My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Eric]

It's with considerable trepidation that I announce my latest "Mormon Times" column here on a message board [b]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
[/b]

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

You really think the above bold portion is sincere? Are you kidding, harmony? Please show some consistency in your moderating. Maybe you can point to the part of the rule where it says that sincerity is a factor?

[_Yoda]

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.

I think we're being a little petty here. How is Dan's remark any worse than your remark on page two of this thread?

I miss the good ol' days... back when DCP had stopped posting his SPAM here.

I'm allowing both remarks to stay.

If the feel or tone of the overall thread spirals into attack form, then I will either split the thread or move it. At this point, I don't really see a case to do either, as long as everyone gets back on topic.

[_Eric]

[color=#FF0000]I think we're being a little petty here. How is Dan's remark any worse than your remark on page two of this thread?

I agree, but we should be consistent with our pettiness as moderators, right?

How is suggesting someone not be such a jerk worse than this?

If you're saying that this kind of condescension is typical of DCP, and we should all be used to it by now, I only partially disagree.

I'm allowing both remarks to stay.

My previous comments should be permitted to stay, too. You can't let one person get away with being a jerk just because they are more passive aggressive and snide about it.

[_harmony]

I'm allowing both remarks to stay.

My previous comments should be permitted to stay, too. You can't let one person get away with being a jerk just because they are more passive aggressive and snide about it.

Liz has noted your comments. Get back on topic.

[_Eric]

Liz has noted your comments. Get back on topic.

What was the topic? How the output from the author of this column in Mormon Times is the finest English-prose this message board has ever seen? I'm done here. Just pointing out the Celestial Rule violations by Mr. Peterson.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

That's not my only take on it, nor even necessarily the most fundamental aspect of my position, but it's certainly part of my view. (It's impossible, in a 700-word column, to do even minimal justice to so complex a topic as the "Copernican Revolution," let alone to the rise of modern science.)

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.

I think that's an oversimplification.

Obviously the conflict is over-simplified in popular discourse, but it has occurred and continues to exist, nevertheless.

Yes, but the case of Galileo is far, far more complicated than the simplistic morality play with which I was raised. See below.

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?

Certainly that happens. Galileo, in fact, represents an instance of the latter. He seems to have gone out of his way to antagonize his perceived enemies, not adequately foreseeing the harm they would eventually be in a position to cause him. But the two sides don't line up neatly as scientists versus ecclesiastics, nor even, really, as precisely two opposing sides. Galileo had friends high in the Church, including a powerful cardinal who ultimately became pope, and his enemies were the Aristotelians (qua Aristotelians, not qua Catholics). His behavior, among other things, made it more and more difficult for his clerical friends to support him.

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?

Again, in my view, a popular oversimplification that distorts the historical facts.

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.

I intend to read her book, but have not. I'm a bit put off by Karen Armstrong, frankly.

[_Yoda]

I think we're being a little petty here. How is Dan's remark any worse than your remark on page two of this thread?

I agree, but we should be consistent with our pettiness as moderators, right?

How is suggesting someone not be such a jerk worse than this?

If you're saying that this kind of condescension is typical of DCP, and we should all be used to it by now, I only partially disagree.

I'm allowing both remarks to stay.

My previous comments should be permitted to stay, too. You can't let one person get away with being a jerk just because they are more passive aggressive and snide about it.

I honestly would have allowed your other comments to stand. However, I do understand why Harmony made the call she did, and based on the comments which followed yours in that thread, I think that, in the long run, it was a good call.

The main difference, Eric, was that you specifically called out Dan in your remarks. Dan was a little more vague in exactly who he was calling out. He didn't actually name anyone specific, so the overall tone of the thread wasn't as affected.

These are subjective calls. We're not perfect. We all approach these situations a little differently, but do the best we can.

Our goal with the Celestial Forum is to keep it as non-confrontational as possible. Debate is allowed and encouraged, but the disagreements need to be kept to topics rather than individuals.

However, we do try to balance this with keeping as much of a "hands off" philosophy as we possibly can.

It's a difficult balancing act. *shrugs* We're human; we're not going to please everyone all the time.

[_Kishkumen]

I think that's an oversimplification.

Well, I'll overlook your oversimplification in a 700-word article if you can overlook my oversimplification in a shorter post on an informal discussion board.

Yes, but the case of Galileo is far, far more complicated than the simplistic morality play with which I was raised. See below.

So I have come to understand.

Galileo had friends high in the Church, including a powerful cardinal who ultimately became pope, and his enemies were the Aristotelians (qua Aristotelians, not qua Catholics). His behavior, among other things, made it more and more difficult for his clerical friends to support him.

It has and does happen that religious authorities hang on to junk science and use their ecclesiastical power in order to enforce their views. Once a certain point of view takes on the air of divine legitimacy, one must be very careful in how one contradicts that view. Although not a close parallel, look at all of the fun that unfolds in scholarly arguments concerning Book of Mormon geography.

Meldrum et al. have been accused of abusing religious rhetoric in their challenge to the theory of a Mesoamerican setting. That rhetoric includes the charge that certain LDS scholars have twisted or misinterpreted scripture. The quarrel has certainly transgressed the boundaries of polite scholarly disagreement into mutual accusations of religious malfeasance.

Again, in my view, a popular oversimplification that distorts the historical facts.

It may not account for all of the facts, but it has some basis in reality.

I intend to read her book, but have not. I'm a bit put off by Karen Armstrong, frankly.

And yet I think she has done a far better job of defending religion than most other well-known writers.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here is today's offering:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1939 ... ng-moments

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, so as to avoid misunderstanding, let me make it very clear that my thesis is not that "anti-Mormonism" actually helps missionary work and ultimately brings people to a point in which they show interest in learning more about the church rather than being apathetic and uninterested.

My thesis is that publicity about the Church, whether positive or negative, represents an opportunity to talk about the Church that can be used to further missionary efforts in certain ways and with certain people. That opportunity can be fruitfully used or it can be missed. The publicity will come in either case, whether we like it or not.