Timewaster's Guide Archive

I am a newcomer to this thread, but claim a superior knowledge of the subject as a former pastry chef in a world-class hotel.  Cake is fine, but pie requires a vastly greater skill set to do well.  The crust must contain some butter, but be flaky with a minimum of ice-water added quickly enough to keep the dough cool.  You must knead just enough, not too much, and not too thin.  The end result must not be soggy on the bottom, very difficult to achieve (but I have a secret.) The filling must set up, but be devoid of that floury or corn-starchy taste.  I have made chocolate mousse-filled cakes, dripping with butter cream and festooned with magnificent edible roses, that would put you cake lovers into rapture, but nothing beats a perfect holiday pie. 

I know what you're trying to do, but it's an impossible question for me to answer. Especially since you didn't specify the type of lie.

   You will not know what I'm "trying to do" for sure until you answer directly.  Just a rough estimate will do.  A lie is a lie, from "little white" to " bearing false witness in a court of law."  About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime?  (me: thousands, maybe)

So, to tease out the implication, you do believe you're as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?  It's very clever of you, to play the game of ὕβρις and then call me a "snob" when I ask a simple question about how highly you rate your own opinion.

Despite the fact that I'm quite certain that you're wrong, and the fact that you'd make such a statement and then say that you "refrain from boasting" (how humble of you!), what really amazes me is that you think that I am a snob after all that.

  The truth is, we're both snobs in our own way.  I tune out when someone tries to shut down a good point by claiming that only historians should discuss points of historical significance. Or that any given professional is the obvious expert over any amateur.  Ho hum.  Or when anyone takes heart issues to their head in endless intellectual diatribes.  Zzzzzz . . .  You will only discuss issues of historical validity with trained and degree-laden professionals?  Excuuuuse me.  You try to diffuse and disqualify when someone like me has an opinion on which you feel intellectual superiority.  I am not so easily intimidated, though maybe I should be.   

   Neither of our biases serves the main point: Can the real life and fruit of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (not the sanitized version put forward by LDS literature) compare favorably to any of the mainstream Christian  men and woman I've mentioned?  How about Elisabeth Eliot who returned to the village of the people who had murdered her husband and served them for years as a missionary?  Compare this to the call, by  for "blood atonement" in early Mormon teachings.  This is a valid comparison of the fruit of two differing belief systems.  Enighten us all with your historiographical brilliance, if you will, on this one point.

   Btw, "I refrain from boasting" was meant as self deprecation.  I jump too quickly from defensive to silly sometimes.  Try to follow!  (I kid . . . this was not your fault.)

    I trust certain others to do the research I am unqualified/unwilling/too lazy to do on my own, namely Will Bagley in his excellent book Blood of the Prophets.  I encourage you to read it and comment here.  You cannot possibly discount his credentials or his academic standards.  He continues the important work that Juanita Brooks began, I believe, but with greater access to primary testimony and documents than did Mrs. Brooks.  I have also read page after page of critical review of this work, none of which addressed much more than side issues and conjecture.  Lots of lawyer-ly babble, little substance, IM not so H and inexpert O.  Bagley's depiction of early Mormon church history is important, but you be the final judge of its accuracy.  If your mind is truly open, I believe this could change your life and I will take all the credit in my ever-humble fashion.  (I tried to make it obvious that time.) 

 

Really, it'd be nice if an honest film was made on the topic some day.  Unfortunately, "honest" and "reasonable" don't seem to be strong suits in Hollywood.

Try "Expelled" by Ben Stein.  He exposes part of the problem.

Sortitus wrote:  Maybe the question to life, the universe, and everything is "How many times must sortitus be given the first discussion before he decides to round out the set and join the Mormon mafia?"

That would be, dear Sort, if the world did actually revolve around you. 

Answer me this, if you would.  How many lies to you estimate you have told in your life.  Be honest, now. 

And from Frog on page 12 of this thread: "By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it.

I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently.  I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and  Hudson Taylor.  I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same.  My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible.  I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere. 

I want to read PW's book/story.  Not so sure about the Hack, though.  You're going to have to woo me, baby, if you really care.