Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[cdowis]

This becomes the basic the problem in apologetics. Apologists are often obliged to defend the indefensible when it comes to any number of falsifiable (and falsified) claims, and to do so often use fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks in doing so, especially in the message board environment.

Back to the subject of the OP; FAIR apologists become skilled at obfuscation, straw man arguments, and the like. Their main objective seems to be to create some wiggle room, some possibility, anything that the believer can hang on to to continue in unfounded belief when considering statements such as those of Elder Sorensen.

My "brand" of apologetics is asking the critics questions, to reveal logical and factual flaws in their arguments. I have no explanation for the flood, but I also find a lack of explanations in the realm of evolution and science as well. When we get into

The discussions often come down to .... "what abut this" (by the critic) and the apologists responding with "what about that." Apologists for evolution have expressed their hope/faith that the theory of evolution will furnish an explanations for any and all difficulties. They offer tentative and incomplete explanations, but the apologists/ church leaders also express faith that all such issues will be resolved and give tentative and incomplete explanations as well.

The critics comfort themselves with "Science holds the answers and religion is just an illusion"as you have done here. The religionists respond that our knowledge is limited and answers will come either in this life or in the next. The critic asks (and gloats), for example, how deity can travel across the universe almost instantaneously, while the apologist points out that there is not only a physical universe, but also a spirit realm. We are unfamiliar with the laws of that latter world.

Mariner, I don't mind your gloating because I am certain that in the long run we will discover the reality of both the physical and spiritual realm in the next life. And I am patient.... I can wait.

[stemelbow]

To be fair, of my 5000 plus posts, at least 2/3rds of them are dedicated to helping the individuals there in improving their dealings with LDS folks (I realize I'm banging my head against the brick wall, but I'm fine with it). Sure, I enjoy it. I wouldn't post there if I didn't. That does not mean in anyway, that I think the place promotes thoughtful dialogue, nor a healthy place for Mormons to regularly participate. I enjoy it for different reasons altogether, and I've been pretty honest about that over my time there. Its intriguing. Why do posters there go after people like DCP so adamantly? Beats me. I'm intrigued.

[Wiki Wonka]

This becomes the basic the problem in apologetics. Apologists are often obliged to defend the indefensible when it comes to any number of falsifiable (and falsified) claims, and to do so often use fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks in doing so, especially in the message board environment.

Whatever happens on messages boards, I don't consider apologetics. The only thing that has meaning to me is if you can find personal attacks in the FAIR Wiki. Message boards are no place for apologetics, in my opinion.

Back to the subject of the OP; FAIR apologists become skilled at obfuscation, straw man arguments, and the like. Their main objective seems to be to create some wiggle room, some possibility, anything that the believer can hang on to to continue in unfounded belief when considering statements such as those of Elder Sorensen.

Nonsense. In the previous paragraph you accused apologists of personal attacks, and yet in the very next you yourself attack them by accusing them of "obfuscation." You are effectively calling us dishonest, so do not presume to lecture me about personal attacks. Our main objective is not to create "wiggle room," but to provide information for those who wish to view a believers' interpretation of the data. If you wish to accuse us of obfuscation, then back it up with some examples with links, preferably from the FAIR Wiki where I can correct it.

WW

Edited May 15, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Xander]

A great post from one of those evil hater critics who saw Dan Peterson's latest "evidence" blurb and offered a more sophisticated approach to the subject::

These Mopologist sermons on evidence invariably leave out two crucial concepts: foundation and relevance.

Foundation essentially means authenticating that a piece of evidence actually is what it purports to be. Relevance means that a proffered piece of evidence actually does tend to make a given claim more likely than it would be without that evidence.

The reason these concepts are invariably left out are that they do not seem to be well understood by most defenders of the faith, and when they are, issues of foundation and relevance are not helpful to the truth claims of the LDS Church.

For example, this Sic et Non post discussed in the OP refers to the supposed witnesses of the Book of Mormon:

The testimonies of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon are evidence.

We could do a whole thing on the Three Witnesses' date=' but for simplicity I'll just talk about the Eight Witnesses. What did they actually witness?

They saw an object they were incapable of identifying and heard Joseph Smith make a representation of what that object supposedly was. That's it. They were not "witnesses to the Book of Mormon" at all, because they had no way to verify that the plates Joseph Smith showed them were an ancient Nephite record. They had no way to determine that the Book of Mormon was a translation of the inscriptions on those plates, because they could not decipher them. And to believing Latter-day Saints who think it's ridiculous that plates could be fabricated and claimed to be of ancient origin, let me direct your attention to two things: the Kinderhook Plates and the Voree Plates.

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true or that Joseph Smith's story about the golden plates is true. The Eight Witnesses had no independent knowledge of either of those things. But if your goal is simply to prove that Joseph Smith showed some of his close friends and relatives an object and told them a story about it, then hey, you've got evidence.

There is also this:

There is certainly evidence for the claims of Mormonism. Joseph Smith's own account is prima facie evidence, for example. (We almost always accept first person accounts of an experience if we have no particular reason to reject them.)

Joseph Smith's own account is not prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is when, unless there is evidence to refute it, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish a claim. Joseph Smith's own account is direct evidence, because he claims to have personal knowledge of the events at issue, but it is not prima facie evidence.

But Peterson is also begging the question of "Joseph Smith's own account." Own account of what? Of the First Vision? Which of his several and varied accounts of the First Vision is the evidence? It's not the version in the Pearl of Great Price, because that isn't Joseph Smith's own account. He didn't write it---someone else did and put it in the first person.

Mopologist sermons on evidence also omit any discussion of heuristics. It isn't true that we almost always accept first person accounts of an experience if we have no particular reason to reject them. What is true is that whether conscious of it or not, most people generally agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Very few of the readers of this board know who I really am or really know anything about me. Without even needing to know a lot about my life and whom I associate with, which of these claims are you more likely to accept at face value?

(A) I watched a DVD with my kids on Saturday night and we popped popcorn.

(B) I watched a DVD with Scarlett Johansson on Saturday night while she was sitting on my lap.

Now, claims like theophanies can't be falsified in the same way that most claims of fact can. But if I have nothing but a person's word for it, and that person changes his story over time in significant ways (when it happened, why it happened, what happened), then I'm pretty far along in being able to evaluate whether I can rely on his word. And when alleged supernatural experiences involve claims of fact about the tangible world, then those claims become falsifiable.

Supposed Book of Mormon evidences are not evidences of the Book of Mormon narrative. Evidence about the Olmecs, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Moundbuilders, etc. are not relevant to the Book of Mormon. Contrary to the implication of Peterson's blog post, a reasonable person can say quite confidently that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. That includes the NHM thing (either of them--the Ensign has talked about two different sites). The NHM idea suffers from both lack of foundation and lack of relevance.

Whether consciously or not, most people also accept Occam's Razor as a valid way to evaluate various claims. Or, put another way, if the Book of Mormon were a 19th-century hoax, it would look exactly the same as it already does. There is not a single proffered piece of evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon's alleged historicity that does not have a more cogent and likely explanation. In Mormon apologetics, however, we have Joseph's Razor: whatever explanation tends to leave the door open that the Church's truth claims could be accurate, no matter how contrived, implausible, or baseless, that explanation is probably true. Again, this is why heuristics are notably absent from Mopologist sermons about evidence. Mopologists are not trying to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of evidence. They are trying to explain away evidence that conflicts with their foregone conclusions.

(I've been talking about the Book of Mormon, but the foundation and relevance problems are applicable to the Pearl of Great Price as well.)

Then there's Peterson's theory that God is like the Riddler from Batman:

The claims of Mormonism are, I think, right about where they're supposed to be: Not so obviously true as to coerce acceptance, and not so obviously false as to make acceptance illegitimate.

Okay, so what you're telling me is that God loves us so much that He'll send His Only Begotten Son to be tortured to death for us, but he'll still play Three-Card Monte with our salvation. He has set up this wonderful plan for us to return to His presence, and restored His church in these latter days so we can know about His plan, but also made sure to set things up so that it's a coin toss whether to believe in the One, True Church or not. (Yes, I'm aware of the mixed metaphors. It's late and I'm tired.)

But even assuming for argument's sake that Peterson is right, and the evidence is a draw, then the rational solution is not to maintain belief in the Church and ignore contrary evidence by "putting it on the shelf." The rational solution is to withhold belief because the burden of proof has not been met. Burden of proof is, of course, another concept that Mopologist "evidence" sermons omit. If the LDS Church's claims of fact regarding the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc. have not been proven, it is not the responsibility of the rest of the world to disprove those claims in order to justify non-belief. Nor is providing a counter-explanation the burden of unbelievers. Absence of evidence is a perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest basis for rejecting a claim about anything, Mormon-related or otherwise.

Oh, but wait! To paraphrase something Gadianton said one time (and I can't find now), the Mopologist strategy is to assert that the evidence for and evidence against the Church is at a stalemate, and then the Holy Ghost can be the trump card that resolves everything in the Church's favor. Moroni's Promise is a whole subject unto itself, but the short answer is this: there's no way to assess the validity of Moroni's Promise. You don't have a way to independently verify that your subjective emotional experience means what the LDS Church tells you it's supposed to mean. I read the Book of Mormon. I pray about it. I feel good. The missionaries tell me this means that the Holy Ghost is telling me that the Book of Mormon is true. In the LDS context, "true" doesn't just mean good principles or that there's a God or something else abstract and/or metaphysical. "True" in this instance means that the Book of Mormon is real history. So how do I know that I'm not being subjected to wishful thinking, to operant conditioning, that I'm delusional, or that I'm misinterpreting an otherwise legitimate spiritual experience? Well, the way to do that is by seeing how what the missionaries told me was an "answer" from the Holy Ghost comports with objective reality. And now we're right back to square one of the evidence problem that Moroni's Promise was supposed to solve.

Evidence never has been and never will be a building block that a Mopologist uses to construct something. Evidence is merely the pet name Mopologists give to the unicorn they are sending you off to hunt.

[Xander]

Review of Greg Smith, by a well respected critic and scholar (who earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania)

What might a Greg Smith hit piece look like?

For that, I think we can get a basic idea from the 2011 issue of the FARMS Review, where culture warrior Greg Smith does his best to defend Elder Packer's teachings on homosexuality and expose Laura Compton for the enemy to the true faith that she obviously must be (at least in his construction of her).

As we have seen, apologists have been combing the internet looking for juicy tidbits from Dehlin & Co. in order to use them against him. The same is true of the Laura Compton "hit piece," where a number of quotes are cherry picked to make Compton look personally disingenuous in the Mormons for Marriage board policy against criticism of the leadership and the church.

After all, we all know from experience how easy it is to babysit online discussions when determined characters are up at all hours sharing their viewpoints. In any case, I think it is fair to say that Smith has found evidence of that board policy being violated and the violations being inadequately addressed and not in a timely manner.

The question I have is this: is it accurate, much less realistic, to place all of the responsibility for what happens on the board on the shoulders of Compton? And, what is the reason for singling out Compton in this way? I will only judge this by what Smith presents.

Smith seems to be upset that Compton does not elucidate Packer's long history of teachings on homosexuality:

M4M ignores President Packer's extensive past teaching on the subject when glossing 2010A' date=' though it is all readily accessible. "Many listeners got the distinct impression," Compton tells us, "that Elder Packer was suggesting homosexuality is a choice. While that may be what he believes or understands, it is not in line with current church teachings which indicate General Authorities do not know what causes homosexuality."29[/quote']

Of course, in saying this, Smith completely glosses over the central issue of the disagreement: the definition of homosexuality. Elder Packer considers homosexuality to be acting out on same sex desires, while Compton sees homosexuality as a matter of one's personal identity. Compton is in fact absolutely accurate in stating, therefore, that Packer believes homosexuality is a choice, and, in fact, Elder Packer would agree with her.

What is confusing for all, and not entirely Compton's fault, is that the Church's teachings on the issue of homosexuality so directly conflict with popular and scientific understanding of the issue that few people outside of those who are personally burdened by the Church's teachings or geeks like Smith will be able to keep them "straight" (OK, bad pun.). She fumbles a bit, arguably, in saying that the Church accepts that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. This is, I think, not a result of maliciousness, but because she has in mind statements in which leaders of the LDS Church express their agreement that some people may be born more liable to same sex attraction. Compton is, in my view, not to be blamed for the confusion regarding the distinction between same-sex attraction and homosexuality on an unofficial online discussion board.

He quotes another one of her posts disapprovingly as he continues:

Many may well have had such an impression—helped' date=' it must be said, by relentless insistence on that reading by Compton and others:

[i']You know, we can sit here and debate until the cows come home about whether or not Elder Packer meant to single out gays/lesbians in his talk, but that's not really what matters.

Whether or not he intended to single out people, many got the message that he did so intend.

As a teacher, he should know that if students are not understanding the lessons, it is the teacher's fault and responsibility to fix the problem.30

All teachers certainly have the responsibility to be clear. Compton ignores, however, that a hostile reading can often manufacture grounds for offense.

As someone who has come to grudgingly accept that the Church will make use of corporate methods as a matter of necessity in a global organization, let me say this: when the customer complains about your sales pitch, maybe you should listen.

What is Compton saying here that is so bad? Indeed, Compton might be viewed as doing the Church a favor. It is quite clear that, while Elder Packer's teachings on homosexuality, which run contrary to just about everything in popular culture and science on the subject, may be clear to Greg Smith, Laura Compton seems to think that the message may be confusing to others, and Elder Packer might want to rethink his approach for getting the message across.

I don't see that as maliciousness on her part. It does not, in my view, communicate hostile intent or destructive criticism of the LDS Church. All those who think otherwise might ask themselves whether any kind of criticism of the Church is OK. Better some criticism, I say, than empty pews, eh?

Now to the attack on Compton for violations of the policy of not allowing criticism of the LDS Church or its leaders. First of all, I have to say, in a discussion like that on homosexuality and Mormonism, this rule was ill-advised and wildly unrealistic. In a sense, I think this was a gift handed to people like Greg Smith to use to their best advantage. If you run a discussion about gays and Mormonism, there simply will be criticism of the LDS Church and its leaders. Without it, you're not really having an honest conversation.

And (ab)use it he does:

It is understandable—and even praiseworthy—that a group that purports to speak for believing members of the church' date=' and wishes to persuade other members, would establish such a rule. But as I read what Compton and her fellow contributors wrote, I found it increasingly hard to regard this "rule" as anything more than a fig leaf to draw in the unwary, or as a sop to any conscience that might be unnerved by an attack on the church or its leaders.[/quote']

Notice here that his very first gesture is to create suspicion that Laura Compton intentionally created a trap so that unsuspecting members might be lured in, reassured that everything was OK, no one was an enemy of the LDS Church, etc., and then BAM! Now they are criticizing the Brethren along with all of their new pal apostates and fellow gays. The narrative is familiar to anyone of us who recalls the image of Satan and his flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon. Compton is not a busy parent who has undertaken an unrealistic ideal in her board guidelines; in the hands of Greg Smith she is a tool of Satan who has deliberately dug a pit for her unsuspecting Mormon neighbor.

A series of colorful quotes that one might expect, given the many challenges that the LDS Church and its members are experiencing online, follows. What continues to baffle this writer is that, instead of sitting back and wondering what might productively be done about the situation, the reaction of Greg Smith and the FARMS Review is to dip the material in red ink, build a bonfire, and then proceed to dance in a circle around it while thrusting spears menacingly.

We should also remember that to cover something with a "fig leaf" is to evoke the shame that Adam and Eve experienced after they partook of the forbidden fruit. The person who feels ashamed of what they have done or are doing covers up with a fig leaf.

The depth of Laura Compton's personal hypocrisy has not fully been plumbed, however:

Readers are assured by Compton' date=' furthermore, that at M4M "we avoid personal attacks." 43 Avoiding personal attacks and not tolerating attacks on church leaders apparently do not encompass such remarks as the following (all made on threads in which Compton—who apparently has full moderating powers—participated):[/quote']

Like most of you, but evidently not Greg Smith, I am assuming that the policy of "no personal attacks" was put in place to protect participants on the board. Greg seems to be applying it to the whole human race. I hope I get to see him run a discussion board someday.

Again:

Compton cautions new members that "we do not call into question the righteousness or membership standing of other posters."54 But even this protection is denied to apostles' date=' as the above citations (and many others) demonstrate—including a long satire in which President Packer's "To Young Men Only" talk about masturbation was lampooned.55[/quote']

Yes, everyone but the Lord's anointed is treated like a human being at Laura Compton's place. LOL. Greg, there is a difference between setting parameters for a discussion to make it functional and demanding that people be saints. You are free to demand the latter on your discussion board; most of us will simply strive for the former.

But this part gets truly strange in my view:

At one point in the discussion' date=' Compton did intervene to chastise a poster. The poster had made remarks in favor of the church but had typed part of her message in all capital letters, to which Compton replied: "Stop shouting. Not only is it rude and irritating, it makes it harder for people to read." 57 At M4M, violations of netiquette are rude and merit reproof, but attacks on the apostles do not get quite the same attention, notwithstanding M4M's stated policies.[/quote']

If I were not confident that on some level Greg Smith is genuinely outraged at a lack of respect shown to the LDS apostles, I would think he was having us on here. It is the primary function of any moderator on a board to facilitate discussion and keep it at least minimally functional. By mixing up the pragmatics of netiquette with religious scruples about the apostles, Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like Laura Compton is "one of those progressives" whose ethic is wildly out of kilter, straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. In MDB speak, this is the work of Droopy, if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant.

I am not going to drag this on much further. I think you get the idea. Is it a hit piece? I say, most definitely. Why? Because Greg reads into Laura Compton the worst possible motives and implies for his readers that those are the motives she in fact has. She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so. This gives Greg plausible deniability. You don't have to take my word for it. Indeed, I think the best witness to the reality of what is going on here is not I, but rather Will Schryver, who is licking his sadistic chops in anticipation of the next take-downs, in which Greg Smith will "expose" (rather, depict) John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks in the very same way. And we know from plentiful, unpleasant experience, that this is exactly what Will Schryver aims at: painting his opponents as wolves in sheep's clothing and tools of the devil. What more needs to be said?

I will part with this:

One should also not mistake M4M as an exercise in merely preaching to the choir. Several posters wrote that they were new converts who were delighted to find others who share their doubts about the church's stance on homosexual acts: "I'm so glad to have found this site!" wrote one. "As a pretty new convert to the church' date=' this issue has been one of the hardest things for me to reconcile. As someone who is a big advocate for gay marriage and for my many gay and lesbian friends, I've had a difficult time trying to balance what I believe to be true spiritually and what I believe to be right morally." 58 Another wrote:

[i']I too am a convert. Ever since joining the church in 2005, the one thing that has plagued my conscience and caused me to question my testimony is the church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. . . .

This is true diabolical artistry. Notice how the metaphor of preaching to the choir is used here to give the impression that Laura Compton's secret intentions are to convert people to a false gospel. She is not just "preaching to the choir;" she is winning over new converts (from the Church, presumably). He deftly slips into quoting new converts to the Church who come to the group looking to reconcile their new-found faith with their sense that the LDS Church may not be correct on the issue of homosexuality. Greg's reading of Laura appears to be that this is exactly what the spider (Laura) wanted the fly (new convert) to do. She set her trap so that they would come right in, get stuck, and become her food.

What is clear, however, is that these new converts already had an issue with the Church's stance on homosexuality before they arrived. They went looking for such a site for this very reason. What Greg Smith's readers ought to fear is not Laura Compton's alleged ability to lure in unsuspecting recent converts to Mormonism to her site, but their own inability to satisfy the concerns of these converts regarding this problem. If those concerns predated their baptism into the Church, and persisted through it, perhaps they should be asking themselves what is amiss in the missionary program that allows people to misunderstand the Church's policy on homosexuality as they make this most momentous decision in their lives.

Verdict: Hit Piece.

[altersteve]

a reasonable person can say quite confidently that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

So, in other words, anyone who believes there is evidence for the Book of Mormon is not reasonable -- which really means that anyone who believes there is evidence for the Book of Mormon is an idiot.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Edited May 15, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Anyone who believes that the population of the Earth was reduced only eight humans within the last 10,000 years (or 100,000 years for that matter) believes something that is simply and demonstrably not true.

To echo what I said in my previous post to Xander, are you saying that someone who believes something that, in your opinion, is simply and demonstrably not true is less intelligent than those who don't?

I really hope you're not.

[Xander]

Perhaps the most reprehensible error committed by FAIR as of late, can be found in their recent DVD on the Book of Abraham.

I don't have my notes at the moment, but in that DVD Kerry Muhlstein explicitly claims that the papyrus containing the word "Abraham" literally says, "Abraham upon his couch."

That papyrus says no such thing, and of all the people involved with this video, Kerry should know better.

How does one explain this error?

[Buzzard]

Woah, Mr. Xander dude, you sure take a long time to say "I disagree, and if you don't agree with me, you are an idiot, dupe, dishonest, or all of the above".

I admit to positive bias-I want the Book of Mormon to be true, but if there was no good evidence for it, I'd have to abandon that belief. Lucky for me, I find lot's of good evidence for it's truth and historocity. Can you at least be honest that you have a negative bias, in other words, you DON'T want it to be true, because if the BOM would turn out to be what it claims to be, it would upset your entire world view?

[altersteve]

the Church's teachings on the issue of homosexuality so directly conflict with popular and scientific understanding of the issue

Please explain to me how the Church's position that homosexual behavior is a sin, but that simply being gay is not (without having an official position on the "nature vs. nurture" issue), is so conflicted with the "popular and scientific understanding." How can science come to the conclusion that homosexual behavior is not morally wrong? Because that would be the only way for the Church's position to be in such direct conflict with the "scientific understanding." But, science clearly cannot definitively state whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful, so it seems like you're just making stuff up again.

[Xander]

So, in other words, anyone who believes there is evidence for the Book of Mormon is not reasonable -- which really means that anyone who believes there is evidence for the Book of Mormon is an idiot.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Try reading the post again. He didn't call anyone an idiot. He simply said that it is quite reasonable to state there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, which bothers apologists tremendously. This is contrary to what Dan Peterson is arguing. Dan wants to stick to the most simplistic, unsophisticated understanding and technical definition of the term, and in so doing, he can literally claim that trees in South America are evidence for the Book of Mormon since the BoM mentions trees! I mean, why not? According to Dan, this is evidence!

[Xander]

Woah, Mr. Xander dude, you sure take a long time to say "I disagree, and if you don't agree with me, you are an idiot, dupe, dishonest, or all of the above".

I admit to positive bias-I want the Book of Mormon to be true, but if there was no good evidence for it, I'd have to abandon that belief. Lucky for me, I find lot's of good evidence for it's truth and historocity. Can you at least be honest that you have a negative bias, in other words, you DON'T want it to be true, because if the BOM would turn out to be what it claims to be, it would upset your entire world view?

No, I want it to be true just the same. And that's honest. But the post I provided was written by a friend last night and I just had to share it. He has a more sophisticated understanding of evidence than apologists are willing to grasp; but then, he is a lawyer. Like I said, trees and grass and water and birds.... all mentioned in the BoM, and all found in the Americas. Is that evidence that the BoM is an ancient text? According to Dan Peterson, it is. But when that "evidence" can be better explained in other ways, it really isn't evidence that's worth having when you're trying to use it to support less plausible explanations, such as Joseph Smith.

To say critics want the Book of Mormon to be false more than believers want it to be true, is ludicrous. Whose worldview is really being threatened here? Critics like me are simply those who are following the evidence where it leads, and it doesn't lead to Mormonism unless you abandon hard evidence and rely strictly on the "testimony" based on emotions. It is wise that the Church has institutionalized that method.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

FAIR's BoA DVD quick review posted last October

I'll go through this video minute by minute. It is more than an hour long so I'll be doing this in segments, writing more as I find time.

The first 6:00 minutes is an introduction and quick history about the papyri.

The next 1:30 discusses the translation process and all three men agree that no one knows, except that it was done by revelation. Why the apologists keep making a big deal about this is beyond me. No critic ever claimed to know the exact process.

The next 4:00 minutes discusses the “age of the papyrus” which should have been entitled the age of the papyri, since there was more than one papyrus. Kerry Muhelstein says some members are concerned about the fact that it purports to be the handwriting of Abraham, because the papyri date to a much later period. He goes on to explain that it was originally written by Abraham, but that it was copied over and over and over again through the centuries. He says, “when you recopy it you’re still going to write, ‘written by the hand of Abraham,’ because the text itself the original story was written by Abraham.” He doesn’t provide any evidence for this aside from his own say-so. To me, it makes no sense for subsequent scribes to say their copy is "by the hand" of Abraham. The apologists have produced not a single example of this ever occurring in the history of Ancient Near East documents, and just when you think he is prepared to back up his statement with evidence, the video quickly fades out as the narrator then starts in with a photo of John Gee, and goes on to say:

“Professor John Gee has identified another Egyptian text, the Tale of Setne, that describes the place in which the book which Thoth wrote by his own hand when he came down following the Gods. Professor Gee notes that in this text, the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus which should not be taken as anything more than authorship. In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person. As LDS researcher Russel C. McGregor and Kerry Shirts have reported, ‘it is obvious from reading the Hebrew Bible, that the phrase By His Own Hand is a Hebrew idiom, beyadh, which means by the authority of. In other words, Abraham may not have even touched these documents which bear his name, the very ones that fell into the hands of Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, since Abraham could have had them commissioned and written for him. Yet, for all this the documents would still bear his signature since they were authorized by him, by his own hand, even though a scribe may have written them, instead of Abraham.”

This is immediately followed with comments from Mike and Kerry:

Mike Ash: “Again, there were copies of copies so that’s not a problem that the documents themselves don’t date to that period.”

Kerry: “The fact that we have a copy from 200 B.C just tells us that this has been an important document for a long time. They wanted it to last so they recopied it and a number of people thought it was important enough that they wanted their own copies, that’s why we have another copy made of this about 200 B.C.”

Now, you really have to listen to this closely several times to appreciate just how convoluted this apologetic really is. First we have Kerry admitting the obvious by saying the phrase “by his own hand” means Abraham wrote the original text. Then immediately we are introduced to an apologetic argument by Kerry Shirts and Pahoran (of all people) who assert that the phrase doesn’t have to have anything at all to do with literal use of the hand. For those who are unfamiliar with the argument by McGregor and Shirts, the narrator quoted them word for word, from their FARMS Review published back in 1999. Their argument uses two examples from the Bible where “hand” is used metaphorically. The scriptures they use, which the video fails to produce, are:

Exodus 9:35 - “and the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he hath not sent the sons of Israel away, as Jehovah hath spoken by the hand of Moses.”

1 Samuel 28:15 – “God hath turned aside from me, and hath not answered me any more, either by the hand of the prophets, or by dreams; and I call for thee to let me know what I do.'

Notice that neither of these scriptures refer to a literal hand, nor do they refer to written documents. Muhlstein had already conceded that this phrase was used because Abraham literally wrote the original document with his literal hand. But seconds later, Shirts and McGregor argue the opposite. So when I say FAIR is throwing the kitchen sink at this, I’m not kidding. The narrator is ignorant enough of these arguments that he misses out that they essentially contradict one another.

Shirts and McGregor decided that it was enough to point out that these biblical phrases have some of the same words from the phrase “by his own hand,” therefore they should be understood as synonymous in meaning (metaphors). This is the epitome of eisegesis. Using this logic, all anthropomorphic references apologists love to use, must be understood as mere metaphors, but I digress. As most Hebrew experts acknowledge, “Hand” is a metaphor throughout the Hebrew Bible usually referring to power, particularly the power of God. McGregor and Shirts assert incorrectly that “the phrase by his own hand is a Hebrew idiom beyadh, which means by the authority of.” The second half of this statement is correct, but their problem is that they fail to make a distinction between the phrase, “by the hand of” and “by his own hand.” Do I really need to explain to them how context makes a difference when determining a concrete or metaphorical meaning? In the context of documents, there is no reason to suppose metaphor when speaking of a hand doing the writing. To do so would be intentionally ambiguous.

So, while McGregor and Shirts argue that “by the hand of” always means “by the authority of,” the Exodus scripture they use to support their argument actually undermines it since in this verse it is Moses who is speaking on God’s authority, not his own. McGregor’s argument would require that it be by the authority of Moses, since it was by Moses’ hand that God spoke. But did Moses authorize the lord to speak? No, it’s the other way around. Hence, their argument can be dismissed on is merits, or lack thereof.

Again, we have Muhelstein saying the phrase refers to Abraham actually writing the original document, and then immediately we are told by McGregor and Shirts that the phrase refers to an "authority" by which the job was commissioned to some other scribe.

And then we have the argument by John Gee.

As Egyptian images and a photo of John Gee fade in and out, the narrator explains:

“Professor John Gee has identified another Egyptian text, the Tale of Setne, that describes the place in which the book which Thoth wrote by his own hand when he came down following the Gods. Professor Gee notes that in this text, the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus which should not be taken as anything more than authorship. In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person.”

So John Gee managed to find a similar phrase in an Egyptian text about a document written in someone's hand, and concluded that "by his own hand" should mean nothing more than authorship. Why did he conclude this? How did he conclude this? Since this video substantiates nothing with references, I can only assume Gee’s argument rests on the following remark found in the Tale of Setne:

“Pharaoh said to him: “My son Setne, you have heard the words that this chieftain spoke before me, saying ‘Is there a good scribe and learned man in Egypt who can read this document that is in my hand, without breaking its seal, and shall learn what is written in it without opening it?’” (Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings Volume III, Miriam Lichtheim, p 142)

Now I read through the Tale of Setne several times and have found no reason to conclude what John Gee asserted. There is nothing in this tale that would suggest “in my hand” doesn’t refer to a literal writing, so Gee’s reference to Setne is irrelevant and he is simply asserting something to be true without evidence. So it would seem Gee also disagrees with the McGregor/Shirts theory, which makes you wonder why FAIR decided to mention them at all. You have two Egyptologists in agreement and then you throw in two amateur apologists who contradict them? FAIR is free to choose its own poison, but what irks me the most about this is how the narrator uses Gee’s unfounded assertion to claim two ludicrous positions and present them as established facts

1. “the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus”

On the contrary, the Tale of Setne says nothing about “papyrus” nor does it say the phrase “by his own hand.” The Narrator says this to strengthen the supposed parallel with the Book of Abraham reference, which says precisely, “by his own hand upon papyrus.” I catch apologists doing this kind of thing all the time, and it is hard to chalk it up to accident every time. At some point you have to say to yourself, these guys know exactly what they're doing here, but they just don't care about the truth.

2. “In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person.”

Absolutely absurd. If this were true, then there’d be a plethora of examples from which they could invoke. Yet, all they provided were two biblical passages, which upon examination contradict their point, along with the bald assertion provided by John Gee supported by an irrelevant reference to Setne. That’s it. There is no evidence that “by his own hand” was an ancient way, let alone “the” ancient way, to say anything.

None!

More later...

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Valentinus

[altersteve]

Try reading the post again. He didn't call anyone an idiot. He simply said that it is quite reasonable to state there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, which bothers apologists tremendously. This is contrary to what Dan Peterson is arguing. Dan wants to stick to the most simplistic, unsophisticated understanding and technical definition of the term, and in so doing, he can literally claim that trees in South America are evidence for the Book of Mormon since the BoM mentions trees! I mean, why not? According to Dan, this is evidence!

Who is "he"? I was responding to what you said, and it seemed to me like you said it's unreasonable for anyone to say that evidence for the Book of Mormon exists. Is that not what you meant?

For the record (though I don't consider myself an apologist), it does not "tremendously bother" me when someone says it's reasonable to believe that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon. Of course it's reasonable for someone who does not believe the Book of Mormon is true to say that. It would be the most logical position for that person to take. But at the same time, the most reasonable position for a believer in the Book of Mormon as scripture to take is that there is evidence for it. And you have to respect that.

According to Boyd K. Packer:

Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember He is our Father.

Sigh: then 'why would our Heavenly Father do' Downs Syndrome, sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, autism, &c., &c. -- to say nothing of a host of genetically-caused physical ailments -- to his children? 'Remember He is our Father.' Members must now P*ck*r*ze their thinking: to 'realize', accordingly, that Elephaz, Bildad, and Zophar were right after all.

Do you even realize how insulting you are sometimes? You're talking to somebody who falls right into one of your little categories there. Fortunately I'm not going to waste my time being offended, but maybe you should consider that next time before you say things like this.

Anyway, first of all, your post does not answer my question about how the Church's official position and the scientific understanding are in direct conflict, since what Elder Packer said here does not represent the Church's official position -- it represents Elder Packer's position. The Church's position is stated in this "Official Statement" on the LDS Newsroom:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

I believe God, our Father, wants us to grow and to learn about ourselves -- but that's not possible without having something to overcome first. So I believe He does give His children certain ailments, disabilities, and other obstacles in this life, because He knows they're strong enough to overcome them. For example, He gave me a speech impediment. Why exactly did He do that? I have no idea. But I've worked my entire life to overcome it, and I continue to do so. And even though it was given to me for reasons that I don't fully understand, I have faith that my Heavenly Father does understand, and that it as well as other trials I happen to encounter along the way will help me become a better person than I am right now -- if, and only if, I learn to control them. As Elder Wickman said in the above quotation about homosexuality, it's not possible for us to control which trials we were given and temptations we face during this brief period away from our Father, and it's difficult and sometimes even impossible to control certain thoughts and feelings we may have, but it is possible to control how we behave. And I choose to work on having my behavior control the trials I'm given rather than the other way around. I think that's what God wants. And as for those with Down's Syndrome, autism, and so on, all I know is that these children of God are special and He has a place for them, both in this world and with Him in the next. That's really all I have to say about that.

As the saying goes, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I believe that's completely true. If you choose to have a more pessimistic outlook on the issue, fine, but you're treading some deep waters here. This is a sensitive issue for a lot of people.

Edited May 15, 2012 by altersteve

[Wiki Wonka]

Perhaps the most reprehensible error committed by FAIR as of late, can be found in their recent DVD on the Book of Abraham.

I don't have my notes at the moment, but in that DVD Kerry Muhlstein explicitly claims that the papyrus containing the word "Abraham" literally says, "Abraham upon his couch."

That papyrus says no such thing, and of all the people involved with this video, Kerry should know better.

How does one explain this error?

I believe that you may have misunderstood which papyrus he was referring to. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the phrase "Abraham upon his couch" is on the Joseph Smith papyri. However, a quick Google search of "muhlestein abraham couch" brought up the following:

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...ons-and-answers

Kerry Muhlestein, "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," in Religious Educator 11, no. 1 (2010): 91–108.

It is also worth noting that there is a papyrus from the Roman period with a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham.[44] This confirms that Egyptians sometimes associated a figure on a lion couch with Abraham.[45]

[44] John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts,” Insights (September 1991): 1, 3; Rhodes, “Joseph Smith Hypocephalus”; John Gee, “Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”Ensign, July 1992, 60–62.

[45] See Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” 29.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[sethpayne]

Your opinion on this is absolutely worthless because of your extreme bias and history of hate towards everyone there. You're one of the most offensive haters that forum has ever welcomed, and there are a number of LDS apologists who have stated that they do not care for your tone nor your approach. You know this to be true. Just the other day Nevo provided a list of a dozen or so critics he said he had absolutely no problem with, and in fact said he always learned something new from them and appreciated their insights. So for you to say every single critic compares unfavorably to people like Schryver, well, that's just beyond hilarious. No wonder you refuse to post anywhere else anymore. This is the only place where you could ever hope to get away with such dishonesty. A place where people are, for the most part, willfully ignorant of the evidence against your assertions, mainly because this forum will not allow that evidence to be shown here. You want to bring up Schryver knowing full well that his character is not open for debate here. But mine is, apparently.

In reality, a respected scholar who has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, who actually understands the difference between spiteful rhetoric and scholarly discourse, has taken "hatchet-man" Greg Smith to the woodshed for a silly "review" he had written in the past. He proved quite conclusively that producing "hit pieces" is right up Greg's alley, and therefore we should not be surprised that an LDS authority pulled his latest hit piece from publication. This is a very embarrassing moment for your FARMS crowd. I can see why you're so upset about it. But lashing out at us isn't going to remedy your sad situation.

Yes, she easily and carefully decimated whatever reputation Schryver had left, by allowing his own words to speak for themselves, which is what Schryver always said he wanted. She didn't lie or manipulate. She let simply compiled all of his misogynist comments that he had made during his tenure at that forum. IYour problem is that you were never able to produce a valid defense for your misogynistic buddy, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. You know, the guy who called Joseph Smith's wife the "B"word - the one that rhymes with "switch." Yes, you're going to defend THAT guy, right? LOL!

The evidence is overwhelming, and it was enough to convince a number of LDS scholars that they needed to distance themselves from this man of low character, a man you are desperately trying to prop as a victim and then place on a pedestal.

There is no hypocrisy, and there is no cowardice. We're willing to debate the issues. You're not. It is really that simple. You're only willing to hide behind this forum where you know any second you're going to get a mod to thread ban your opponent so you can then go off on another deceptive rant tearing down straw man arguments while pretending you're actually victorious over something real.. It is what you do.

Yes, a ludicrous assertion based on what Dan Peterson already knows of Kishkumen's IRL identity. Of course we'd love to debate that here, but you know it won't happen. Dan Peterson opened a blog forbidding comments for a reason. It doesn't want feedback to his lectures and he can't stand being corrected by those he hates. But his numerous blog posts have been taken to the woodshed by a number of capable scholars, and instead of addressing those points, all you can do is come here and misrepresent what they've actually done. It must really burn you up inside to know that the "trailer park" has scholars that far outclass your own.

This, coming from a guy who goes on a rant whenever he sees I've been thread banned, knowing perfectly well I'm not going to be able to respond to the attacks on my character? No, "Pahoran" I could never compare to your usage of the "cheap shot" technique. It is the only thing you do well.

It is ridiculous, because Will Schryver is allergic to truth-telling (he lied to me directly on a number of occasions) he is a proven coward (we all saw how he had a conniption fit and left this forum immediately after I decimated his precious Cipher theory) and a despicable misogynist (who loves to pick on women on the other forum). Sorry, but I am not the one who made him lie to me, run from my refutations, and belittle women in a sexual manner. He is a big boy who can be held accountable for his own actions. Remember, this is the same guy who accused everyone of engaging in group sodomy on that forum, and accusing the men on the forum of gathering together to ejaculate in unison, etc. The same guy who has made sexually inappropriate comments towards numerous women on that forum, ridiculing their physical features, etc. The same guy who posts a photo of his beautiful teenage daughter on this forum, just days after some crazy nut had manipulated Juliann's photo with sexual commentary ( I had to ask the mods here to remove it since it was clear her own father wasn't going to look after her best interests). Yes, this is certainly a guy who is thinking straight. This is certainly a guy of high moral character!

That's William Schryver for ya, and he's your kind of people.

So yes, please keep defending this guy as if he were a victim. It will come back to haunt you I promise. He can''t run from his own comments that litter that forum over the span of several years. There is a reason Maxwell was too embarrassed to associate his name with them via publication, even if you're too much in denial to admit it.

It isn't false and you know it. If you had half the confidence in your arguments as you pretend, you'd stop hiding behind a pseudonym and man up.

Lame excuse, but par for the course. Funny how the "stench" happens only when you're refuted left and right, and then after the dust settles, you stumble back over there looking to pick another fight on a completely different issue than before. The fact is there are a number of faithful LDS posters there who enjoy their stay. Fact. You want everyone to think you hold the one universal opinion about the place when in fact the people there generally think the same way about you as you do them.

Vendettas? LOL.

The Mission Statement from NAMIR states:

By furthering religious scholarship through

the study of scripture and other texts,

Brigham Young University's

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

seeks to deepen understanding and nurture

discipleship among Latter-day Saints

while promoting mutual respect and goodwill

among people of all faiths.

So why are they targeting a guy whose stated goal is to help people? Someone who has published nothing? He has helped people come back to Church just as he has helped them leave. The problem is that you do not understand what it is to actually help someone. You think it can only come in one way, but doing what the Church tells you. But truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

The mission statement for Maxwell should be revised to say:

By furthering divisive rhetoric through publications

authored by unqualified hatchet-men whose primary goal

is attacking those who are perceived to be on the edge of apostasy.

Brigham Young University's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

seeks to deepen the chasms between believer and dissident, and nurture

antipathy between Latter-day Saints and apostates while promoting disrespect

and ill will towards those who had the audacity to have an unpopular opinion.

These guys are all about vendettas. But again, you're not willing to debate any of this because you cannot control yourself. You get too emotional when your precious FARMS buddies are shown to be less than scholarly and less than respectable. They're a joke in academia outside their own echo chamber which is BYU. There have been thorough refutations of this crazy assertion (about how FARMS doesn't engage in smears) on the other forum, and refutations that have been presented by a number of highly qualified intellectuals, most of whom have never been accused of engaging in any of the nasty things you like to attribute to all critics.

Kevin, I see you are practicing your skills as a diplomat and builder of bridges, as it were.

I think you should loosen up a bit and tell us how you really feel.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Kevin, I see you are practicing your skills as a diplomat and builder of bridges, as it were.

I think you should loosen up a bit and tell us how you really feel.

Not to derail, but how are you Seth? Missed you here.

[sethpayne]

Not to derail, but how are you Seth? Missed you here.

Doing well, Pa Pa. Doing well. I'll fill you in via pm.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Doing well, Pa Pa. Doing well. I'll fill you in via pm.

Cool.

[altersteve]

We can start with what the Church Leaders actually said (not what FIAR said they said) regarding two of the falsifiable (and falsified) aspects of the Flood of Noah myth. Two things that we know for a certainty did not occur in Noahs time (or at any time in the past 100,000 years or more) is that

1. the population of humans on the Earth was reduced to eight and

2. liquid water covered the entire Earth.

Yet of the 15 quotations provided from Church Leaders, eight of them specifically referred to eight souls, or the family of Noah, as the only survivors of the Flood. Two of these individuals were Presidents of the Church.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? That these Church leaders were incorrect? Fine -- we don't believe in infallibility, not from the scriptures and not even from our leaders. Only God is infallible. So what difference does it make? This issue, one way or the other, doesn't affect our doctrine about the divinity of Christ, nor does it affect the lessons of faith we learn from the story of Noah's Ark. So who cares?

By the way, two of the "Church leaders" you listed -- specifically, Kent P. Jackson and F. Kent Nelson -- are not Church leaders.

I note here that FAIR has decided that the statements about eight survivors of the flood and that the Earth was covered by water were not really basic LDS beliefs, and did not include them in the list. This is in spite of the fact that one or the other of these statement were made by 13 of the 15 quotations provided by FAIR, and both statements were made, in no uncertain terms, by a modern day President of the Church.

I also note that none of the “basic teachings and beliefs” that FAIR does list constitutes a falsifiable assertion, while the 15 quotations of Church leaders are loaded with falsifiable (and falsified) assertions. Why is that? Are apologists embarrassed at the silliness of these myths given the scientific knowledge humankind now possesses?

You are taking FAIR's list of statements completely out of context. FAIR is not providing a list of basic doctrines, it is attempting to provide a list of beliefs which are shared by both believers in a global flood and believers in a local flood. That is explicitly stated.

Besides, that there were only eight survivors from the flood and that the Earth was completely covered with water are not core doctrines. The story of the flood as a whole is not a core doctrine. A member of the Church will not face Church discipline for not believing in a global flood, or for not believing the story at all, and you will find a variety of opinions from both members and leaders of the Church about the issue.

Also, referring to another person's beliefs as "silliness" = FAIL. Try keeping those opinions to yourself, because they do absolutely nothing but offend people.

What FAIR has done in this example, which you provided, is what they do best. For the sake of providing a “faithful perspective” they twist, obfuscate and re-interpret the scriptures and statements of Church leaders so that these scriptures and statements become as innocuous as possible. If (as in this case) they need to leave out salient facts to do so, they apparently do not see this as a problem.

I don't see how FAIR is leaving out any "salient facts" with this example. Again, all FAIR is doing is providing a list of beliefs shared by two parties (those who believe in a global flood, and those who believe in a local flood). Yes, these two groups of people will disagree with one another about certain things, but it helps greatly to find a set of shared beliefs, a common ground which FAIR seems to have been trying to help find. I see no evidence of FAIR twisting, obfuscating, and/or reinterpreting the scriptures or the teachings of Church leaders.

But there is a problem. And the problem is that rational individuals capable of critical thought can see exactly what is being done, and so this apologetic enterprise costs the apologists and the LDS Church a great deal of credibility.

I'd be careful saying things like this if I were you. Implying that people who disagree with you are not "rational individuals capable of critical thought" is not the best move.

Apologists and Mormon “scholars” no doubt see themselves engaged in a great work defending the faith. To folks who have stopped drinking the Kool Aid, (or who never started) Mormon apologetics is “far from credible”, and that is putting it as nicely as one possibly can.

Why did you put "scholars" in scare quotes? If they're not scholars, then what are they?

Edited May 15, 2012 by altersteve

[Wiki Wonka]

Are apologists embarrassed at the silliness of these myths given the scientific knowledge humankind now possesses?

What FAIR has done in this example, which you provided, is what they do best. For the sake of providing a “faithful perspective” they twist, obfuscate...

But there is a problem. And the problem is that rational individuals capable of critical thought can see exactly what is being done, and so this apologetic enterprise costs the apologists and the LDS Church a great deal of credibility.

Apologists and Mormon “scholars” no doubt see themselves engaged in a great work defending the faith. To folks who have stopped drinking the Kool Aid, (or who never started) Mormon apologetics is “far from credible”, and that is putting it as nicely as one possibly can.

I've reached the limit of my patience with you, and that takes quite a bit to achieve.

I'm quite capable of having civil discourse with critics, and I never accuse them of "obfuscating" or being incapable of rational thought. I certainly would never insult them by implying that they have been "drinking the Kool-Aid." I remember the Jim Jones Guyana tragedy quite well. To equate my sacred beliefs and efforts to defend them with such a tragedy is reprehensible. Keep that kind of language on the RFM board where it belongs.

I'm done responding to you.

WW

Edited May 15, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Ares]

But there is a problem. And the problem is that rational individuals capable of critical thought can see exactly what is being done, and so this apologetic enterprise costs the apologists and the LDS Church a great deal of credibility.

Apologists and Mormon “scholars” no doubt see themselves engaged in a great work defending the faith. To folks who have stopped drinking the Kool Aid, (or who never started) Mormon apologetics is “far from credible”, and that is putting it as nicely as one possibly can.

You are excused for personal insults and trash talk.

[Calm]

Could we please lose the insults and trash talk and keep to the topic at hand without all added negativity?

That was the point of this thread after all, find out where those who felt FAIR (and FARMS but that is not Wiki's or my 'arena') had crossed the line into offensiveness. I don't see how adding more negativity to the mix is the least bit helpful and it certainly doesn't help those who are complaining that FAIR is overly negative/insulting to be doing it themselves.

Thank you.

[Libs]

I have been reading this thread in hopes of seeing some examples of "offensiveness" (rude, unkind or unseemly behavior) on the part of LDS apologists, written into their "official apologetic papers". On the other thread (the thread discussing the "hit piece" on JD), there were accusations leveled at Dr. Peterson, in particular, which I have never, personally witnessed, even though I have read a lot of what he has written. Personally, I would be more than surprised, if any level of "personal" offensiveness were ever interjected into his apologetics papers.

I do understand that people will disagree with his work (or the works of anyone writing apologetics), but disagreement on the subject matter (which is what I am seeing here, so far) is very different than writing things that are outright, personally, offensive towards someone.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Libs