]

Make that three of the greatest prose stylists of our generation.

I'm humbled to be permitted to post on the same message board.

This post violates Celestial Rules #2 and #3 and should be moved to the appropriate forum.

[_harmony]

It's with considerable trepidation that I announce my latest "Mormon Times" column here on a message board where two of the finest English-prose stylists of our generation publish some of their finest work. But here goes:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1919 ... -of-Christ

This post violates the Celestial Rule #3 and should be moved.

Always err on the side of sincerity. Or at least as often as possible.