Best of the Box 4
What’s New – There are two series on depression in progress this week. Segullah offers Depression Roundtable, Part 1: In the Beginning. BCC posted Living With Depression, Part 3. BCC adds a new permablogger (apparently the present corps of BCC perms aren’t funny enough). And Millennial Star is posting news on the big earthquake and its aftermath in Chile.
Okay, here are the regular highlights from each MA box.
Box 1 – At Juvenile Instructor, notes on Richard Bushman’s talk at the 2010 BYU Church History Symposium, titled Joseph Smith and the Routinization of Charisma. Additional posts on other presentations are featured at JI and also at Life on Gold Plates.
Box 2 – I’m partial to Genesis and Genre at T&S.
Box 3 – I really enjoyed the post at BOAP’s blog on BH Roberts and James E. Talmage. I had not previously recognized the change in style and method of Talmage, basing most of his doctrinal positions on Bible references and, to a lesser extent, LDS scriptures. This is contrasted with Roberts’ approach to doctrine, rooted more in historical statements by Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders. Very interesting. I’m looking for Clark or Jared* to jump in and explain phase and group velocities, however.
Box 4 – The Cell Tome, at Red Brick Store. Welcome to the era of the cell phone novel.
Box 5 – At Flooding the Earth, Books About the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. How many do you own or have you read?
Box 6 – I was all set to highlight the Is God Still Progressing? post at Mormon Matters (and put in a few kind words for the Latter-day heretics who think God will be a little more god-like next year), but it will have to settle for the silver. The gold goes to a late entry, Why Do Mormon Women Rule the Blogosphere? Good question.
Box 7 – How could I not select Moses as Dr. McCoy at LDS Science Review?
Outside the box – No contest: New Order Mormon Standards of Truth at Junior Ganymede, that blog with a truly eccentric orbit. I was going to really unload on this post, opposed as I am to the practice of bloggers publicly questioning — by name — the faith of another. That’s what bishops are for, except that bishops proceed (when they must) confidentially and responsibly. Then I read the follow-up post, Public Apologies. I think it does a nice job patching things up. No further comment required.
Comments welcome. Self-promotion discouraged but tolerated (see Box 2).
Dave, Keep this up. It rocks.
Comment by Matt W. — March 1, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
Thanks, Dave!
Comment by Jared T. — March 1, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
I’m flattered by the assumption that I would know what group and phase velocities are, but I had to look them up myself. See here.
Also, thanks for the link.
Comment by Jared* — March 1, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Jared beat me to it.
Comment by Clark — March 1, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Nice roundup, Dave. However, your exclusion of certain blog posts from Box 6 causes me to publicly question your testimony.
Comment by Scott B. — March 1, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
I felt like the T&S thread died a painful and abandoned death, between Daniel playing devil’s advocate but not contributing, Bob being confused, and Gary citing the Ensign.
Comment by Nitsav — March 1, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
I also killed the Abraham discussion at BCC. I’m a serial OT thread killer…
Comment by Nitsav — March 1, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
Nitsav, I thought your comments on the Genesis and Genre thread at T&S were outstanding, better than the post.
Comment by Dave — March 2, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Nitsav, re the Ensign. You’re joking.
Comment by R. Gary — March 2, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Gary, you rarely further the discussion, because you don’t discuss. You just repeatedly cite selected Church publications and imply that everyone else is apostate
I know what the Ensign says, and it offers no real answers to these particular questions other than to repeat tradition and rhetoric, hence my citation of RJC in the T&S thread.
Comment by Nitsav — March 2, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Nota bene: I have no problems with the citing the Ensign per se when it has something relevant to say or the discussion participants are unaware of it. But offering it (and other citations) up as if it were the final and only answer is not productive and answers no questions.
Comment by Nitsav — March 2, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Let me see if I understand this. Bored in Vernal is justified in saying that “the minute you start trying to separate the Genesis stories from strict historical fact, you create a problem in mainstream Mormonism,” and it’s okay for Dave to say “No BiV, I don’t think I am creating a problem for anyone.”
But it implies “everyone else” (including BiV?) is apostate when an example from the Ensign is mentioned that supports BiV’s assertion.
Again, Nitsav, you have got to be kidding.
Comment by R. Gary — March 2, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
I did NOT say the Ensign has “the final and only answer.” Those are your words.
My words were, “Therefore, I believe Bored in Vernal (#3) has a point.” And that offends you?
Comment by R. Gary — March 2, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Nitsav, for the record (and I’ve said this before):
Nobody is required to agree with Church magazines, manuals, or web publications. Mine was merely an attempt to point out something the Church says about its own scripture in its own official media.
In case you cared.
But you don’t have to care. You may believe whatever you want.
Best wishes, Gary
Comment by R. Gary — March 2, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
None of us are apostate, just passionate about the OT. Thanks for the thought-provoking post, Dave!
Comment by Bored in Vernal — March 2, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Gary, I explicitly agreed with BiV in my comment #17. What “offends” or, I would say, “amuses” me is your usual modus operandi of rarely offering more to a conversation than links to lds.org, and this was in evidence there. You had three short comments with two links, one to the Ensign, the other to LDS.org.
It seems to me that you feel necessary to cite these because of an assumption that people are ignorant of them (“an attempt to point out something the Church says about its own scripture in its own official media.”) The implication, of course, is that if one was NOT ignorant of those sources, there would be no issue or question, because it’s already been answered.
Comment by Nitsav — March 2, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
Nitsav, you might not (in your current state of mind) believe this, but I respect your opinions about the Old Testament. Five years ago, when I started blogging, I described the experience (here) in these words:
J. Stapley (among others) taught me early on that Ph.D. types don’t immediately (and in some cases never) take the uneducated seriously. Therefore, due to my lack of post-high-school education, I generally feel the need to shore up my blogging credability by giving sources whenever possible.
In light of your most recent comment, it’s interesting that J. Stapley has also enjoyed reminding me that my blogging “amuses” him. Perhaps that’s why, in May 2005, he added me to the Mormon Archipelago. But either way, I’ve enjoyed being tolerated by the group.
I hope you can now see you’re mistaken about my assumption that people are ignorant. Quite the contrary: As I said, I respect your opinions.
Comment by R. Gary — March 3, 2010 @ 2:57 am
R. Gary, when it comes to the Old Testament, I think most bloggers back up their own opinions with references to scriptures, commentary, or scholarly works. There’s nothing wrong with references and quotes — that’s what the literature is there for.
Comment by Dave — March 3, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Is an appeal to Stapley the same thing as an appeal to scripture?
Comment by Chris Henrichsen — March 4, 2010 @ 9:15 pm