Fair'S Book Of Abraham Dvd

[Mike Reed]

Mike,

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't be intent on wearing it. I didn't have you in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Any thoughts for my last question, Wade? I am not interested in debate. Just currious.

"Does anyone of FAIR [or non-affiliate apologists] worry that (since there is nothing new in the video, according to Hamblin) people watching these videos might get a false sense of security, only to be disappointed once again?"

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mike Reed

[wenglund]

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Any thoughts for my last question, Wade? I am not interested in debate. Just currious.

"Does anyone of FAIR [or non-affiliate apologists] worry that (since there is nothing new in the video, according to Hamblin) people watching these videos might get a false sense of security, only to be disappointed once again?"

I am not the least bit worried. The intent, of the DVD, as I understand it, is to reasonably inform those who may not have been deeply immersed in the scholastics of the matter, and not to completely inoculate every interested party against any chance of disappointment (a goal that I am not sure is practically achievable anyway).

However, I do appreciate your concern.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2011 by wenglund

[livy111us]

I don't think that most people, apologists included, know much about the arguments for the book of Abraham. There are a few good BOA apologists, but I would say most apologists don't know much about pro-LDS arguments for the BOA as opposed to something that is much more common, like the BOM. So informing people on arguments that well seasoned BOA researchers see as "nothing new" does not constitute setting up a false sense of security, but giving them a base to build upon and hopefully bring more people into this discussion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Does anyone of FAIR worry that (since there is nothing new in the video, according to Hamblin) people watching these videos might get a false sense of security, only to be disappointed once again?

1) You assume these unnamed people have been disappointed previously

2) I won't be able to speculate on this, or even know if the question makes sense in terms of what the DVD sets out to do, until I've watched it. Which I finally get to get around to doing this week.

[wenglund]

I received the DVD a week or so ago and watched it several time not long thereafter. I found it to be quite well done and informative. I hope there is a online text version that will be made available for linking and quoting on discussion boards such as this. [thumbs up]

Kudos to all involved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

I was requested to be interviewed for this production, but declined the gracious invitation for the simple fact that the presentation of my findings would not lend itself well to an interview format. Once the bulk of my KEP analysis is published, and is thus able to be considered along with its accompanying images and text-critical transcriptions, then I will be willing, should there be a "sequel" to this initial DVD production.

Oh, come on! Admit it, Will! Yer jist skeered!

[Stargazer]

Ordered!

Ditto, finally

[ERayR]

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Any thoughts for my last question, Wade? I am not interested in debate. Just currious.

"Does anyone of FAIR [or non-affiliate apologists] worry that (since there is nothing new in the video, according to Hamblin) people watching these videos might get a false sense of security, only to be disappointed once again?"

Nope. Critics will not let that happen.

[jskains]

Jskains, The report feature has a purpose. If you don't like it, feel free to express your concern to the moderators. Calling me a tattle-tale isn't going to get you anywhere. It will only make you a violator of the forum's harassment rule, and therefore provide good grounds for another report.

So you silence opposition through threats? Interesting.

[Mike Reed]

Nope. Just letting you know that I have no qualms about using the report feature.

[Bill Hamblin]

Nope. Just letting you know that I have no qualms about using the report feature.

I would like to report Mike Reed for using the report feature too much, but alas, I can't figure out how to do a report.

[Mike Reed]

1) You assume these unnamed people have been disappointed previously

2) I won't be able to speculate on this, or even know if the question makes sense in terms of what the DVD sets out to do, until I've watched it. Which I finally get to get around to doing this week.

I look forward to your review (if you end up writing one). I hope my impression (after watching the advertisement) and Bill Hamblin's response ("There's nothing really new [in] it") is wrong. I realize other people can find value in summaries of past work. I just like to buy new material (whether in print or video on DVD) that has new material.

[Pahoran]

Wade. Pre-access well poisoning? I simply said that the DVD appears to have nothing new in it. And according to Dr. Hamblin, I was right. So what exactly is the problem?

Ah, the old wide-eyed innocence act. The true classics never really die.

You didn't "simply [say] that the DVD appears to have nothing new in it." You gave a sneering, dismissive "Same ol same ol."

And if you say it's just a matter of style, and the message is still the same, I point out that calling someone an "anti-Mormon" when they'd rather be known as a Rigorously Impartial Critic of Mormon Claims, is just a matter of style; the message is still the same.

But it was important enough for you to report, in your high dudgeon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Ah, the old wide-eyed innocence act. The true classics never really die.

You didn't "simply [say] that the DVD appears to have nothing new in it." You gave a sneering, dismissive "Same ol same ol."

My statement started with the words, "It looks like." And a few posts down, I even added the following comments:

I am pleased to see that Mike Ash, Kevin Barney, and David Bokovoy are in the video. I enjoy their perspectives. Although I may not agree with their ultimate conclusions, they seem to be more willing than most apologists to adjust their positions as new information comes to light.

But you knew that already, right?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Pahoran]

Ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner.

Of course you cheerlead for your fellow anti-Mormons.

I'll order it anyway, as I'm curious to see the level of intellectual honesty

Maybe you'll one day be able to rise to the level of intellectual honesty shown in FAIR and other LDS apologetic endeavours. And that would be a very good thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Minos]

It has been reported.

I have repeatedly asked Xander to stop using "Mormon apologists" as a slur to no avail. Anti-Mormon is the other side of the same coin so it is up to those who misuse "apologist" to decide whether "anti-Mormon" is used.

[Mike Reed]

I have repeatedly asked Xander to stop using "Mormon apologists" as a slur to no avail. Anti-Mormon is the other side of the same coin so it is up to those who misuse "apologist" to decide whether "anti-Mormon" is used.

I see. You are letting disobedience to rules determine how rules should be enforced--never mind that Pahoran indirectly called me anti-Mormon too.

Must be time for me to take another break from this place.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Mike Reed

[jskains]

I see. You are letting disobedience to rules determine how rules should be enforced--never mind that Pahoran indirectly called me anti-Mormon too.

Must be time for me to take another break from this place.

Anti-Mormon would be properly defined as someone against Mormonism. Like I am anti-pedophilia or anti-animal abuse. Considering your aggressive need to attack or put down the LDS church and it's theology, why is the word so ugly? I am honestly asking.

JMS

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm anti-Anti-Mormon. Can I say that on the board?

[jskains]

I'm anti-Anti-Mormon. Can I say that on the board?

I support that. I am actually anti-anyone who trolls LDS chat sites just to trash on the Church to make themselves feel better, but I am not so sure there is a proper noun for that.

[livy111us]

FWIW, Mike Ash will be appearing on the Martin Tanner show tomorrow at 6:30 am and 9:30 pm on 102.7 FM (in Utah) discussing the book of Abraham video.

Edited November 20, 2011 by livy111us

[altersteve]

FWIW, Mike Ash will be appearing on the Martin Tanner show tomorrow at 6:30 am and 9:30 pm on 102.7 FM (in Utah) discussing the book of Abraham video.

I'll be listening for sure. Thanks for the info.

[Storm Rider]

I was going to comment about monkey see, monkey do; we all can be predictable at times. Participants on this forum are the same as everyone else. It is laughable to see the same old positions, dismissals, denials, etc. from some on here. Then those caught with their hand in the cookie jar, completely deny their hand is in the jar and clearly state they do not eat cookies.

Well, since I know that all "critics" and some anti-Mormons never learn, I understand that I need do nothing but occasionally read their worn out arguments so that I can deny their protests that I haven't really read their NEW stuff. They have nothing new to say and they are intellectually dishonest so, yawn, scratch, I think I will just take a walk.

[Xander]

Every apologist I know and knew (when I was one), never had a problem with that identity.

"Anti-Mormon," on the other hand, is an obvious slur intended to kill discussion. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the Church knows that all you have to do is call someone an anti-Mormon and everyone's mind shuts down. Why? Because that person is evil. His agenda is crafted by Satan. To even listen to him means you're giving into temptation and abandoning the spirit. This is why folks like Loran and Pahoran are constantly dropping the anti-Mormon bomb, and say nothing else. That's how powerful a word it is. No argument necessary. No evidence necessary. All you have to do is drop the word and members in an LDS audience will start ignoring your opponent on that basis alone.

The first time I heard this was when I was 17, investigating the Church, eating lunch with the Mormon girl across the street. My grandmother had sent me some info critical of LDS truth claims. I think it was Michael Quinn's book, Origins of Power, but when I asked her some basic questions about LDS history she started to freak out and asked me where I heard it. When I told her, she started crying and said, "Kev, that is anti-Mormon literature!" She and her entire family gradually distanced themselves from me for the next few months, until I went after them explaining I wasn't going to read that stuff anymore. I was baptized two years later by her brother. The point is that there was never any attempt by anyone in the family to address any of the concerns I raised. And to be honest, I wasn't being critical. I was genuinely curious what all this polygamy and blacks-priesthood stuff was all about.

The idea here behind the usage of the term is to constantly claim your opponent's position isn't driven by evidence or reason. As if they believe what they believe simply because they are not spiritual. Even when reason and evidence are presented for a critical argument, the claim is constantly thrown up that their real motives are based in their evil "anti-Mormon" agenda. As if all critics woke up one day and decided "hey, I want to attack the Mormon Church for fun!" We see this all the time, especially from folks like Schryver who demand that people declare their loyalties from the start. When reasonable apologists become friends with critics or agree with some of their arguments, he begins passing judgment on them as borderline apostates. This is important for him because if he can label them in such a way, he knows he doesn't really have to deal with their arguments. He can just dismiss them because they're "anti-Mormon." This method is traditional and popular, especially for FAIR and FARMS. Their numerous volumes of articles and book "reviews" frequently consist of little more than charges against the author for having an "anti-Mormon" bias against the Church. In many cases this is accurate, but the problem is they do not differentiate between a Walter Martin/ John Ankerberg- type nimrod, and intellectuals like Edward Ashment or Brent Metcalfe. Since they are presenting arguments that challenge LDS truth claims, they're all considered anti-Mormons, which gives them a huge rhetorical advantage before any debate has begun.

Well, I was an apologist not so long ago and a proud one at that. Apologetics was instrumental in my "apostasy" because I probably never would have studied this stuff otherwise. Eventually I came to the realization that much of what I was promoting was based in errors. When I came to that realization, within the blink of an eye I became an "anti-Mormon" in the eyes of every other apologist who once called me friend. On that basis alone I was rejected as an outcast, my voice was ignored, and whenever I spoke people would constantly remind their audience that I was a recent covenant-breaking apostate, as if that immediately discredited my arguments.

"Anti-Mormon" requires passing judgment on others. By contrast, "apologist" is an objective observation that requires no subjective analysis. If you defend the Church, you're an apologist, period. Right?

Well, how would you like for me to refer to the apologists, when that is precisely what they are, by definition? Do you want me to call them missionaries as the Church describes every member? defenders? Members? Mormons? I don't get it. How should I refer to them that would set them apart from the rest of the pack? Apologist seems to be the best word, and I've never seen an apologist complain about it until recently.

Anyway, I don't consider myself anti-Mormon because I never try to get people out of the Church. I even let my family go, which they do on occasion. Anti-Mormon can mean a broad spectrum of things, including someone who simply wants to kill Mormons. So while those defending the term claim it simply means someone who challenge truth claims of the Church, (therefore all critics are anti-Mormons) they need to try thinking more dimensional and try to understand why so many object to it. As it is, I consider myself pro-truth. So it doesn't matter who is telling falsehoods, I am against those falsehoods. If someone tries telling me the earth is 4,000 years old, I will argue against that because I am pro-truth, not because I am anti-Christian. If someone tries telling me tax cuts always lead to prosperity for the middle-class, I will argue against that because I am pro-truth, not because I am anti-Conservative. If some Evangelical tells me Mitt Romney is trying to start a theocracy, I will argue against this because I am pro-truth, not because I am anti-Protestant. Likewise, if someone misrepresents a set of documents in which I have become very familiar (often invoking my name as one of the "anti-Mormon" critics) then I will step up and be pro-truth on that subject as well. It doesn't make me anti-Mormon.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Incidentally, I ordered the FAIR DVD on the BoA a month ago and I plan to do a review when I get around to it. It was torturous listening to some of the things they were saying, mainly because I have respect for some of those participants (i.e. Ash) and couldn't believe some of the things they were claiming. I had to stop watching about half way. It was that bad. For example, Kerry Muhelstein dropped a bomb claiming we have a papyrus mentioning the sacrifice of Abraham on an altar. Of course, this is patently false and it is difficult to imagine how anyone with any amount of expertise on this subject could possibly make such an erroneous statement. Even Gee never made that claim. I started a review last month but couldn't get around to finishing it.