mikwut wrote:Are you speaking when you pass through Denver? I would certainly be interested in attending if that is the case as I hail from the mile high air.
No, I'm afraid not. That one, for once, really is pure vacation.
My wife and I will be spending most of our time in Rocky Mountain National Park. But she's from Denver, originally.
After Las Vegas and after weeks in the Middle East, I've been craving mountains and greenery.
Once in a while, though, I do speak over that direction. If I do that again, I'll try to let you know. It would be interesting to meet you.
bcspace wrote: Where? He himself authorized plural marriages. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 for example.
That is not an authorization of plural marriage.
Mark 10:2-12
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Shucks. I am pleased you have a pleasant vacation and destination to look forward to particularly with your recent emergency with your son, who I sincerely hope is recovering well.
My father taught and acted as the area director at CU Boulder for twenty some years, retiring about 13 years ago. Maybe your wife heard him during his post sometime if she is from the area. I would welcome meeting you as well if ever the opportunity afforded itself.
Well wishes, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Daniel Peterson wrote:For example: Over the past week and a half, while living my deeply isolated, insular, and secluded life, I've hosted two representatives of the Saudi royal family, a well-known historian from Belgium, and six shari‘a-court judges from Jordan.
Dr. Peterson not only travels in elite circles, but I bet not one of those six shari‘a-court judges from Jordan, ever uttered the words "Off with his head" in reference to Dr. Peterson. Dr. Peterson knows how to be a diplomat.
Your first link is not helpful. It is just one long attack article, attcking an author. I really wish that this was not one of the main thrusts of apologetics.
This kind of thinking on the board that becomes a kool-aid everyone drinks is baffling to me. It is a book review that gives criticisms of George Smith's book. The criticisms include proper context of sources cited, proper interpretation of sources cited, misleading the audience with sources and prejudice, which all go clearly to credibility. That is an important and appropriate criticism of any historical work. It responds to claims the book makes like the suppression of history, Joseph as a womanizer, Fanny Alger, and many other obviously (Harmony??) relevant criticisms of polygamy practiced by the early church.
How you make a trite statement that it is simply an "attack" piece is beyond me as much as Simon gallivanting around the board claiming every criticism of the Mormon church is an 'attack'. The two sides don't agree fundamentally, obviously. Criticisms and critiques of the opposing position are not an attack they are engagement and dialogue in a manner conducive to legal practice and scientific debate and argument. You leave a naïve implication that it is an attack as if FARMS are just personally degrading someone. They are engaging with the evidence and argument for the proper conclusion to be drawn.
my best, mikwut
I am not against critizing an article, but I do find apologetic reviews tend to spend to much time on the authors themselves and attacking them and their intentions, and not enough on the issues themselves.
harmony wrote:I think the question was designed to ask your opinion, Daniel, not for you to summarize anything. Why do you think those articles in particular are helpful to this discussion? Is there something specific you wanted highlighted?
I suppose it depends upon the sort of help the reader wants.
If one wants to be able to dismiss Joseph Smith with a wink, a grin and a ribald witticism (or half-witticism) then those particular publications are of no help. If a reader is looking for something to confirm her prejudices and allow her to imagine that she is better than Joseph in every (or even any) way, then she will find these items not at all to her taste. If she wants to feel comfortably smug in the belief that "ol' Joe's libido" accounts for Mormon polygamy, then she won't find these items helpful at all.
But if any reader would like to know the other side of the story, and get a glimpse of the truth behind the superficial stereotypes and glib, sneering cliches, then these items might indeed be of some help.
Maybe you could provide one example from the article on how it focused on the author himself rather than appropriate criticism and critique of the work.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40