Boy this guy hates Religion He could be Seattle Ute ;)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think we've discussed how meaningless this is. See, e.g., Barbara Tuchman, Shelby Foote, and William L. Shirer.

You're correct that a person with a Phd in history is useless and one with a masters in English is superior, anecdotes notwithstanding. In the future, I will rely solely upon English writers delving into history as opposed to professionally trained historians working in their field of expertise. Any wonder that Brodie reads like it is written by English masters students instead a properly written historical work?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're correct that a person with a Phd in history is useless and one with a masters in English is superior, anecdotes notwithstanding. In the future, I will rely solely upon English writers delving into history as opposed to professionally trained historians working in their field of expertise. Any wonder that Brodie reads like it is written by English masters students instead a properly written historical work?

I know you're trying to be ironic, but my examples are not anecdotal. Others who did not have PhD's and are distinguished, prize winning historians and/or biographers include Robert Caro, Lawrence Wright (who just won the Pulitzer Prize), William Manchester, Taylor Branch, and Simon Shama. I could go on and on. I would say PhD's in history are the minority among well known authors of histories and biographies. Most of the ones I listed got their degrees in English.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In English, not history no less.

I guess that didn't matter to the faculty of UCLA who made her a tenured professor. So Professor Brodie could easily be confused for Dr. Brodie.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I guess that didn't matter to the faculty of UCLA who made her a tenured professor. So Professor Brodie could easily be confused for Dr. Brodie.

There is a little debate about "tenured", as she was part time. Let's not elevate her to a spot she didn't earn. How a person is tenured without a Phd, or JD, is beyond me.

[UtahDan]

I've long been a fan of Hitchens for is writing style (great turns of phrase) as well as the way he deconstructs the absurd with the psuedo-polite venom that only English speakers from Britain are able to do. Not as fun to have his invective pointed something I believe.

The parallels between Mormonism and Islam are apparent and there is even force to much of what he said. The only real response from the believing world (unless you are into FARMS style mental contortions which, though I freely allow that others find value in them, I do not) is that one Joseph offered when he that he should not have believed the things he said had he not lived them himself.

We are a faith that believes that a 14 year old boy saw God in the woods. Either you can take that leap of faith and order your life around it or you can't/won't. I choose to do so for reasons that are uniquely mine as do many others. I completely understand that not everyone makes the same choice.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There is a little debate about "tenured", as she was part time. Let's not elevate her to a spot she didn't earn. How a person is tenured without a Phd, or JD, is beyond me.

She was a full professor. There's no debate about that. Yes, its rare for a full professor to not have a Ph.D.

[MikeWaters]

I haven't read the thread, but read the Hitchens article to the point of this:

(It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant "events.")

Professional historian? LOL. At the time she wrote the book, she was a housewife with no training in history, and an axe to grind against Mormonism.

I wouldn't expect Hitchens to know this. He surmised that because she "became" a "historian" that she was a professional one at the time.

[MikeWaters]

Ok, I've read the entire article and the thread.

I enjoy articles about Mormonism that put a different spin on things. Where I learn something. Where I see something that only an outsider would notice.

I see nothing in this article that is interesting.

Joseph Smith the enigma, is reduced to Joseph Smith the huckster. And Mormons are the biggest dupes on the planet.

I mean, the draw of Mormonism is SO STRONG, that SU as a GROWN MAN professed belief and taught others as to its truthfulness. to his great shame.

LOL. I have better things to do than listen to someone who makes even Satan cringe with embarrassment.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ok, I've read the entire article and the thread.

I enjoy articles about Mormonism that put a different spin on things. Where I learn something. Where I see something that only an outsider would notice.

I see nothing in this article that is interesting.

Joseph Smith the enigma, is reduced to Joseph Smith the huckster. And Mormons are the biggest dupes on the planet.

I mean, the draw of Mormonism is SO STRONG, that SU as a GROWN MAN professed belief and taught others as to its truthfulness. to his great shame.

LOL. I have better things to do than listen to someone who makes even Satan cringe with embarrassment.

Had you read the thread first you could have saved yourself the aggravation and time reading the article, since your observations echoed pervious points. Honestly, I think this article wouldn't do a reasonably bright college freshman proud. And his pedantic turns of phrase were tiresome and counterproductive. Maybe his infamous alcoholism is starting to addle him. I can't believe it got into print.

Also, if you take everything he says at face value, does it follow that religion "poisons everything" (his book's central theme)? Maybe he'll tie this in with that, but I don't see it going there from this excerpt. If he doesn't show us thta religion poisons everything, I don't see how he adds anything to Dawkins' and Harris' books.

[MikeWaters]

He'll be as successful campaigning against sex as he will be campaigning against religion. And I suspect the latter has to do with his lack of the former.