DCP, living in the past.

[Markk]

Scratch: I respect the Reverend’s generosity, and agree that The Afore should be able to feel some pride in the accomplishments that feel meaningful to him. The thing is (for me): DCP would *never* do the same for someone else. If you tried to say (e.g.) that D. Michael Quinn was one of the greatest Mormon historians, DCP would respond y trying to undercut Quinn’s accomplishments: “I can think of at least 20 historians who are better and more important than Quinn.”

For the Mopologists, there is no such thing as a critic who is a decent person, or a person who who has ever achieved anything meaningful. (Remember how DCP used to publicly mock Tal Bachmann’s hit song? Has there ever been a Mopologist who did something equivalent? Such as a financially successful movie?)

So, like I said: what a great gift this Smithmas Season that the truth of the Second Watson Letter is continuing to gain traction.

My opinion is that that the movies, and most of what he writes is propaganda based, he knows the deeper truths, and yet paints a Pollyanna picture.

I remember years ago when he was writing with the Deseret News. One article read something along the line, in regard to Evangelicals not accepting Mormons doctrine as Christian doctrine, that he believed like they in "Everlasting life". He knew and knows very well that Everlasting Life and Eternal Life in a LDS construct are two different things, the former unconditional Salvation and the latter conditional Salvation. One that everyone gets no matter what, the other becoming a God by full obedience to the eternal laws of the gospel.

However, he framed it in a caviler way, like,.... "what is their problem, I believe in everlasting life also! " Knowing full well that to a Christian it means Salvation, period. It was pure propaganda. I called him out on it, and like always played the victim and did not cop to anything.

And to keep this in context with what I wrote it is about his identity as a apologists he misses, in my opinion.

[Kishkumen]

Kish, it hit no nerve, I don't have any. I just pointed out you are not being honest. But if I am wrong you can certainly show me where I wrote that Sandra Tanner led me to Christ. If you would rather have me just show you what I actual wrote in regard to our exchange, I will. What you are calling "anodyne" is actually a diversion from your lie and your inability to emotionally cope with being corrected and challenged. What I wrote was that Mormonism Shadow or Reality was one of the first books I used to deconstruct from Mormonism and the false truth claims we were taught. The cover up is always worse that the crime, in this case a lie. Nice job Kish!

LOL!!! Damn, you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder. Yeah, you are extremely invested in your identity. Heaven forbid that someone choose different words to describe your journey than you do. What a time suck.

[Markk]

Kish, it hit no nerve, I don't have any. I just pointed out you are not being honest. But if I am wrong you can certainly show me where I wrote that Sandra Tanner led me to Christ. If you would rather have me just show you what I actual wrote in regard to our exchange, I will. What you are calling "anodyne" is actually a diversion from your lie and your inability to emotionally cope with being corrected and challenged. What I wrote was that Mormonism Shadow or Reality was one of the first books I used to deconstruct from Mormonism and the false truth claims we were taught. The cover up is always worse that the crime, in this case a lie. Nice job Kish!

LOL!!! Damn, you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder. Yeah, you are extremely invested in your identity. Heaven forbid that someone choose different words to describe your journey than you do. What a time suck.

Choosing different words, that are not true, is called a lie. Your arguments here are shallow and just reactionary with no substance.

I do have several key identities, my family for sure. My work community (Historic Restoration), and my woodworking and art. I think when I retire I might have a struggle, hopefully I'll get past it, and hopefully I can consult a few days a week and maybe contract a few small projects a year.

Where is your Identity Kish, my guess is that this forum is paramount? Is that a fair assessment?

So going full circle to what I wrote,

" Mark wrote: As one of the founding members or FARM's and recognized as the leading Mopologist of what we might call the "Golden Age" of LDS vs Evangelical- anti Mormon apologetic. Right or wrong I believe he relished that persona. If you were to take a poll from this community and ask who the leading LDS apologists of this era were, I doubt that few would say anyone other than Dan, even if by perception only.

I googled leading US scholars/university professors of Islam . And then the same for near eastern studies....Dan's name never came up. HIs main "professional" identity was in apologetics from what I can see. This board would most likely not exist if it weren't for Dan being a apologist. Do you disagree? "

My opinion remains that DCP misses the high seat that he held in Mopology, and as the perceived leader of that community, and certainly his position at the NMI. Do you disagree?

[Kishkumen]

Choosing different words, that are not true, is called a lie. Your arguments here are shallow and just reactionary with no substance.

Calling something a lie just to call it a lie does not make it a lie. And yet you get hung up on these pointless, endless, nitpicking and empty arguments that I will not waste much time on.

I do have several key identities, my family for sure. My work community (Historic Restoration), and my woodworking and art. I think when I retire I might have a struggle, hopefully I'll get past it, and hopefully I can consult a few days a week and maybe contract a few small projects a year.

Glad to know you as you want to be known. Always best to speak for yourself, of course. That said, you don't need to take offense when someone else describes you in a good-faith attempt that is not what you chose. And before you go off on it, calling a good-faith attempt that you see as inaccurate a lie is just childish.

Where is your Identity Kish, my guess is that this forum is paramount? Is that a fair assessment?

I am not really into "identity" as a construct. I am more into performance. If an objection to identity were the reason for your umbrage, I could understand it, but since you seem to be invested in identity, I look at that as your burden.

So going full circle to what I wrote,

" Mark wrote: As one of the founding members or FARM's and recognized as the leading Mopologist of what we might call the "Golden Age" of LDS vs Evangelical- anti Mormon apologetic. Right or wrong I believe he relished that persona. If you were to take a poll from this community and ask who the leading LDS apologists of this era were, I doubt that few would say anyone other than Dan, even if by perception only.

I googled leading US scholars/university professors of Islam . And then the same for near eastern studies....Dan's name never came up. HIs main "professional" identity was in apologetics from what I can see. This board would most likely not exist if it weren't for Dan being a apologist. Do you disagree? "

My opinion remains that DCP misses the high seat that he held in Mopology, and as the perceived leader of that community, and certainly his position at the NMI. Do you disagree?

I don't think you understand DCP at all, and I don't think his role in apologetics is as insignificant as you enjoy imagining.

[drumdude]

I think it’s a good thing that evangelicals and Mormons don’t bash each other much anymore. It seemed way too adversarial back then.

I’m sure DCP and evangelicals like James White liked the fighting, but at the end of the day both sides profess to be Christians. And treating your fellow Christian in that way is just counterproductive. Even if you think Mormons worship a different God (which I do.)

I don’t really understand the desire to dredge up DCP’s past. Yes he’s been abrasive and rude, but we all mellow as we age. Except Lou Midgley. Don’t get him anywhere near Gina Colvin!

[Kishkumen]

I think it’s a good thing that evangelicals and Mormons don’t bash each other much anymore. It seemed way too adversarial back then.

I’m sure DCP and evangelicals like James White liked the fighting, but at the end of the day both sides profess to be Christians. And treating your fellow Christian in that way is just counterproductive. Even if you think Mormons worship a different God (which I do.).

In the end, everyone who worships God worships their different understanding of the same thing as everyone else who worships the One God, be they Neoplatonist, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Mormon Christian, or what have you. To insist otherwise is like saying that two people who watch the same television show but come away from it with different opinions watched different shows. I suppose you can say that is true in a sense, but ultimately they were tuned in to the same broadcast made by the same producers.

[drumdude]

I think it’s a good thing that evangelicals and Mormons don’t bash each other much anymore. It seemed way too adversarial back then.

I’m sure DCP and evangelicals like James White liked the fighting, but at the end of the day both sides profess to be Christians. And treating your fellow Christian in that way is just counterproductive. Even if you think Mormons worship a different God (which I do.).

In the end, everyone who worships God worships their different understanding of the same thing as everyone else who worships the One God, be they Neoplatonist, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Mormon Christian, or what have you. To insist otherwise is like saying that two people who watch the same television show but come away from it with different opinions watched different shows. I suppose you can say that is true in a sense, but ultimately they were tuned in to the same broadcast made by the same producers.

I think that’s true in a sense. But the picture is mostly static, and viewers disagree if there is 1 main character or 3, if they’re speaking English or Spanish, and if the setting for the show is at the bottom of the ocean or deep outer space.

Some even think the whole broadcast is just random static, and our pattern seeking brains will construct an entire story where none exists. Who can say for sure?

[Markk]

I am not really into "identity" as a construct. I am more into performance. If an objection to identity were the reason for your umbrage, I could understand it, but since you seem to be invested in identity, I look at that as your burden.

That is interesting. What is your performance record then, how do you gauge that ? It makes sense in a way from my limited interactions with you. Do you struggle with self-worth and the need to be accepted? The "Dunning-Kruger effect" is interesting and I have been reading, listening, and lightly working my way through it recently; I heard Rogan touch on it a month or so ago. Do you feel the need, based on your need for performance, to know everything? Do you feel you are above average in most subjects?

I personally don't see how my passions, cares, and loves is an investment in identity, but just the opposite. My passions, cares, and loves identify and paint a portrait of who I am. I accept that and am at peace with it, and far from being a burden. But hey that is just me, and again I only know what I know.

[huckelberry]

drumdude, there is something odd in your choice of phrase, "Jesus was morphed". I can understand that peoples understanding of Jesus changed perhaps how Jesus understood himself changed. To say Jesus was morphed seems to imply that you are sure he had no divinity. Neither You nor I can historically know such a thing and no historical study demonstrates such a thing.Yes Jesus was a regular human struggling with life as we all do. His followers understood that and did not see the divine dimension seen by others after his death. Just read Mark it is not hidden, it is basic Christianity.

I think it is pretty important to Christianity to understand (or remember) that Jesus was a real human being, Jewish and involved in a sense of mission often called apocalyptic prophet which is not a strictly defined or ruled role but a general and variable one relating to the times.

I agree that it’s not definitive proof, but it fits with the null hypothesis that Jesus was not God.

For example, if Joseph Smith never claimed to be God, and then his followers over hundreds of years developed a theology which claimed he was God, that wouldn’t make him God. And we would expect that the earlier texts closer to Joseph Smith’s life would lack claims that he was God.

It’s the progression that points to doubt. It indicates to me a man-made myth, rather than any divine plan. It’s what we would expect to see if Jesus wasn’t God.

I think this is why DCP and other scholarly Christians lean so heavily on the “divine hiddenness” idea. You have to believe that God intentionally misleads us to doubt by creating all of this doubt.

Drumdude, hide in order to deceive? I am more inclined to think God wishes Jesus to be recognized by the light of his message not the size of horse he rode into town on.

I hope not to sound like I think your view has no basis. I realize your comments simplify to focus on your concern. I can simplify to focus differently. I think it is clear that first century writing about Jesus saw him as having some status close to divine but just how is left open and unknown. It is the verbal clarification which took a few centuries not the basic idea found all over the New Testament.

I wonder if you would find Jesus more believable if he did go about saying, "I am the second person in the Trinity." I rather doubt that that would have made Jesus's message clearer of more audible. John's late reflections are clear that it is the light that Jesus shown that people may recognize.

[Kishkumen]

That is interesting. What is your performance record then, how do you gauge that ? It makes sense in a way from my limited interactions with you. Do you struggle with self-worth and the need to be accepted? The "Dunning-Kruger effect" is interesting and I have been reading, listening, and lightly working my way through it recently; I heard Rogan touch on it a month or so ago. Do you feel the need, based on your need for performance, to know everything? Do you feel you are above average in most subjects?

I personally don't see how my passions, cares, and loves is an investment in identity, but just the opposite. My passions, cares, and loves identify and paint a portrait of who I am. I accept that and am at peace with it, and far from being a burden. But hey that is just me, and again I only know what I know.

Let me put it this way: You really don't know what I am talking about, and I am not going to spend time explaining it to you. All I will say is this: most of us are ignorant of most things, and I am no different from the rest of humanity. My model for epistemological humility is Socrates.