|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 7:37:46 GMT -5
Skyfire has followed a set Mormon apologist schedule, ala Hugh Nibley. Nibley's "book", "No, Ma'am, That's Not History" is a fine example. In it, Nibley takes on Fawn Brodie's book, "No Man Knows My History", a well-documented and thoroughly researched biography of Joseph Smith, and erects numerous strawmen, false analogies, obfuscations, misquotes and outright lies to "deconstruct" the book. From what I've heard, Nibley's arguments were based on knocking down Brodie's own strawman, her tendency to psychoanalyze and make presumptions about people instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 7:39:19 GMT -5
And I thought you had to get temple endowment to become a missionary. Not for a "ward missionary" calling.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 8:21:43 GMT -5
Skyfire has followed a set Mormon apologist schedule, ala Hugh Nibley. Nibley's "book", "No, Ma'am, That's Not History" is a fine example. In it, Nibley takes on Fawn Brodie's book, "No Man Knows My History", a well-documented and thoroughly researched biography of Joseph Smith, and erects numerous strawmen, false analogies, obfuscations, misquotes and outright lies to "deconstruct" the book. From what I've heard, Nibley's arguments were based on knocking down Brodie's own strawman, her tendency to psychoanalyze and make presumptions about people instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. So your idol didn't use facts to knock down what you don't consider someone else's facts, and then you pass them off as facts? Absolutely fucking rediculous
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 28, 2009 12:16:51 GMT -5
I admit it, I'm not big on Magic. But the idea of having a religious version just was, well, hysterical. The Phelps card, instantly blows everything religious to shit by the amount of hate it brings onto religion They freaked out pretty bad when they just had religious themed cards in Magic. Imagine a whole set dedicated to spoofing them.
|
|
|
Post by mnstrm on Apr 28, 2009 12:18:09 GMT -5
Hmmm, "From what I've heard" would be an indication to me that you haven't actually read one or both of these books for yourself. Would that be correct Skyfire? And if so, are you really best qualified to comment on this?
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 12:49:03 GMT -5
Okay, so why should I take your word, someone who has not earned his endowments, over people from Southern Alberta (the 6th temple ever built) who have their endowments?
You keep telling me these people are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Apr 28, 2009 13:34:17 GMT -5
Okay, so why should I take your word, someone who has not earned his endowments, over people from Southern Alberta (the 6th temple ever built) who have their endowments? You keep telling me these people are wrong. Because he is the great and powerful Oz, er, I mean Skyfire, ...Oh, wait...My mistake. But ya know? Both are fakers who pretend to know more and be more than they really are while trying to dazzle people with smoke and mirrors. Perhaps you'll excuse my mistaking one for the other.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 14:07:58 GMT -5
I admit it, I'm not big on Magic. But the idea of having a religious version just was, well, hysterical. The Phelps card, instantly blows everything religious to shit by the amount of hate it brings onto religion They freaked out pretty bad when they just had religious themed cards in Magic. Imagine a whole set dedicated to spoofing them. ah, it'd be fun "And in the news today, churches nation wide have descended upon hobby shops and gaming stores nationwide to protest 'Religious, the fundie movement' cards. Owners of the shops and their patrons have been reported to respond with an overwhelming response of *insert Nelson laugh from the Simpsons here* 'Ha ha'."
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2009 14:09:12 GMT -5
Okay, so why should I take your word, someone who has not earned his endowments, over people from Southern Alberta (the 6th temple ever built) who have their endowments? You keep telling me these people are wrong. Because he is the great and powerful Oz, er, I mean Skyfire, ...Oh, wait...My mistake. But ya know? Both are fakers who pretend to know more and be more than they really are while trying to dazzle people with smoke and mirrors. Perhaps you'll excuse my mistaking one for the other. Basement bubble boy in a balloon with his very own planet of munchkins.... I think that's the closest thing to a wet dream he's ever had.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 15:06:35 GMT -5
From what I've heard, Nibley's arguments were based on knocking down Brodie's own strawman, her tendency to psychoanalyze and make presumptions about people instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. So your idol didn't use facts to knock down what you don't consider someone else's facts, and then you pass them off as facts? Absolutely fucking rediculous You assume that I've even read Nibley in the first place. Nibley does hold a place as one of the fathers of the present Mormon apologetics movement, and in fact he did boast several advanced degrees in areas relevant to the material he was studying. However, the bulk of your current generation of apologists aren't beholden to his words like critics may seem to think; his place is regarded, but reading him is optional.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 28, 2009 17:05:35 GMT -5
Skyfire has followed a set Mormon apologist schedule, ala Hugh Nibley. Nibley's "book", "No, Ma'am, That's Not History" is a fine example. In it, Nibley takes on Fawn Brodie's book, "No Man Knows My History", a well-documented and thoroughly researched biography of Joseph Smith, and erects numerous strawmen, false analogies, obfuscations, misquotes and outright lies to "deconstruct" the book. From what I've heard, Nibley's arguments were based on knocking down Brodie's own strawman, her tendency to psychoanalyze and make presumptions about people instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. To "let the facts speak for themselves", they should. However, Nibley did not attack her facts. He attacked her and her motives, made assumptions that are not borne out by the text of Brodie's books. He made personal attacks, in the form and the very manner of his written word, demeaning her for merely being a woman. That is why I said you must have read his tactics well, because you regurgitate the same horseshit, attacking the messenger, rather than the message. By attacking the motives of the messenger, the message may be safely ignored, by your and Nibley's logic. I can point you to a web page that does a critical analysis of Nibley's book. You never attack the actual evidence. You question it's source, the motives behind the source, the motives of the recorder of witness testimony and so on, without ever adressing the the actual evidence. It is an amazing excericise in total obfuscation. Bravo! You can walk away feeling that you've "won" by using already refuted arguments, the insane logic of saying that no matter how long the odds, "it's possible". Those who "debate" you become infuriated with your bullshit, and begin baiting and flaming. If you would only use simple, basic logic, without all the rhetoric, you would at least be interesting to "debate", and people would become less infuriated with you. You should really check the "I'm the resident expert in the Mormon Faith," attitude when you log in. In answer to your post, that is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Nibley's book is loaded with slight of hand. He is fast and loose with his quotations of her, and is guilty of adding his own interpretation of her words, and still attributing it to her. I can link you if you wish. There is something to learn in every post!
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 17:37:33 GMT -5
So your idol didn't use facts to knock down what you don't consider someone else's facts, and then you pass them off as facts? Absolutely fucking rediculous You assume that I've even read Nibley in the first place. Nibley does hold a place as one of the fathers of the present Mormon apologetics movement, and in fact he did boast several advanced degrees in areas relevant to the material he was studying. However, the bulk of your current generation of apologists aren't beholden to his words like critics may seem to think; his place is regarded, but reading him is optional. Normally I expect people to call stuff bullshit to actually, you know, look into it before they do. So essentially you just admitted you have no experience here to call it one way or another and thus, your opinion is irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 17:42:39 GMT -5
Good job Sky, you fail again
Maybe you'll take the time to listen to suggestions and stfu before you spot off with more "As I heard" or "I don't have it on me right now" or "I'll check on it later" bullshit and actually come armed with answers and facts.
It's like watching the creationists in IMBd, anytime a question is raised, they run away or do this little tap dance derail that you do.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 28, 2009 21:25:35 GMT -5
Okay, so why should I take your word, someone who has not earned his endowments, over people from Southern Alberta (the 6th temple ever built) who have their endowments? You keep telling me these people are wrong. Because he is the great and powerful Oz, er, I mean Skyfire, ...Oh, wait...My mistake. But ya know? Both are fakers who pretend to know more and be more than they really are while trying to dazzle people with smoke and mirrors. Perhaps you'll excuse my mistaking one for the other. Pay no attention to the Mormon behind the curtain.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 28, 2009 22:50:41 GMT -5
What the hell does "your current generation of apologists" even mean? You have several generations of people with experience telling you what you're saying is wrong, and you're acting like you're fending off the new 3rd Wave Apologetics, or something.
By the way, whatever happened to that dude who was supposed to show up to help you?
|
|