One can be both a believer and an academic. It is important to note that in this particular area of investigation the research is pigeonholed into a limited area of study. His investigations into an area that you take issue with doesn’t necessarily need to impact the value of the research he’s done in regards to the importance and relevance of making covenants with God as performed/practiced throughout the ages...
so...not an academic, and definitely not in any of his religion-based works. His quote was pretty clear:
“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. … https://www.deseret.com/2014/8/12/20546 ... of-abraham
I will not disagree at all with the fact that Kerry has a presumptive framework from where he starts/operates. But I also think this may also be true with many academics. They all seem to have their own biases and predispositions.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Have you ever met an evolutionary biologist who didn’t already have a predisposition towards a belief in general evolutionary principles, and that in turn led him/her in a certain direction rather than another?
so...not an academic, and definitely not in any of his religion-based works. His quote was pretty clear:
I will not disagree at all with the fact that Kerry has a presumptive framework from where he starts/operates. But I also think this may also be true with many academics. They all seem to have their own biases and predispositions.
Wouldn’t you agree?
No, absolutely not. Muehlestein has clearly stated that he assumes his conclusions first, and then works to fit in what he finds. That is in no way an academic approach.
I will not disagree at all with the fact that Kerry has a presumptive framework from where he starts/operates. But I also think this may also be true with many academics. They all seem to have their own biases and predispositions.
Wouldn’t you agree?
No, absolutely not. Muehlestein has clearly stated that he assumes his conclusions first, and then works to fit in what he finds. That is in no way an academic approach.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think many academics are also human. They have their own predispositions towards certain beliefs. An agnostic and/or atheistic scientist of one stripe or another is going to see what he/she wants or is predisposed to see.
Always? Of course not. Frequently? I would not be surprised at all. Will they admit to it? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
No, absolutely not. Muehlestein has clearly stated that he assumes his conclusions first, and then works to fit in what he finds. That is in no way an academic approach.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think many academics are also human. They have their own predispositions towards certain beliefs. An agnostic and/or atheistic scientist of one stripe or another is going to see what he/she wants or is predisposed to see.
Always? Of course not. Frequently? I would not be surprised at all. Will they admit to it? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
Regards,
MG
Good, Lord. There isn’t any amount of shilling this muppet won’t do on behalf of his pedophile-protecting cult.
No, absolutely not. Muehlestein has clearly stated that he assumes his conclusions first, and then works to fit in what he finds. That is in no way an academic approach.
That's exactly what MG does so of course he assumes everyone else is doing it. He masterfully lives up (down?) to his screen name. I consider what he does a type of performance art in self-deception where he somehow finds ways (as goofy as they are) to rationalize the worst behaviors of the Mormon corporation in order to keep his flimsy, ad hoc "testimony" on track...
No, absolutely not. Muehlestein has clearly stated that he assumes his conclusions first, and then works to fit in what he finds. That is in no way an academic approach.
That's exactly what MG does so of course he assumes everyone else is doing it. He masterfully lives up (down?) to his screen name. I consider what he does a type of performance art in self-deception where he somehow finds ways (as goofy as they are) to rationalize the worst behaviors of the Mormon corporation in order to keep his flimsy, ad hoc "testimony" on track...
On the other hand I might accuse you of self deception from the vantage point of watching you and other members cherry pick that which supports your own point of view. A more black/white either/or fundamentalist and period driven view. Unwilling to either understand or accept further light and knowledge. Sometimes stuck in the past or sometimes stuck in the present.
Whatever supports your predisposition towards unbelief and agnosticism/atheism.
You have your own modus operandi. And you make a performance art out of it. Oh, did someone already say that?
Actual authority would make all the difference, not some person making a claim to it. This distinction makes all the difference.
I do agree with you that simply making claim to authority is not sufficient. There needs to be enough evidence of one kind or another to give strong reason to have this belief.
There should be some kind of track record that seems more than likely to point towards a fullness of God’s authority being used in practice rather than either charlatanism and/or ignorance in application of Biblical principles/teachings by honest believers.
Not to say that God doesn’t work through and in behalf of individuals of whatever belief/practice that have pure motivations to serve others in God’s name.
God loves ALL His children. On that I think we can agree. At least, that is, if you believe in a loving creator God.
NO, you! LOL, I wasn't talking to you and you know nothing about my beliefs, you poor, insecure man...Your desperate reliance on projection and the most pathetic of wannabe apologetic fallbacks, presentism, are noted.
Actual authority would make all the difference, not some person making a claim to it. This distinction makes all the difference.
I do agree with you that simply making claim to authority is not sufficient. There needs to be enough evidence of one kind or another to give strong reason to have this belief.
There should be some kind of track record that seems more than likely to point towards a fullness of God’s authority being used in practice rather than either charlatanism and/or ignorance in application of Biblical principles/teachings by honest believers.
Not to say that God doesn’t work through and in behalf of individuals of whatever belief/practice that have pure motivations to serve others in God’s name.
God loves ALL His children. On that I think we can agree. At least, that is, if you believe in a loving creator God.
Regards,
MG
Yes indeed, and we both know we don't see it on display in the world. To imagine that God only works through someone who claims to have the authority rather than simply be in the world helping make it better since he went to the trouble to make this place, that would make sense. Now if only we could get God a little bit more involved in helping make the world a better place... you know, the failed 2 worldwide fasts to stave off Covid. God could have honestly at least lifted a finger for all the innocent who went through that and died horrid deaths. I mean ignoring his own prophet for worldwide fast, and then all that effort, that ain't all that impressive.
