Confirmation Bias From Vogel'S New Article On The Witnesses

[Dan Vogel]

But isn't that pretty much what the Savior taught in the parable of Lazarus? The unbeliever will continue in disbelief even if the truth is declared to them by an angel. Are you saying that the Lord engaged an ad hominem argument?

And you take this as permission to commit a logical fallacy, right?

[Daniel Peterson]

In my dealings with you before I have seen you use the "MA" in your discussion of Walters, which to my mind means you think he might be underqualified to speak on matters of Mormon history.

LOL. You misunderstand me.

I was poking gentle fun at you, not at the late Reverend Walters (whom I knew just slightly, but with whom I was always on polite terms). I noticed a long time ago that you were utterly entranced with him. (In fact, your retelling of your old anecdote about Wesley Walters and Richard Bushman illustrates the fascination he holds for you yet again; I think you've told me the same anecdote at least four or five times.)

Anyway, what has this got to do with the present thread? I don't believe that I've mentioned Wesley Walters, let alone his M.A., on this thread, and I don't see the relevance.

Has anybody else mentioned him here? Why did you bring him up?

For that matter, I don't think I've mentioned Rev. Walters or his M.A. anywhere for quite a long time. What connection does your Walters/Bushman anecdote have with anything I've said, or with anything on this thread?

The point is you do this quite a bit. You're the only person I know who does and you shouldn't be surprised when this is pointed out to you by those who aren't afraid to mention it.

Thanks for the reminder: Please permit me to express my admiration for the great courage that you and noel00 share, as manifested in this matter. I'm sure that I'm not the only one here to whom it's a shining light and an inspiration.

I know this certainly isn't the first time you've heard this and yet you still insist on doing it. This suggests that you feel it is important that you do so. How come?

I don't think it's even slightly important. It's just an expression of my style and personality. I'm somewhat exuberant. I'm having a good time.

That you and Noel think it important, though, might have been interesting to me, if that were the kind of thing that I was interested in.

I mean really, do we really need you to present your multiple week (or multiple month as in some cases) itenerary when a simple "I'll get back to you when I can" will suffice?

If I ever decide to hire out my posting on this message board, or to submit my entries for prior editorial advice, I'll certainly keep you in mind, Kevin. You make a powerful case that you would post here on my behalf with a grace and style far superior to my own .

It comes across as "lookie at me I'm a scholar who is constantly doing scholarly things."

Well, I am, and I do.

That mentioning it evidently strikes you as boastful suggests to me that you're far more concerned about status questions than I am, though, because I don't really see it as much different than, say, "I'm a workman who is constantly doing workmanlike things," or "I'm a farmer who constantly does agricultural things," or "I'm a stamp collector who's constantly busy with stamp collecting."

Which is to say that, in my judgment, your concern about this matter suggests some significant things about you, but nothing much at all about me.

Trouble is, I don't really care much about you. Do, as far as I'm concerned, just about whatever you like. I'm not really interested.

What compels you to mention your itenerary so frequently?

Why on earth do you care?

(It's itinerary, by the way. With only one e and two i's.)

If my posting style offends or bothers you, ignore my posts. It's that simple. I don't like your posting style, for instance -- nor much else about what I know of you, for that matter -- and, accordingly, I very rarely read anything you write.

I've found that this course has been very pleasant for me, and I recommend the equivalent to you.

[Dan Vogel]

Only if it's advanced as a serious argument.

(It can only be a logically fallacious argument if it's an argument in the first place.)

But I made no such argument at all in any event, and your response to me doesn't

accuse me of

such a thing.

I thought you were alluding to a previous post, which I took as serious. It was an argument for not having a Nephite city or artifact.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought you were alluding to a previous post

I wasn't.

[wenglund]

Yes, I agree. "Always" is an exagerration. Obviously you do not always do this. But I'm also sure you never really believed Noel meant that literally, and that you know this is just a figure of speech. The more outrageous kind of hyperbole would be something similar to your repeated claim that I always respond to those with whom I disagree by calling them liars. Because your exagerration was presented as a serious argument not to be challenged, whereas I think Noel's was a common figure of speech most English speakers understand.

The point is you do this quite a bit. You're the only person I know who does and you shouldn't be surprised when this is pointed out to you by those who aren't afraid to mention it. I know this certainly isn't the first time you've heard this and yet you still insist on doing it. This suggests that you feel it is important that you do so. How come?

It is "fundamental" to what, exactly? Why should Noel care if you care?

It is called being minimally observant.

What makes you think noel "takes offense" to this? It was a simple question. The only frustration I see here is on your part, as you've yet to answer the question. I mean really, do we really need you to present your multiple week (or multiple month as in some cases) itenerary when a simple "I'll get back to you when I can" will suffice? It comes across as "lookie at me I'm a scholar who is constantly doing scholarly things."

No, the question was Noel's. What compels you to mention your itenerary so frequently? It seems like you are the one who thinks other people care.

I don't see it that way at all. It was a simple question that could have been easily answered without derailing the thread at all.

So, you're merely begging the question and missing the point.

Thank God for Jaybear:

Alas!

Someone finally gets it.

So a person without a testimony isn't more biased because he is without it. In fact, he is far closer to being objective than the TBM could ever hope to be.

I am sending a cyber-hug to both Kevin and Noel because I sense that they really need one. I hope others will likewise extend their digital arms around these two good men so that they may feel the much-needed appreciation and value.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Anyhow, I'm unsure why you would expect a nevermo critic to take Joseph Smith's claims all that seriously. Just take the barest facts about JS that critics would probably be addressing, and try to imagine what you'd think if you weren't a TBM. Joseph Smith takes all these women to his bed in secret, behind his wife's back, while publicly denying it. Is a nevermo really in the wrong to think that JS was probably just acting like so many other new religious movement leader, rather than thinking hey, maybe God really did want him to do it? Is a nevermo really all that wrong to consider Joseph's head pressed into the hat to gaze at the scrying stone to translate gold plates that conveniently were taken back up to Heaven, and conclude it's unlikely to be a true story?

Jeff K., on 21 March 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

A rather ridiculous example. Given the number of converts in the world, myself included from an agnostic family, I can tell you how it sounds. It sounds like Joseph Smith received a revelation like so many prophets before him. It sounds like he was persecuted, like so many prophets before him. It sounds like details we know of this prophet but not the prophets before him. So rather than creating a false example of what it sounds like to non members, the growth of the church reflects what it sounds like to non members.

Converts have absolutely nothing to do with this. I would bet that 99.99% of converts know nothing at all of Joseph Smith's women beyond Emma, the nature of the Egyptian papyri in the church's possession and their relationship to the Book of Abraham, and I would bet that at least 99.9% of them, at least prior to the South Park episode, know nothing of the stone in the hat method of translation.

It would be an interesting thing to test though, if we had the ability. We could take a convert who had shown signs of being receptive to the message, but had not yet committed. Then clone them and lead one clone into a room where stone-in-the-hat, Joseph's polygamy, and the Egyptian Papyrus/BoA stuff was all laid out, and have the other clone go on with the conventional discussions, where all of this stuff is completely missing, and do some statistical analysis on conversion rates. Do you really believe that this information would be neutral or even enhance conversion rates? I would suggest that the fact that this stuff is absent from what potential converts are taught by the church indicates that the church disagrees with you.

Given you brought up the issue of converts, I am not sure how you can say they have nothing to do with this. You seem to confuse yourself or perhaps your jargon. As a convert who, by definition would have qualified under your quaint if somewhat limited monicker "nevermo", until my conversion, I would say you are woefully inadequate in your assumption. In the South, where "Godmakers" was all the rage, and Southern Baptists would burn Book of Mormons at the door of members, and every conceivable charge was made against the Mormons and Joseph Smith, I dare say we are even better informed as to what was "wrong" with the church than most who have been members their entire lives. Indeed, the resistance to becoming a Mormon was a flood of information from those flagellating groups that screamed about the horrid nature of Mormons.

I was told and informed of Joseph Smith having many wives, informed that Joseph Smith was a thief of the worst kind, and lawsuites galore (one wonders how many lawsuites the Pharisees and Sadducess would have produced). And yet I still joined, as well as many others.

Here is your problem, and it is specifically a problem you have.

Part I - You expect the church to do all the negative footwork for you. You whine and wheedle regarding the fact the church does not make every false rumor an exercise of truth by establishing those false/questionable rumors as fact. I feel sorrow for your laziness, but not pity for your efforts.

Part II - You have nothing good to offer. You do not offer a good alternative idea or ideal. In fact you have offered nothing of a superior quality in terms of a better belief system. We may not even know what you believe because your entire focus has been in hating the church and attacking the church. There is no "here is what we have to offer and who we are", I dare say your belief system therefore remains a pale shadow of ours, otherwise you would be extolling its virtues relative to ours. You haven't done so, therefore one can presume your belief system offers no godly virtues beyond joining you in hating Christ's church.

You aren't very appealing.

Those are your two big problems.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Mark Beesley]

And you take this as permission to commit a logical fallacy, right?

How is it a logical fallacy? I don't see it.

Rather than concluding that it is a logical fallacy, perhaps you can do the analysis and show your work, as we were taught to do in 4th grade math class.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Sethbag]

Given you brought up the issue of converts, I am not sure how you can say they have nothing to do with this.

I didn't bring up the issue of converts. At all.

I can't believe I'm having to do this, but here's what happened.

Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so' date=' you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did.[/quote']

As part of a post, buzzard said straight out that he hasn't ever run into a critic of the church who has ever been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid. I pointed out that there are tons of former TBMs who have since changed their beliefs with respect to the church and become its critics, but who at one time felt, and bore testimony that they believed it to be true. Buzzard then came back and said that when he said "critics", he was only talking about critics who hadn't ever been members before.

So I asked him why he expected that critics who had never been members before would look at some basic historical facts/problems and be inclined to think maybe the church really was true.

It had nothing to do with converts. You dragged converts into this, seeming to claim that I was wrong about critics thinking maybe the church was wrong, your proof being all the converts the church gets. I then stated that more than likely the overwhelming majority of converts would be entirely unaquainted with the critical material I had mentioned, and therefor didn't really serve as proof of anything in the context of this conversation.

So, you had watched the Godmakers and still converted. Good for you. That doesn't really contradict what I have said. The Godmakers contains enough crap that seriously undermines its credibility that I don't think this is particularly impressive. There is a reason I've avoided almost all religiously-oriented anti-Mormon stuff - or at least, most of the stuff that claims to prove Mormonism is wrong because it's doing God wrong.

In the South, where "Godmakers" was all the rage, and Southern Baptists would burn Book of Mormons at the door of members, and every conceivable charge was made against the Mormons and Joseph Smith, I dare say we are even better informed as to what was "wrong" with the church than most who have been members their entire lives. Indeed, the resistance to becoming a Mormon was a flood of information from those flagellating groups that screamed about the horrid nature of Mormons.

That's just the problem. Mormons aren't horrid, don't worship Satan in the temple, don't deflower virgins on the altar, don't have horns, and a lot of other such crap that's been thrown out there by some of the more cringeworthy religiously-motivated anti-Mormons. The Book of Mormon is false as a history, but there's no call for burning it on Mormons' doorsteps, and such actions merely render the perpetrator non-credible. Some people will take note, and disregard what these others have to say about the church. I had to deal with some such anti-Mormons on my mission who told a convert girl in my ward some really egregiously false garbage. It was easy for me, on my mission, to think I'd seen the worst and my testimony had survived intact.

Here is your problem' date=' and it is specifically a problem you have.

Part I - You expect the church to do all the negative footwork for you. You whine and wheedle regarding the fact the church does not make every false rumor an exercise of truth by establishing those false/questionable rumors as fact. I feel sorrow for your laziness, but not pity for your efforts.[/quote']

No I don't.

Part II - You have nothing good to offer. You do not offer a good alternative idea or ideal. In fact you have offered nothing of a superior quality in terms of a better belief system.

I've never claimed to have a better belief system to offer anyone. My belief system is still a work in progress. I only know that Mormonism doesn't have the Truth, and that this realization has undermined certain portions of my worldview. That doesn't mean I've already filled in all the holes with something else, and am trying to convince everyone else to follow me. I think this is the "ever member a missionary" tendency in you causing you to project.

We may not even know what you believe because your entire focus has been in hating the church and attacking the church. There is no "here is what we have to offer and who we are", I dare say your belief system therefore remains a pale shadow of ours, otherwise you would be extolling its virtues relative to ours.

No. Not even close. First, my entire focus has not been on hating or attacking the church. Sure, my feelings for the church are complex, but my dislike for Joseph Smith and the belief system that he created, and which has evolved somewhat to what is presented to the world now, are not my focus, and as I go through my 6th year since I essentially stopped believing in the church, my feelings are more and more apathetic than hateful or vengeful, or whatever you imagine I must feel as an evil anti-Mormon attack demon monster.

Secondly, to reiterate, I'm not offering anyone my belief system. That's you projecting.

You haven't done so, therefore one can presume your belief system offers no godly virtues beyond joining you in hating Christ's church.

You aren't very appealing.

Those are your two big problems.

I long ago accepted that looks aren't everything. ;-)

Also, as an atheist, I'm not sure why you would expect my belief system to offer godly virtues. Remember, I'm not one of your Southern Baptist Book of Mormon burners. I just think the LDS Church isn't really true. And I don't have to produce, for your inspection, a complete drop-in replacement belief system, and then attempt to proselytize others into joining me in accepting in, in order to believe that the LDS church isn't really true.

[Dan Vogel]

How is it a logical fallacy? I don't see it.

Rather than concluding that it is a logical fallacy, perhaps you can do the analysis and show your work, as we were taught to do in 4th grade math class.

I said:

Saying critics wouldn't admit the BOM is history even with the clearist evidence is the abusive form of ad hominem.

You said:

But isn't that pretty much what the Savior taught in the parable of Lazarus? The unbeliever will continue in disbelief even if the truth is declared to them by an angel. Are you saying that the Lord engaged an ad hominem argument?

Note that your response did not deny ad hominem, but instead quoted scripture to jusify it's use.

The statement I responded to was ad hominem because instead of producing evidence as requested, the reponse was (and I paraphrase for clarity) that critics are so committed to their position that the clearest evidence (a sign identifying a Nephite city) wouldn't convince them so apologists need not worry about the quality of their present evidence.