Comments on: Best of the Week: Academic LDS

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:42:22 +0000

Thanks for the pointers, I appreciate the service.

By: Clark

Clark — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:48:17 +0000

There was a Sunstone article about two years ago that basically made the point - albeit in a kind of belabored and perhaps negative way. That is the "mainstream" apologists tend to take science and most scholarship as a given. They then try to understand Mormon religion and religious claims in light of science and scientific ways of knowing. Yes there will be those silly debates about positivism at times (such as in this infamous thread). But really that discussion is about undetermination and whether we should only accept the postulated entities and phenomena everyone agree upon as established. But while we may disagree to what role narrower claims not accepted by science ought play in our narratives we all agree that the claims of science that are accepted by science must be accepted. That's quite different from some who prefer to put traditional readings of sacred texts above science.

By: Jared*

Jared* — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:26:08 +0000

Thanks for the plugs.

I think those who characterize most recent LDS aplogetics (say since the 80’s) as the embrace of naturalism are right.

Can you expand on that a little, I’m not sure that I understand.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:01:47 +0000

Thanks for this kind reference to Keepapitchinin — it means a lot coming from you.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:16:13 +0000

Thanks for the recommendations.