Wiki Wonka Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 THE FAIR JOURNAL May 2012LATIN – apologeticus GREEK – apologetikos Apologetics: “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009). ABOUT FAIRFAIR is a 501©3 non-profit organization and relies on donations to accomplish its work. If you are in the United States, your donation is tax deductible. All contributions are greatly appreciated. To make a donation please click on the following link.Donate to FAIRFAIR can be contacted through the internet or the U.S. Postal Service.Contact FAIRFAIR, PO Box 491677 Redding, CA 96049-1677 JOURNAL CONTENTSMessage from the PresidentWe Need Your HelpWeb Site Review on FAIRMormon VoicesMormon Scholars TestifyFAIR BlogAward Winning FAIR PodcastsFAIR LDS BookstoreDonating to FAIRFAIR’s ‘Front Page’Important LinksAsk the Apologist MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENTThe FAIR conference has its speaker list all firmed up. As always, we have conference speakers talking about many relevant and controversial topics. We would love to see you come to the conference. Here is where you find more information:2012 FAIR ConferenceFor those who cannot make the journey, we are working to get video streaming again. Stay tuned for more information on that. Here are the speakers and their topics.Joshua Johanson: Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual DesireHannah Smith: Unprecedented Threats to American Religious Freedom: What Can Latter-day Saints Do?Neylan McBaine: To Do the Business of the Church: A Cooperative Paradigm for Examining Gendered Participation Within Church Organizational StructureRoyal Skousen: Do We Need to Make Changes to the Book of Mormon Text?Darius Gray: No Johnny-Come-Lately: The 182-Year-Long BLACK Mormon MomentBrian C. Hales: Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?Ugo Perego: Book of Mormon Genetics: A ReappraisalJack Welch: Forty-five Years of Chiasmus Conversations, Criteria, and Creativity: What Chiasmus Proves and Does Not ProveBrant Gardner: From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of MormonJohn Gee: Book of Abraham, I PresumeRosemary Avance: Seeing the Light: Parallels in Mormon Conversion and De-conversion StoriesDon Bradley: Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 PagesHartt Wixam: Perception and Reality: Then and NowDan Peterson: The Restoration: Even Bigger Than We ThoughtFind a friend and come see us at the conference. You won’t want to miss this!–Scott Gordon President of FAIR WE NEED YOUR HELPI know I make this plea every month, but until we get someone who feels like giving us one or two million dollars, as annoying as it is, we will continue to ask.Without your donations, there would be no FAIR. But, with your donations, we are able to reach more people, participate more in the public square, and get more involved in refuting the mischaracterizations of our faith.If you like our articles and want us to continue to be involved, please make a donation now.Please go to Donate to FAIR to make your donation now. We really need your help.FAIR is a 501c(3) corporation, so if in the United States your contributions are tax deductible. WEB SITE REVIEW ON FAIRWe have continued the review of the Web site MormonThink.com, adding new responses to their articles. MormonThink’s “Translation of the Book of Mormon” source quotes without critical commentaryThis is the “no spin” version. We provide all of the complete primary and secondary source quotes without the “Critic’s comment,” “Apologetic rebuttal” or “Our Thoughts” sections.MormonThink’s “Translation of the Book of Mormon” source quotes without critical commentary A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Book of Mormon Difficulties” (Part 1)The critics take the position that if an animal does not appear in a picture on a wall in a ruin, then it must never have existed. The critics claim that FAIR avoids mentioning certain Book of Mormon verses “at all costs,” despite the verses being avoided actually appearing in the FAIR Wiki article on the subject. It is also claimed that apologists must be “embarrassed” when they correct mistakes based upon new data, and that apologists wish to redefine animals as different animals.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Book of Mormon Difficulties” (Part 1) A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Book of Mormon Difficulties” (Part 2)The critics take the position that it should be “relatively easy” to locate the first temple built by Nephi’s group of 30 to 40 people among the ruins of Mesoamerica (which have only been 5% explored due to the difficulty of uncovering ruins in the jungle). This also despite the fact that Mesoamericans tended to build their new temples on top of their older ones. They also assert that the Nephites and Lamanites should have used the wheel, despite the difficulty of the terrain. It is also asserted that none of the numerous archaeological remains located in the Americas could possibly be related to the Book of Mormon, including those 95% yet uncovered in Mesoamerica. Finally, the critics conclude that despite solid evidence and correlation between the Book of Mormon narrative and the location in the Old World called NHM, that it simply doesn’t count as evidence for the Book of Mormon.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Book of Mormon Difficulties” (Part 2) A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?”This MormonThink article concludes that the Book of Mormon really isn’t that special, and that pretty much anyone could have written it. It is asserted that Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery, or some combination thereof, used the work of Solomon Spalding, or Ethan Smith, or some combination thereof, to create the Book of Mormon without any assistance from God. The authors note that non-LDS authors are not impressed with the Book of Mormon enough to believe that it could “not have been written by a man,” and that the Book of Mormon is not as impressive and complex as novels such as the Lord of the Rings or A Tale of Two Cities. The authors also conclude that Joseph was indeed educated because he was “home schooled,” despite Joseph’s own words stating that “we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements.” Regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is noted that Joseph used a curtain to shield the process of translation from those around him so that he could consult all of his notes, and that Emma was lying when she stated that Joseph openly translated in the presence of others using a stone and a hat without the use of notes, despite the numerous other witnesses that confirmed the use of the stone and the hat.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon”Among the conclusions that the critics make in this page are 1) That Joseph must have lied and made up the story about the 116 lost pages of manuscript and 2) That a South Park episode provides “the most telling comment we’ve ever heard about the lost 116 pages debacle”: “Wait, Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet?”A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon” “The Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon” source quotes without critical commentaryThis is the “no spin” version. We provide all of the complete primary and secondary source quotes without the “Critic’s comment,” “Apologetic rebuttal” or “Our Thoughts” sections.“The Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon” source quotes without critical commentary A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Moroni’s Visitation”The web page asserts that Moroni’s visit would have awakened the rest of the Smith family, and that Church artwork does not accurately show Joseph’s siblings asleep in the room during Moroni’s visit, except those paintings that actually do show it. It is also asserted that if the Church continues to use artwork that shows Joseph alone in bed during Moroni’s visit, that the Church is “not becoming more open and forthright about this issue.” It is indicated that Moroni’s visit was likely a “dream or hallucination.”A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Moroni’s Visitation” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Kinderhook Plates”All we have to say is: Get with the program. The new data obliterates any old apologetics on the subject. Apologists update their positions based upon the discovery of new data. Continuing to quote old apologetics and calling the new data an apologetic “ploy” is simply a load of nonsense. Joseph attempted to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates manually by matching it to a similar character in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (which actually had nothing to do with Egyptian). The “translation” recorded by William Clayton matched the explanation given for the character in the GAEL.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Kinderhook Plates” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The First Vision”The website takes the position that the First Vision “wasn’t even known by church members until 1842,” despite Joseph writing in his 1835 journal that he related the story to a man who happened to be visiting him. It is assumed that local newspapers would have been interested enough in a 14-year-old’s claim to have seen God to have published it. They also claim that earlier accounts of Joseph’s vision written by Joseph himself are not “official” (whatever that means), and that Joseph’s different accounts of the First Vision are “relatively ignored” by the Church, despite an entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org and various mentions in the Ensign, including a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley. The website also repeats a claim that Joseph embellished his vision story in 1838 to bolster his leadership during a time of apostasy, despite the fact that he told the same story to strangers visiting his house three years earlier in 1835.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The First Vision” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Blacks and the Priesthood”The critics assert that even though the Church has refuted explanations for the priesthood ban, such as that of blacks not being valiant in the pre-existence, that they are bothered that these explanations are no longer acknowledged. Critics wish to assert that President Kimball did not actually receive a revelation ending the ban, despite his clear statement that he did. The critics believe that prophets should be “forward thinkers.” Critics, therefore, take the position that the fact that prophets are influenced by the society and culture that they live in indicates that they cannot actually be prophets.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Blacks and the Priesthood” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Conflicts with Science”The critics assert that acceptance of scientific facts and a belief in God are incompatible. They cite the incompatibility of scientific facts with the idea of a global flood, the earth being created over a period of 7000 years, and the idea that Adam and Eve could not have been the first people on the earth. They assert that if believers disagree with these fundamentalist ideas, that they must be at odds with the Church.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Conflicts with Science” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page” The Greek Psalter Translation”Joseph reportedly made a false identification about the language and contents of a Greek Psalter (book of psalms written in Greek). The website claims that this action speaks to whether Joseph was a prophet and whether he was capable of translation. Curiously, it is also claimed that no “church” sources or websites discuss this matter, although they cite the Church-sponsored Maxwell Institute and Hugh Nibley. MormonThink states that this “wasn’t really a translation,” but concludes that because of the “Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates and the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible,” that the Greek Psalter story “further damages Joseph’s claims to be a true seer.”A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page” The Greek Psalter Translation” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Temple”MormonThink used to have a page called “The Temple” which discussed specific details of the endowment ceremony. They removed this page, not because it was offensive to Latter-day Saints, but only because it was driving ex-Mormon’s believing spouses away from examining their critical website. FAIR responds to a number of issues raised on their original page which were not related to the explicit temple content that they once hosted.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “The Temple” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Lying for the Lord”The critics conclude that lying is “standard operating procedure for Church leaders” from Joseph Smith’s time to the present, and that pretty much everything that the Church does is somehow related to deception (this is a standard position taken by many ex-Mormons after their disaffection with the Church).A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Lying for the Lord” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Tithing”The critics conclude that the Catholic definition of offerings is somehow supposed to affect the Mormon definition of tithing, and that the requirement by the Church for members to pay tithing and offerings is a “guilt trip.” The critics also claim that the Church should divest itself of any profit-making businesses, and that any profit from those businesses should be given to the poor, classifying the Church as simply a corporation that does not provide sufficient return-on-investment to its members. Finally, the critics conclude that the Church spends little on humanitarian aid, and that members ought to send their contributions elsewhere.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Tithing” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Joseph Running with the Plates”The website concludes that the plates didn’t weigh 200 pounds, but instead that they weighed 40 to 60 pounds just as the witnesses stated that they did. The site also concludes that Joseph could not have run with the gold plates because he had a limp from his leg operation as a child (this despite Joseph’s physical health demonstrated by his vaunted “stick-pulling” abilities), and that his story of running with the plates is a “tall tale.”A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Joseph Running with the Plates” A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Joseph’s Translation of the Bible”MormonThink concludes that Joseph Smith’s statement about the Book of Mormon being the “most correct book” means that there should be no mistakes in the text, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon title page (written by Mormon) itself states that any mistakes contained therein are the mistakes of men. They also claim that the JST footnotes in the LDS Bible are supposed to represent “correctly translated passages,” yet acknowledges that Joseph was making “inspired” revisions rather than translating an ancient text. They conclude that translators who “go back to the original sources” have not “confirmed any of Joseph Smith’s inspired version passages, and that the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible needs to be added to the “Book of Abraham facsimiles and papyri, the Anthon Manuscript, the Kinderhook Plates, Joseph Smith’s Book of Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and the Greek Psalter” as demonstrations that Joseph lacked the ability to translate anything.A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page “Joseph’s Translation of the Bible” MORMON VOICESWe continue to have our beliefs misrepresented in the press. There also seems to be a piling on by some of the ex-Mormon critics, and others in the comments sections. Join the MormonVoices email list to get alerts on articles that need a response.Sign up for MormonVoices MORMON SCHOLARS TESTIFYTwo testimonies have been added to the Mormon Scholars testify Website: Gordon F. HolbeinTestimony of Gordon F. Holbein Eric SamuelsonTestimony of Eric Samuelson FAIR BlogWe have a large number of excellent articles this month. Looking Honestlyby Allen Wyatt on May 2nd, 2012On March 29, 2012, Utah Valley University hosted a fascinating conference entitled Mormonism and the Internet. Perhaps the most interesting exchanges, for me, were those in session five of the conference, which was a panel discussion among John Dehlin, Scott Gordon, and Rosemary Avance. UVU has just posted this particular conference session online, and I just watched it again.Rather early in the panel discussion, I asked a question of John Dehlin, as a follow-up to his presentation earlier in the day. You can hear my question beginning at about 13:05 into the video:People often study the same facts or issues and come to vastly different conclusions-some have their faith strengthened, while others have their faith destroyed. To what do you attribute this difference in outcome, and why do you feel that the stories of those who have suffered a negative outcome should be privileged over those with a positive outcome?Looking Honestly by Allen Wyatt Another Look at Baptism for the Deadby Steve Willoughby on May 4th, 2012THE topic of vicarious or “proxy” baptisms performed by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently received a lot of attention, both positive and negative. (And both factual and lacking in accuracy, it’s fair to say.) I’m sure the topic will come up again, so even though it’s not at this moment a hot topic bouncing around the news, I’d like to share a few of my own thoughts about this issue and the way it’s been characterized as a horrible, disrespectful thing to do on behalf of the deceased.Another Look at Baptism for the Dead by Steve Willoughby How NOT to keep people from leaving the Churchby SteveDensleyJr on May 6th, 2012I led a discussion in a high priests group today about personal apostasy and how we can help by sharing the gospel over the internet. I asked for people to share their personal experiences regarding why people leave, and I shared some figures from a 1988 study that is summarized by Kevin Barney here. With regard to reasons people become inactive in the Church, the study reported the following:54% wanted to spend their limited time and resources on other interests and activities.40% indicated that they didn’t feel they belonged25% reported feeling it didn’t matter to anyone whether they attended or not.About a third gave contextual reasons (movement to a new community where they didn’t get involved, work schedule conflicts, etc.).23% reported problems with specific doctrines or teachings,20% reported problems with other members of the congregationSome said the church demanded too much of their time and moneyOthers said it no longer was a help in finding the meaning in life.Female respondents in particular were affected by marriage to a nonmember spouse.As I opened it up for discussion, the idea was expressed, and I agreed, that a fundamental reason for loss of faith was a loss of the Spirit. So many of the factors listed above can be tolerated if an individual feels a strong connection with God that is associated with activity in this Church (prayer, scripture reading, Church and temple attendance, etc.)How NOT to keep people from leaving the Church by SteveDensleyJr Joseph Smith’s First Vision Accounts: More Mormon Church Suppression and Cover-Upby Stephen Smoot on May 9th, 2012The Church is at it again. The different accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, which the Church has been sneaky enough to hide in places like the Ensign and BYU Studies, continues to be suppressed and hid from unsuspecting Church members. The damning contradictions in the Prophet’s different accounts are, in fact, so damaging that the Church thought it wise to talk about them only in a place so obscure and so concealed that nobody would be able to find it without any serious effort. I am speaking, of course, about YouTube. After all, nobody watches the Mormon Messages videos produced by the Church. What better place to hide this information from Church members than in a place that certainly has never been talked about in an official Church magazine or website?Joseph Smith’s First Vision Accounts: More Mormon Church Suppression and Cover-Up by Stephen Smoot Our History of Nasty Ad Hominem Attacksby Allen Wyatt on May 10th, 2012Earlier today a well-known critic of FAIR made the following statement on an Internet message board:“MI/FAIR/FARMS has a history of nasty ad hominem attacks (see the Simon Southerton adultery accusations)…”We at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long time, for concrete examples of where we have engaged in ad hominem fallacies, as we don’t really want to do so. (I know; that may seem incredulous to some. But it really is true.) This statement, by the critic on the message board, was the first concrete example I’ve noticed.Our History of Nasty Ad Hominem Attacks by Allen Wyatt If Lamanites were black, why didn’t anyone notice?by Brant Gardner on May 21st, 2012One of the most controversial verses in the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21, which states:And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.The focus of this verse has been the phrase “skin of blackness,” which is read rather literally as a change in pigmentation. It is much easier to compile a list of writers who take the phrase literally than of those who suggest an alternate reading. As a single representation of this reading, see Milton R. Hunter of the Council of the Seventy:As is well-known, two peoples-a white race and those of a darker color-inhabited ancient America for approximately one thousand years’ time. The white race was called Nephites and the darker race Lamanites…. The reader may say: “Yes, we understand that there were a white race and a dark race in ancient America from approximately 600 B.C., until approximately 400 A.D., but we have understood also that by the latter date all the white people (Nephites), except Moroni, had been killed in a war with the darker people or Lamanites.”It is true that the Nephite nation ended toward the close of the fifth century A.D., but probably many of the white Nephites were saved from death by joining the Lamanites. These then would not be followers of Christ and would be unfaithful ones. The last great war was not fought entirely on the lines of race, but probably the determining factor was that one group allied itself with the Lamanite traditions, and the other group followed the Nephite traditions, including a belief in Jesus Christ. Thus there probably were dark and white people in each army.[1]The modern cultural assumption that a skin of blackness must equal black skin is probably informed by racial issues in the United States. The 1981 change in verse 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” is therefore similarly interpreted in the context of political correctness, and an accommodation to issues of race in the United States. Of course, the fact that the change was made in 1981 obscures the fact that it was a change that Joseph Smith made for the 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon.[2] While issues of race were certainly important in 1840, it is much less likely that the change was due to pressure to be politically correct in 1840 than it would have been had the change been unique to 1981.I have elsewhere argued that this skin of blackness was a metaphor for a spiritual state rather than a change in pigmentation.[3] While there are arguments to be made for or against that proposition, the decision as to whether a “skin of blackness” is a description of a physical or spiritual change should be decided upon something stronger than personal preference for one reading or the other. The text is the final arbiter of such questions. What might the text tell us to help us decide?If Lamanites were black, why didn’t anyone notice? by Brant Gardner Review: No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issuesby Trevor Holyoak on May 29th, 2012Review of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues Edited by Robert L. Millett Published by BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2011Rather than focusing primarily on the methods commonly used by critics as other recent books of this genre do (such as Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome, which I also highly recommend), this book contains essays that address some of the most common issues that are used to attack the faith of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of these topics in a faith-promoting, but scholarly and honest environment, against the flood of misinformation available online today. Indeed, the editor notes that “The Internet is filled with thousands of pages of anti-Mormon polemic, and it is extremely difficult for people to receive an honest and fair appraisal of Mormonism without significant effort on their part” (page viii).Besides those by the editor, Robert L. Millett, the book contains contributions by Daniel L. Belnap, J. Spencer Fluhman, Steven C. Harper, Brian M. Hauglid, Daniel K. Judd, Kerry Muhlestein, Ugo A. Perego, Brent L. Top, and John W. Welch. They are split into four categories: Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saint Church History, Scriptural Perspectives, and Doctrinal Teachings. The topics include what it means to be a Christian, the various accounts of the First Vision, the Smiths’ involvement in money-digging and the supernatural, the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith’s youngest plural wife, DNA and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and Jesus Christ and salvation, among many others. Many of the topics are written by experts in the area – for example, a population geneticist discusses DNA and the Book of Mormon, two Egyptologists discuss the Book of Abraham, and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers tackles the subject of multiple versions of the First Vision. I would like to concentrate on a few topics of particular interest to me in order to give an idea of the overall book.Review: No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues by Trevor Holyoak Issues of Race, Sexuality and Gender to be Addressed at FAIR Conferenceby SteveDensleyJr on June 4th, 2012With the approaching Republican presidential nomination of Mitt Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as its history and doctrines has been the focus of much media scrutiny. The annual FAIR Conference of scholars, apologists, and interested individuals will meet August 2-3, 2012 at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy, Utah. At least fourteen scholars this year will address important and potentially controversial issues that have been highlighted by the national media or are confronting Latter-day Saints, including gay marriage, the impact of California’s Proposition 8, polygamy and questions of polyandry, Black Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, difficult issues in Mormon history, the threats to American religious freedom, and dealing with issues of faith and loss of faith.Among the presenters are Brian C. Hales, author of Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto and the forthcoming Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, who will discuss new evidences relating to controversies about Joseph Smith’s sexual polyandry. Kathryn Lynard Soper, founder and editor-in-chief of Segullah, a journal of literary and visual art for Mormon women, and Neylan McBaine, associate creative director at Bonneville Communications, will both discuss issues confronting Mormon women. Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, will discuss the unprecedented threats to American religious freedom and what Latter-day Saints can do. Joshua Johanson, an outspoken advocate for Mormons with same-gender attraction, will share insights he has gained as a faithful, married, Latter-day Saint who also experiences same-gender attraction.Relating to ancient scripture, Royal Skousen, editor of the Book of Mormon critical text project, will speak about whether Latter-day Saints need to make changes to the Book of Mormon text. John W. Welch, who has published extensively on issues dealing with the Book of Mormon and Mormon doctrine, will discuss chiasmus in the Book of Mormon while Don Bradley, author of the soon to be published, Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Missing Contents of the Book of Mormon, will discuss those 116 pages. John Gee, a professor of Egyptology, will talk about the Book of Abraham and Rosemary Avance, a non-Mormon doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication, will discuss parallels in Mormon conversion and de-conversion stories. Hartt Wixam, a retired BYU professor and investigate reporter for the Deseret News, will give a presentation entitled “Perception and Reality: Then and Now.” And Mesoamerican scholar, Brandt Gardner, will discuss the problem of cardinal directions in the Book of Mormon.Rounding out the conference are popular speakers like the venerable Darius Gray, one of the founders of Genesis Group for Black Latter-day Saints and co-writer of the documentary, Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons, Ugo A. Perego who will be traveling from Rome, Italy to discuss aspects of DNA research and Mormon history, and Daniel C. Peterson who will talk about the restoration of the gospel.Members of the media are particularly invited to visit with these and other conference participants, as well as to attend this important and informative conference in August.FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice. Along with the annual conference, which is open to everyone, FAIR also sponsors a website that includes answers to difficult questions. FAIR has an “Ask the Apologist” option where people can pose questions to apologists and FAIR also sponsors MormonVoices which responds to public discussions and comments from public figures that misrepresent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For details on the FAIR Conference, visit the FAIR website. Tickets may be purchased at the FAIR online Bookstore.Issues of Race, Sexuality and Gender to be Addressed at FAIR Conference by SteveDensleyJr AWARD WINNING FAIR PODCASTSWe have some excellent Podcasts this month. You can listen to them on your computer, or you can download them to put into your mp3 player. You can listen to FAIR Podcasts while you walk or exercise. Mormon FAIR-Cast 86: Mesoamerican Evidences for the Book of Mormonby SteveDensleyJr on May 2nd, 2012Martin Tanner discusses various mesoamerican evidences for the historicity of the Book of Mormon in this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on September 4, 2011.Mormon FAIR-Cast 86: Mesoamerican Evidences for the Book of Mormon Mormon FAIR-Cast 87: Fostering Faith and Countering Criticism: The Role of Apologetics in in the Information Ageby SteveDensleyJr on May 9th, 2012On March 29, 2012, Scott Gordon appeared at the UVU Conference on Mormonism and the Internet. In this address, he explains the mission, purpose and history of FAIR.Mormon FAIR-Cast 87: Fostering Faith and Countering Criticism: The Role of Apologetics in in the Information Age Mormon FAIR-Cast 88: Evidences of the Book of Mormonby SteveDensleyJr on May 16th, 2012In this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on March 4, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses some of the evidences for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.Mormon FAIR-Cast 88: Evidences of the Book of Mormon Mormon FAIR-Cast 89: Are Mormons Christians?by SteveDensleyJr on May 23rd, 2012Martin Tanner discuss the reasons why some say that Mormons are not Christian and provides a response to these contentions in this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on February 12, 2012.Mormon FAIR-Cast 89: Are Mormons Christians? Mormon FAIR-Cast 90: Mormons on the BBCby SteveDensleyJr on May 30th, 2012This episode of the BBC World Service program, World Have Your Say, features members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.The five-member panel answers questions from listeners from all over the world, including: Whether Mormons want to be recognized as a mainstream religion? What part of the Mormon faith is influenced by the Bible, and what part is influenced by the culture of its founders? Why is polygamy stereotypically linked to Mormonism? Would Mitt Romney be expected to spread the Mormon faith as a president? Why are Mormons secretive? Why are they not as open as other churches? What effect will the past ban on ordaining African Americans to the priesthood have on Mitt Romney’s ability to win over minority voters? What is the purpose of temples? What has generated the rapid spread of Mormonism? What would Christ think of a religion that teaches that it is the only true church? What is the Mormon view on the separation of church and state? What is it like to be a female member of the Church and a member of the Relief Society, the largest women’s organization in the world?Mormon FAIR-Cast 90: Mormons on the BBC FAIR LDS BOOKSTORECome to the FAIR Bookstore to find the Internet’s best selection of materials for LDS apologetics. Whether you are looking for books, study aids, DVDs, or audio products, the FAIR Bookstore has what you need. You can begin your browsing by going to our main site.FAIR BookstoreBe sure to check out the Clearance Section. We have many older books and some new books with slightly damaged covers that offer great deals to buyers.FAIR Bookstore – Clearance Specials Clearance Special: Lengthen Your Stride, The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball (Limited to stock on hand)Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005, hardbound and CD-rom. ISBN: 1590384571The sequel to one of the bestselling LDS biographies of all time by Edward L. Kimball and Andrew E. Kimball Jr.’s, Spencer W. Kimball: Twelfth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was an excellent biography which primarily covered President Spencer W. Kimball’s youth and his service in the Quorum of the Twelve. That intimate portrait written by his son focused exclusively on the many dramatic events that occurred during President Kimball’s 12 years as Church president and obviously did not cover the revelation on priesthood, among other later events during President Kimball’s tenure. An accompanying CD-Rom includes a longer version of the biography, additional photos, and some audio clips.The first book notes the approach to writing biography in the 1977 preface:We have tried to be candid, neither omitting weaknesses and problems nor exaggerating strengths. Happily we were faced with no real test of our integrity as biographers, since our burrowing into the past only confirmed our personal impressions that this was a man of rare consistency, exemplifying in his private life the same virtues ascribed to the public man.Spencer and Camilla Kimball read through the manuscript for this book in rough draft stage and made factual corrections and a few suggestions, but neither had a hand in writing or editing the book beyond that. They would not have written the same book, but they were trusting and generous enough to allow us our own perspective on their lives. The responsibility for selecting the events which would paint a fair picture and for the resulting emphases is wholly ours, though the whole undertaking was possible only because of their willingness to talk and write openly about themselves.Retail Price: $29.95 Special FAIR Price: $19.47 (35% Discount) Latter-Day History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Limited to stock on hand)Brian & Petrea Kelly. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2000. Hardbound, 10 1/2 x 6 1/4″, 586 pages.President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, “I wish to go on record concerning the magnitude of what our forebears accomplished and what this means to us . . . It is a story so large in scope, so fraught with human suffering and the workings of faith, that will never grow old or stale.”From the First Vision to the dedication of the new Conference Center, Church history comes to life with hundreds of inspiring stories, personal journal entries, rare pictures, and firsthand quotes. Including detailed biographies of each modern prophet, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley, Latter-day History offers unequaled insight into the significant events and people who shaped the history of the Church.Carefully researched and thoroughly documented, this valuable resource will be a treasured addition to your family library for generations to come.Includes:Over 400 rarely seen photographs.National and world events coinciding with events in Church history.Comprehensive time line.Friendly, readable format for families.Fascinating little-known stories and firsthand quotes from Church history.Retail Price: $39.95 Special FAIR Price: $23.97 (40% Discount) 40 Ways to Look at Brigham Young: A New Approach to a Remarkable Man (Limited to stock on hand)Chad M. Orton, William W. Slaughter. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 2008. Softbound, 6×9″, 335 pages.If Brigham Young is not the most maligned individual on the list of the 100 Most Influential Americans, he is certainly the most misunderstood. Although 130 years have passed since his death, much of the confusion that surrounded him in life remains. He continues to be praised by millions as a prophet of God and admired for his contributions in settling the American West, but he is also frequently vilified. Through a series of brief essays that look at the fundamental aspects of a complex man, this unique biography examines both his remarkable life and his accomplishments and separates fact from fantasy.Retail Price: $23.95 Special FAIR Price: $7.19 (70% Discount) They Lie In Wait to Deceive, Volume 2 (Limited to stock on hand)Robert L. and Rosemary Brown; Barbara Beckstead Ellsworth (Editor), Gail A. Gibson (Art Direction). Mesa, Arizona: Brownsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Second printing, revised edition, 1993, 7×10 softbound, 480 pages.One of the more well known professional anti-Mormons who had used his radio broadcasts to spread misleading information was the late “Dr.” Walter R. Martin. His claims and credentials are examined to determine if his professed credentials are valid as claimed or if he is just another imposter. Walter Martin claimed a Doctorate degree, current ordination as a minister, and various other claims. As you read the numerous documents which trace his adult life – - you will see that Walter Martin follows the typical format for professional anti-Mormons – - they claim impressive credentials to gain the confidence of the public and take that opportunity to teach false and misleading information about the LDS Church. Martin and other professional anti-Mormons devote their entire lives to spreading false information.Review: “Expose of the character of “Dr.” Walter Martin, professional cult “expert.” This is a commentary on the character of Walter Martin, the famous Bible Answer Man and author of “The Kingdom of the Cults” and “The Maze of Mormonism.” While this book is not written in response to Martin’s works, it is a report on his qualifications, or lack there of. It documents his diploma mill PhD and his lack of credentials as a Baptist Minister. His life’s work must be considered in the light of his character and integrity. Though Walter Martin is no longer with us, his work and those who reference it in their assaults on Mormonism are.” –Deseret Book customer in Utah, June 12, 2001Retail Price: $8.95 Special FAIR Price: $2.24 (75% Discount) Monthly Specials:FAIR Bookstore – Monthly Specials Shaken Faith SyndromeMichael R. Ash, Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2008, 6×9″ softbound, 302 pages, ISBN 1-893036-08-1.In today’s Internet world, an increasing number of Latter-day Saints are encountering anti-Mormon material. In the absence of ready answers, LDS-critical claims can be unsettling or create doubt. Some arguments have caused a few members-even active members with strong testimonies-to lose their faith. Shaken Faith Syndrome explores how we can be both critical thinkers and devout believers.Misconceptions that can make us vulnerable to shaken faith are dispelled, and some of the most frequent anti-LDS claims are refuted. Shaken Faith Syndrome invites us to strengthen our testimonies and intellectual foundations as we develop a more mature appreciation for prophets and revelation as well as a greater understanding of the inherent limitations of science, history, and even the scriptures.Retail Price: $19.95 Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting Joseph SmithMichael Ash. Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, 2008. Softbound, 208 pages, 6″ x 9″.In the early 1800s, many people criticized the Prophet Joseph Smith for his prophecies and revelations; today, several evidences prove that Joseph was right.Michael Ash, a well-known LDS apologist, explains why it is useful, and perhaps even necessary, to combine reason with faith in our testimony of Joseph Smith. He reminds us that although secular evidences can’t replace a spiritual witness, they can support a testimony and provide an atmosphere where a spiritual witness can flourish.Using scholarly journal articles and ancient Jewish and Christian writings, Ash provides evidences that show how the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people, how LDS scriptures are consistent with the traditions and culture of ancient Israel, and how the doctrines of the Church accurately reflect the teachings of Christ. Ash writes clearly and simply, providing numerous resources to foster further study.With over 80 evidences, this book is an excellent resource for those seeking more information about Joseph Smith and his works.Retail Price: $14.99 Special FAIR Price: $11.99 (20% Discount) Shaken Faith Syndrome and Of Faith and Reason (Bundle offer)Retail Price: $34.95 Special FAIR Price: $27.95 (20% Discount) In Defense of Truth (DVD)American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2004, DVD Video, 55 minutes. ISBN: 1591564670Ever since the origin of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church members have experienced religious and physical persecution. Today’s persecution comes from attacks by “Christian scholars.” Using media technology, they spread false claims about the LDS Church and its teachings to large audiences. This DVD gives a believer’s point of view on those teachings. Testimonies of common mainstream Church members complement those of scholars who have made these beliefs their professional study. The presentation answers the following questions:Who was Joseph Smith? Was he a fraud?What is the Book of Mormon? Was it written by Joseph Smith, or did he really translate it from golden plates through divine inspiration?Are Mormons Christians?Is Mormonism a cult?Are Mormon youth forced to serve Church missions?What is the status of women in the LDS Church?What is the basis for anti-Mormon materials?Also, join James B. Allen, well-known LDS Church historian, for a brief tour of Church historical sites and a narrative of the events that occurred at those sites. Dr. Allen explains how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon; gives an account of the early group of believers who established the LDS Church; and relates the martyrdom of the Church’s first prophet.Retail Price: $14.95 Special FAIR Price: $7.99 (46.5% Discount) Joseph the SeerSteven C. Harper. Provo, Utah: Harper Publishing, 2005. Softbound, 6×9″, 87 pages.A biography of Joseph Smith’s early life by an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, both scholarly and faithful, this book is accessible to a general audience.Retail Price: $14.99 Special FAIR Price: $9.74 (35% Discount)Thank you for shopping in our FAIR bookstore! DONATING TO FAIRFAIR is labor of love. We are a group of volunteers who spend many hours trying to research and publish information to help members respond to critics. We try to price our conferences to be accessible to as many as possible. But, providing this information does cost money. In all of your charitable giving, please consider donating to FAIR. It is only through your donations that we are able to stay in operation.If you can donate $10 or $10,000, every dollar helps us.Donate to FAIRYou can also mail a check to our address:FAIR PO Box 491677 Redding, CA 96049-1677 FAIR’S ‘FRONT PAGE’Do you like the news? Do you spend your time looking for articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Then you need to sign up for the FAIR Front Page daily news briefing. Receive daily updates containing news clippings about how the LDS Church is represented in the media. FAIR’s Front Page (FFP) is a free service; you can un-subscribe at any time. To receive this service just click on the link below, enter your email address in the white box, and push the “Sign-Up” button.Sign up for FAIR’s Front Page IMPORTANT LINKSFAIR main pageFAIR WikiFAIR Blog and PodcastFAIR YouTube VideosMormonVoicesBlack Mormon SiteMormon Scholars TestifyFAIR BookstoreFAIR on FacebookFAIR on TwitterMormonVoices on Facebook ASK THE APOLOGISTThe public is invited to submit questions related to LDS *apologetic* issues to “Ask the Apologist.” This feature can be accessed by clicking on the following link:Contact FAIRMark the box labeled “Questions (for the FAIR apologists).” Then fill in accurate information in the five white boxes and push the “Send Comments” button. All inquiries will be shared with members of the FAIR List and the questioner may receive multiple responses from FAIR volunteers. All responses reflect the opinions of the respondents only and not the official position of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. COPYRIGHT NOTICE & DISCLAIMERCopyright © 2012 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). All rights are reserved. FAIR is not owned by, controlled by, nor affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided in FAIR publications are the sole responsibility of FAIR and the individual authors who provide the information, and should not be interpreted as official statements of Latter-day Saint history, doctrine, practice or belief.
Rob Bowman Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Dear Wiki Wonka,I found the following two parts of your post quite interesting to juxtapose:Our History of Nasty Ad Hominem Attacksby Allen Wyatt on May 10th, 2012Earlier today a well-known critic of FAIR made the following statement on an Internet message board:“MI/FAIR/FARMS has a history of nasty ad hominem attacks (see the Simon Southerton adultery accusations)…”We at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long time, for concrete examples of where we have engaged in ad hominem fallacies, as we don’t really want to do so. (I know; that may seem incredulous to some. But it really is true.) This statement, by the critic on the message board, was the first concrete example I’ve noticed.Our History of Nasty Ad Hominem Attacks by Allen Wyatt. . . . . . . . .They Lie In Wait to Deceive, Volume 2 (Limited to stock on hand)Robert L. and Rosemary Brown; Barbara Beckstead Ellsworth (Editor), Gail A. Gibson (Art Direction). Mesa, Arizona: Brownsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Second printing, revised edition, 1993, 7×10 softbound, 480 pages.One of the more well known professional anti-Mormons who had used his radio broadcasts to spread misleading information was the late “Dr.” Walter R. Martin. His claims and credentials are examined to determine if his professed credentials are valid as claimed or if he is just another imposter. Walter Martin claimed a Doctorate degree, current ordination as a minister, and various other claims. As you read the numerous documents which trace his adult life – - you will see that Walter Martin follows the typical format for professional anti-Mormons – - they claim impressive credentials to gain the confidence of the public and take that opportunity to teach false and misleading information about the LDS Church. Martin and other professional anti-Mormons devote their entire lives to spreading false information....How about that: found one of those "nasty ad hominem attacks," with guilt by association thrown in at no extra charge.
mfbukowski Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) The truth is not an "ad hominem attack".He lived his life. The record is the record. You can dispute the record, but that has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks.Al Capone killed people. That is a fact, not an attack.You of course being one of his cronies would know the record wellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman,_Jr. Edited June 13, 2012 by mfbukowski
Rob Bowman Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Allen Wyatt acknowledges, in the very article cited above, that presenting a "fact" for the purpose of discrediting someone's arguments is indeed an ad hominem fallacy:"Even so, the fact that he was charged with adultery could be used as an ad hominem fallacy if (and only if) it is presented as a reason to disregard the arguments of a person. Such a usage would be wrong, and definitely a logical fallacy. It plainly should not be done in scholarly discourse."Since that is quite plainly the reason for FAIR (a Mormon apologetics organization) selling a book that attacks the character and integrity of an "anti-Mormon" writer, the charge of ad hominem is definitely, ahem, a fair criticism.Allen concludes his article as follows:"In fact, going back to my statement earlier in this post, we at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long, LONG time, for concrete examples of all the meanness attributed to us, as an organization. Understanding that it is possible to not see the forest for the trees, please consider this an open, standing invitation. If anyone can point them out to us, I’d be glad to make sure someone takes a look at what is brought up."Happy to oblige.
Rob Bowman Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Mr. Bukowski,You added to your post:You of course being one of his cronies would know the record wellhttp://en.wikipedia...._M._Bowman,_Jr.Ha! You couldn't resist a little guilt by association yourself. How delicious.Yes, I know the record pretty well...probably better than you do, although I did not have a close personal relationship with Walter Martin. I worked at his organization (as a research staffer; I was definitely not a "crony") for only four years while he was alive, to be precise four of the last five years of his life (1984-1988; Martin died in 1989), and he was on the road much of that time. Martin was definitely a flawed individual (for that matter, so am I). Some of the criticisms against him have merit, some are only partially correct, and some have no merit at all. But none of them have anything to do with the truth or falsity of his arguments against Mormonism.
treehugger Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 FAIR is staffed completely by volunteers, all of whom are dedicated to defending the Church.Does this mean that no one at FAIR, to include the President or other executives of FAIR, recieves a salary or any type of compensation or benefit from FAIR?
Calm Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Only the bookstore manager who is not involved in the apologetics side of things last I heard.And most pay at least a small yearly fee so they can participate in helping those who ask questions as well as full price on any tickets to the conference and same prices as the public on books. Plus most donate to FAIR on top of that.I know of no financial benefit that comes from being part of FAIR. Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah
cinepro Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) The truth is not an "ad hominem attack".He lived his life. The record is the record. You can dispute the record, but that has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks.Al Capone killed people. That is a fact, not an attack.You of course being one of his cronies would know the record wellhttp://en.wikipedia...._M._Bowman,_Jr.Just so I'm clear, suppose Al Capone got involved in a public debate over Prohibition, and presented an argument based on economics, inter-state commerce and constitutionality.If his respondent got up to argue in favor of Prohibition and said "Al Capone kills people", would that be a valid counter-argument, or an "ad hominum"? Or something else? Edited June 13, 2012 by cinepro
mfbukowski Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Obviously lying about one's qualifications is highly relevant to one's supposedly "scholarly" pretensions in representing what our church believes. One would not misrepresent himself as what he is not if such misrepresentation did not give him greater perceived authority with his audience, so those misrepresentations are hardly irrelevant.My only objective was to let any readers not familiar with Rob to know exactly who he is, and where his arguments come from- misinformed and totally prejudiced sources like Walter Martin. Now that everyone knows that, they can judge those arguments accordingly. If that is taken as "guilt by association" as Rob himself has characterized it, then so be it. I find that in itself highly revealing.That was my only objective in commenting, and I have achieved that objective. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 In fact if you look at the post, what it says is precisely what I am saying-...they claim impressive credentials to gain the confidence of the public and take that opportunity to teach false and misleading information about the LDS Church. Martin and other professional anti-Mormons devote their entire lives to spreading false information.Review: “Expose of the character of “Dr.” Walter Martin, professional cult “expert.” This is a commentary on the character of Walter Martin, the famous Bible Answer Man and author of “The Kingdom of the Cults” and “The Maze of Mormonism.” While this book is not written in response to Martin’s works, it is a report on his qualifications, or lack there of. It documents his diploma mill PhD and his lack of credentials as a Baptist Minister. His life’s work must be considered in the light of his character and integrity. Though Walter Martin is no longer with us, his work and those who reference it in their assaults on Mormonism are.” –Deseret Book customer in Utah, June 12, 2001His qualifications and lack thereof, and the falsehoods concerning them, are directly germane to his credibility.I don't see how anyone could not see that. 1
Rob Bowman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Mr. Bukowski,As you put it in another post, and with another connotation: Wow. How can you know so much about philosophy and make such statements about elementary matters concerning logic and fallacies?You wrote:Obviously lying about one's qualifications is highly relevant to one's supposedly "scholarly" pretensions in representing what our church believes.One would not misrepresent himself as what he is not if such misrepresentation did not give him greater perceived authority with his audience, so those misrepresentations are hardly irrelevant.They are relevant to forming an opinion about the man (hence ad hominem), but not about his arguments or conclusions.You wrote:My only objective was to let any readers not familiar with Rob to know exactly who he is, and where his arguments come from- misinformed and totally prejudiced sources like Walter Martin. Now that everyone knows that, they can judge those arguments accordingly.Textbook case of ad hominem. Let's assume that you are right in your premise about where I get my arguments (you're not, of course). To make the point more simply, let's assume for the sake of illustration that I get all of my arguments from Walter Martin. Let's further assume for the sake of illustration that Martin was a high-school dropout who claimed to have multiple doctorate degrees from Ivy League schools. Would this information, if correct, in any way equip people to judge the arguments I use? Nope. That's the whole point of the ad hominem fallacy: it mistakenly reasons that if we can discredit the man we have discredited his arguments. Worse still, since I don't lie about my credentials (you haven't even tried to make that claim, at least not yet), your argument is doubly fallacious because it combines the ad hominem fallacy with the guilt by association fallacy, as you seem to recognize when you say:If that is taken as "guilt by association" as Rob himself has characterized it, then so be it.Yep, it is. Assuming my source is a habitual liar about himself, this in no way shows that I am a liar, let alone that my arguments are bad arguments.Walter Martin strongly criticized atheism, even publicly debating atheists. Assuming that everything you say about Martin is true, does that in any way tell us that his criticisms of atheism were bad arguments? If someone else poses the same objections to atheism as Martin did, are that person's arguments also to be rejected, because of the kind of man Martin was? By your reasoning, apparently they are.Now let me straighten out your "facts" about me. As I said, I worked at Martin's organization for four years while he was alive, and most of that time I didn't see him. I don't think we ever discussed Mormonism. I read some things that he wrote about Mormonism but they were not formative of my views on the subject. For example, I never read Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? which he endorsed and vigorously promoted, and I was never particularly impressed with the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origins. (The newer, more substantial edition of that book is on my shelf, waiting to be read; I am interested to see if the authors mount a strong case for their view.) I also never made it all the way through The Maze of Mormonism, although I did read the whole chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults. When I wrote a four-part series on Mormon apologetics for CRI's journal, I made no use of Martin's writings. The same was true when I wrote a chapter on Mormonism for a book that was published in 2005. I've been researching Mormonism essentially full-time for over three years now and I have not once cracked open anything written by Martin on the subject. In fact, I rarely read literature by other evangelicals on Mormonism. Most of my research is in the primary sources or in reading LDS publications. This was also my modus operandi when I did a lot of writing on Jehovah's Witnesses: I focused on studying their publications and on studying the Bible, and had little interest in most of what other evangelical critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses had written. (Hopefully they're not offended.) I've come to my own opinions and conclusions based on fresh research. Academically, my training and interests have always been in biblical studies; that was my area of study for my master's degree and it is also for my doctorate currently in progress. I bring my biblical studies training and knowledge to the subject of Mormonism the same way I did with Jehovah's Witnesses, and as I have done with several other groups (for example, the Word of Faith movement and the Oneness Pentecostals). Walter Martin provided an opportunity for me to do research and writing in these areas over two decades ago, and that's really about it.Thus, ironically, you are guilty of misrepresenting me.Again, though, even if everything you said about Martin and me had been factually accurate, your argument would still be ad hominem as well as guilt by association.
Rob Bowman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:In fact if you look at the post, what it says is precisely what I am saying-...His qualifications and lack thereof, and the falsehoods concerning them, are directly germane to his credibility.I don't see how anyone could not see that.Precisely my point. The same web page that announced an article denying that FAIR engages in ad hominem attacks and inviting people to point out examples contained a clear example of ad hominem further down the page.Now if Martin's credibility were the issue, you might have a point. But the problem with ad hominem fallacies is that they make the person's credibility the issue in order to discredit the credibility of the person's arguments. That is a fallacious move in reasoning, as FAIR admits in its article advertised on the same page.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) Mr. Bukowski,As you put it in another post, and with another connotation: Wow. How can you know so much about philosophy and make such statements about elementary matters concerning logic and fallacies?You wrote:They are relevant to forming an opinion about the man (hence ad hominem), but not about his arguments or conclusions.You wrote:Textbook case of ad hominem. Let's assume that you are right in your premise about where I get my arguments (you're not, of course). To make the point more simply, let's assume for the sake of illustration that I get all of my arguments from Walter Martin. Let's further assume for the sake of illustration that Martin was a high-school dropout who claimed to have multiple doctorate degrees from Ivy League schools. Would this information, if correct, in any way equip people to judge the arguments I use? Nope. That's the whole point of the ad hominem fallacy: it mistakenly reasons that if we can discredit the man we have discredited his arguments. Worse still, since I don't lie about my credentials (you haven't even tried to make that claim, at least not yet), your argument is doubly fallacious because it combines the ad hominem fallacy with the guilt by association fallacy, as you seem to recognize when you say:Yep, it is. Assuming my source is a habitual liar about himself, this in no way shows that I am a liar, let alone that my arguments are bad arguments.Walter Martin strongly criticized atheism, even publicly debating atheists. Assuming that everything you say about Martin is true, does that in any way tell us that his criticisms of atheism were bad arguments? If someone else poses the same objections to atheism as Martin did, are that person's arguments also to be rejected, because of the kind of man Martin was? By your reasoning, apparently they are.Now let me straighten out your "facts" about me. As I said, I worked at Martin's organization for four years while he was alive, and most of that time I didn't see him. I don't think we ever discussed Mormonism. I read some things that he wrote about Mormonism but they were not formative of my views on the subject. For example, I never read Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? which he endorsed and vigorously promoted, and I was never particularly impressed with the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origins. (The newer, more substantial edition of that book is on my shelf, waiting to be read; I am interested to see if the authors mount a strong case for their view.) I also never made it all the way through The Maze of Mormonism, although I did read the whole chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults. When I wrote a four-part series on Mormon apologetics for CRI's journal, I made no use of Martin's writings. The same was true when I wrote a chapter on Mormonism for a book that was published in 2005. I've been researching Mormonism essentially full-time for over three years now and I have not once cracked open anything written by Martin on the subject. In fact, I rarely read literature by other evangelicals on Mormonism. Most of my research is in the primary sources or in reading LDS publications. This was also my modus operandi when I did a lot of writing on Jehovah's Witnesses: I focused on studying their publications and on studying the Bible, and had little interest in most of what other evangelical critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses had written. (Hopefully they're not offended.) I've come to my own opinions and conclusions based on fresh research. Academically, my training and interests have always been in biblical studies; that was my area of study for my master's degree and it is also for my doctorate currently in progress. I bring my biblical studies training and knowledge to the subject of Mormonism the same way I did with Jehovah's Witnesses, and as I have done with several other groups (for example, the Word of Faith movement and the Oneness Pentecostals). Walter Martin provided an opportunity for me to do research and writing in these areas over two decades ago, and that's really about it.Thus, ironically, you are guilty of misrepresenting me.Again, though, even if everything you said about Martin and me had been factually accurate, your argument would still be ad hominem as well as guilt by association.Rob, as usual, this is just silly.The issue is what he allegedly knew about what we believed was bolstered by his fake doctorate. After all, if a man has a doctorate and says he is a minister, he must know what he is talking about, right?Maybe. If indeed those were real credentials.I mean is it relevant when you get on a plane that you know they guy flying it is not a pilot? Silly me, I think it IS relevant to know that.And that is "ad hominem"? If so, too bad.Clearly the man was not an expert on Mormons, as he alleged.So then you give this lengthy post supposedly showing how great his arguments are in the first half of the post, then in the last half distancing yourself as much as possible from him. Get your story straight.I really don't care Rob. Let anyone who wants to, read the record for themselves- I just wanted to let any readers who might not know the record, find it, and know where you were coming from.They can draw their own conclusions.PS and yes indeed, if someone does not know what they are talking about when it comes to atheism, chances are their arguments against it are not very good.After all we have seen your arguments against Mormonism and we all know how telling they are. They are not because you do not understand what we believe. Maybe you should try some of Martin's arguments after all. Maybe they are better. Edited June 14, 2012 by mfbukowski
Rob Bowman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:Rob, as usual, this is just silly.I quite agree.You wrote:The issue is what he allegedly knew about what we believed was bolstered by his fake doctorate. After all, if a man has a doctorate and says he is a minister, he must know what he is talking about, right?Maybe. If indeed those were real credentials.I mean is it relevant when you get on a plane that you know they guy flying it is not a pilot? Silly me, I think it IS relevant to know that.And that is "ad hominem"? If so, too bad.This is a bad analogy, and I will explain why. Passengers on a plane are utterly dependent on the pilot to fly the plane; they are neither able nor permitted to get involved in any way in the piloting of the aircraft. Flying on a plane is an act of trust in the pilot, and assumes that the airline will only hire individuals with the requisite knowledge, skills, and temperament to handle the job with excellence.By contrast, thinking about the truth or falsehood of religious claims is an activity in which everyone involved can and should take some responsibility. If we are reading a book or listening to a lecture by a teacher, we should not simply trust that the teacher will tell me the truth, even if the teacher is someone we highly respect and admire. We may and should read or listen and then form our own judgments and conclusions after comparing what the teacher says with other things we know or find out and after thinking through the reasoning that the teacher presents. The teacher is not a pilot; he is not even a navigator. He is an adviser, giving us information and arguments to consider in coming to our own conclusions. I, not my teacher, am responsible for getting me to my "destination." The teacher's credentials may have some relevance in that it makes sense to read or listen to those who have done the necessary work to understand and explain the subject matter in an illuminating way, but at the end of the day the teacher's credentials are not the issue. A man with multiple advanced degrees and bona fide credentials may be abysmally wrong in what he says, while a man with no academic degrees or professional credentials whatsoever may be highly informative and accurate in what he says. I've seen both kinds of people too many times to be tempted by the ad hominem argument.You wrote:So then you give this lengthy post supposedly showing how great his arguments are in the first half of the post, then in the last half distancing yourself as much as possible from him. Get your story straight.I really don't care Rob. Let anyone who wants to, read the record for themselves- I just wanted to let any readers who might not know the record, find it, and know where you were coming from.My story is straight, whereas yours is definitely a twisted, distorted version of reality. I said absolutely nothing about how "great" Walter Martin's arguments against Mormonism were. I didn't attempt to defend anything he said. I even pointed out one specific and significant issue on which I disagreed with Martin. My point was that nothing you said about Martin, whether true or false, has any logical bearing on the validity of my arguments. To say otherwise, as I explained, is to combine the ad hominem and guilt-by-association fallacies. That's one very bad argument.The evidence of your posts strongly suggests that you are really not interested in letting people "know where I am coming from." Rather, your interest was in poisoning the well against anything I say.You wrote:They can draw their own conclusions.Precisely. The one who presents information or arguments is not the issue, because those listening can evaluate the material presented and draw their own conclusions.You wrote:After all we have seen your arguments against Mormonism and we all know how telling they are. They are not because you do not understand what we believe.I respectfully disagree. I think I understand what Mormons believe far better than most non-Mormons do. Naturally, you will disagree with my criticisms of Mormonism, but your disagreement for the most part will have little or nothing to do with correctly stating what Mormons believe.On our website is a fairly new article I wrote entitled "Mormon Belief: The Doctrine of the LDS Church." I am not allowed to provide a link to the article, but I challenge you to read it and find any misunderstandings of Mormon doctrine in it. My book-length series of articles entitled "Gospel Principles and the Bible" also demonstrates the effort I have made to understand Mormon teachings as fully and fairly as I can.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) Now if Martin's credibility were the issue, you might have a point.That is precisely the pointMy story is straight, whereas yours is definitely a twisted, distorted version of reality.LOLNo ad hominems here, no sireeI really think this whole thing is a derail of a potentially interesting thread- no more from me on this subject- I have said all that I feel is necessary. Edited June 14, 2012 by mfbukowski
Rob Bowman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:LOLNo ad hominems here, no sireeWith all due respect, you evidently don't know what an ad hominem is. Allen Wyatt does, which is why I hope that he or someone else associated with FAIR will address the point I have made here.You wrote:I really think this whole thing is a derail of a potentially interesting thread- no more from me on this subject- I have said all that I feel is necessary.That's fine. I hope the moderators don't shut down the thread but instead allow it to remain open so that the folks at FAIR have an opportunity to comment on the ad hominem example I provided in response to their open invitation to do so.
juliann Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 One only has to turn to Wikipedia to show your own logic in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemConflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]^ Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.^Taylor, Charles (1997). "Explanation and Practical Reason". Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60.Your foremost hurdle, however, is that Martin's arguments weren't avoided at all. For heaven's sake, this author put out volumes doing just that. So for you to claim that he was attacked as a person so his ridiculous and hateful words didn't have to be attended to is an out and out falsehood. Some are using the banner of ad homenim as a last ditch attempt to silence the opposition without having to address anything else and that is what is being attempted here. The accusation is becoming a tired tactic. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Ah yes, Charles Taylor. Brilliant guy. Precisely the point I was trying to make. Another guy with a "distorted sense of reality", just like mine!
Rob Bowman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Juliann,You wrote:One only has to turn to Wikipedia to show your own logic in question.Wikipedia is generally a fine tool, but I don't think it shows my reasoning to be mistaken. You quoted Wikipedia as saying:Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.Based on the very statement from Wikipedia that you quote here, conflicts of interest are entirely irrelevant to the evaluation of arguments presented by Walter Martin against Mormonism. He did not argue that one should reject Mormonism on his "authority" or on the basis of his "personal observation." Rather, he expected his listeners and readers to form judgments based on the information and arguments, not based on his personal authority or observations. Certainly Martin cannot plausibly be accused of concealing some hidden conflict of interest.You also quoted the following:Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.There is a simple test to determine when ad hominem reasoning is relevant or not. Simply ask whether what is being evaluated or considered is in some clear or direct way dependent on the specific person against whom the ad hominem reasoning is directed. If it is, then the ad hominem is relevant. If it isn't, then the ad hominem is irrelevant.So, for example, suppose Walter Martin was everything his Mormon critics say he was. Does this have any bearing on whether Martin was right to argue that certain Mormon doctrines are unbiblical? No, it has no bearing at all. Suppose we find biblical scholars who have no connection or association at all with Martin, and who do not have the same kinds of personal faults Martin had or is alleged to have had, making just the same criticisms of those Mormon doctrines. Then in that case Martin's personal failings simply have no bearing on the argument.You wrote:Your foremost hurdle, however, is that Martin's arguments weren't avoided at all. For heaven's sake, this author put out volumes doing just that. So for you to claim that he was attacked as a person so his ridiculous and hateful words didn't have to be attended to is an out and out falsehood.I don't recall saying that Martin's LDS critic attacked him as a person instead of addressing his arguments or in order to avoid dealing with his arguments. This isn't necessary to the ad hominem fallacy.According to Allen Wyatt, a personal criticism "could be used as an ad hominem fallacy if (and only if) it is presented as a reason to disregard the arguments of a person" (emphasis added). To be an ad hominem fallacy, the attack need not be presented as the only reason to disregard someone's arguments. It is enough for the personal criticism to be presented as a reason to disregard his arguments.You wrote:Some are using the banner of ad homenim as a last ditch attempt to silence the opposition without having to address anything else and that is what is being attempted here. The accusation is becoming a tired tactic.You are greatly mistaken in claiming that I am engaged in an "attempt to silence the opposition without having to address anything else." In fact, the accusation is absurd. I can't even imagine who it is you think I am trying to silence or what it is you think I am attempting to avoid addressing.
Vance Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Dear Wiki Wonka,I found the following two parts of your post quite interesting to juxtapose:How about that: found one of those "nasty ad hominem attacks," with guilt by association thrown in at no extra charge.So, telling the truth makes it a "NASTY ad hominem attack?"Pray tell what is the difference between a "NASTY ad hominem attack" and a regular "ad hominem attack"?What part of, One of the more well known professional anti-Mormons who had used his radio broadcasts to spread misleading information was the late “Dr.” Walter R. Martin. His claims and credentials are examined to determine if his professed credentials are valid as claimed or if he is just another imposter. Walter Martin claimed a Doctorate degree, current ordination as a minister, and various other claims. As you read the numerous documents which trace his adult life – - you will see that Walter Martin follows the typical format for professional anti-Mormons – - they claim impressive credentials to gain the confidence of the public and take that opportunity to teach false and misleading information about the LDS Church. Martin and other professional anti-Mormons devote their entire lives to spreading false information....was "NASTY"?
Vance Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Some of the criticisms against him have merit, some are only partially correct, and some have no merit at all. But none of them have anything to do with the truth or falsity of his arguments against Mormonism.Well well, that is just a simple assertion.As someone once said,You made this assertion without providing any evidence to back it up. That means that all I need to do to answer this criticism adequately is simply to deny it. I deny it.
Vance Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Again, though, even if everything you said about Martin and me had been factually accurate, your argument would still be ad hominem as well as guilt by association.Yeah, but would it be "NASTY"?
juliann Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Wikipedia is generally a fine tool, but I don't think it shows my reasoning to be mistaken. You quoted Wikipedia as saying:Based on the very statement from Wikipedia that you quote here, conflicts of interest are entirely irrelevant to the evaluation of arguments presented by Walter Martin against Mormonism. He did not argue that one should reject Mormonism on his "authority" or on the basis of his "personal observation." Rather, he expected his listeners and readers to form judgments based on the information and arguments, not based on his personal authority or observations. Certainly Martin cannot plausibly be accused of concealing some hidden conflict of interest. I very clearly addressed that to your logic.There is a simple test to determine when ad hominem reasoning is relevant or not. Simply ask whether what is being evaluated or considered is in some clear or direct way dependent on the specific person against whom the ad hominem reasoning is directed. If it is, then the ad hominem is relevant. If it isn't, then the ad hominem is irrelevant.So, for example, suppose Walter Martin was everything his Mormon critics say he was. Does this have any bearing on whether Martin was right to argue that certain Mormon doctrines are unbiblical? No, it has no bearing at all. Suppose we find biblical scholars who have no connection or association at all with Martin, and who do not have the same kinds of personal faults Martin had or is alleged to have had, making just the same criticisms of those Mormon doctrines. Then in that case Martin's personal failings simply have no bearing on the argument.You are now question begging. Martin was doing much more than arguing biblicisms.I don't recall saying that Martin's LDS critic attacked him as a person instead of addressing his arguments or in order to avoid dealing with his arguments. This isn't necessary to the ad hominem fallacy.You seem to think ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy are interchangable. There is a fun fancy title for that, too. You are greatly mistaken in claiming that I am engaged in an "attempt to silence the opposition without having to address anything else." In fact, the accusation is absurd. I can't even imagine who it is you think I am trying to silence or what it is you think I am attempting to avoid addressing.The hate speech of Walter Martin, the legitimacy of documenting a man "of God" is scamming his followers, and your conflict of interest in trying to make this irrelevant. Not to mention your derail tactics. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) NM misread the comments. Edited June 14, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Recommended Posts