The Apostate Myth Of Mormon Apologetics

[Calm]

There is a thread on the board that must not be named dedicated to this. I believe it is even pinned at the top of the terrestrial forum. It gives many examples.

Deja vu all over again.

[Bikeemikey]

This seems to me to have been the de facto motto of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (NAMIRS):

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. Austin Farrer

What a great quote-mission statement!!! Thanks so much for posting it.

[Bikeemikey]

This seems to me to have been the de facto motto of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (NAMIRS):

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. Austin Farrer

What a great quote-mission statement!!! Thanks so much for posting it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

What a great quote-mission statement!!! Thanks so much for posting it.

And through the years we all have seen how delightfully and powerfully the FARMS BOYS (I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT I STILL ENJOY GIVING THEM THAT EPITHET PURELY IN ADMIRATION, NOT INSULT, AND THEY ALL KNOW IT TOO) have lived that statement, for which so very many of us are so very thankful.......

[Robert F. Smith]

Daniel Peterson is NOT a Rock Star - LOL!

More like that jolly old elf, Saint Nick?

[Bill Hamblin]

Daniel Peterson is NOT a Rock Star - LOL!

Dan Peterson far transcends a mere rock-star. He is a demi-god! Danny Trismegistus!

[Bill Hamblin]

There is a thread on the board that must not be named dedicated to this. I believe it is even pinned at the top of the terrestrial forum. It gives many examples.

That's very convincing. According to them, my mere existence is an ad hominem stench in the nostrils of God--except they don't believe in him.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

That's very convincing. According to them, my mere existence is an ad hominem stench in the nostrils of God--except they don't believe in him.

:rofl:

Nothing ad hominem about that, you lil stinker you!

[Jaynee Doe]

As long ago as 1994, in his essay “Text and Context,“ DCP insisted there were times when it was legitimate to use ad hominem arguments. Clearly, this was tacit acknowledgement that FARMS had done so in its then-past, (otherwise why defend it?), and it’s been my observation that it continued to do so until the present using DCP's context outlined below. Many times.

From the essay:

On Sophistical Refutations

In December 1993, Gary James Bergera, Signature's director of publishing, announced to readers of the Salt Lake Tribune that "Mr. Peterson continues to insist that character assassination and ad hominem attacks are respected hallmarks of the intellectual enterprise."36 But Mr. Bergera is wrong, and he is equivocating.37 By ad hominem "attacks," he obviously means the use of insulting or abusive language. I do not advocate such rhetorical attacks. However, the classical ad hominem is an argument, and I do believe, along with virtually all logicians, that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate, relevant, and significant—provided their limitations are clearly understood and their conclusions properly weighted. Obviously, they can be abused. But they are by no means invariably fallacious.38

I will admit that this nuanced view of the subject runs counter to the way many people speak of arguments ad hominem.

In twentieth-century usage, an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to dis credit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author. That this is a disreputable procedure is clear enough in cases where the argument itself is "followable": in which those being addressed have the opportunity of addressing themselves systematically and exclusively to "relevant" considerations.39

The popular view, however, is inadequate. But we must be clear, in order to make sense of this, just what it is we are talking about here: An ad hominem argument is precisely that—an argument. It can be a good or bad argument, valid or invalid, relevant or irrelevant. Insults, on the other hand, while they may in a sense be ad hominem (i.e., "against the man") are not arguments at all, neither of the ad hominem variety nor of any other.

. . . .

It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual im morality. I have used rather dramatic examples in order to make the case that writers are reflected in what they write. Human beings are not asocial, ahistorical, disembodied intellects. Clearly, considerations of the total personality of the individual advancing a theory, writing a book, or painting a picture may be entirely germane and legitimate in analysis of what that individual produces. Having once established that ad hominem analysis can be relevant, it then becomes merely a question of when and how much it should be used. The degree of relevance will vary, of course, according to the nature of the dispute and, perhaps even more importantly, according to the nature of the subject matter in question. Personal character is of relatively little importance in discussions of physical science and mathematical theory, although even here it must sometimes be taken into account.61 But it can be of great or even central relevance in matters of political thought, ethical speculation, historiography, literature, and theology. As one eminent biblical scholar has observed, "The historian's own presuppositions, ideology, and attitudes inevitably influence his or her research and reporting. Perhaps it is not an overstatement to say that any history book reveals as much about its author as it does about the period of time treated."63 "Good historians (like experts in other fields) have a 'feel' for their subject and can make inspired guesses, without being able to state explicitly how they know."63 Bad historians, in contrast, presumably lack such a "feel" and therefore make analogous guesses that turn out to be uninspired. One of the characteristics of historiography is its "inevitable subjectivity."64 Thus, to portray ad hominem arguments as always and everywhere inevitably fallacious is, in itself, a gross logical error. While, of itself, ad hominem analysis cannot be used to discredit a writer's argument or evidence, it can certainly alert us to cases where caution should be exercised, to instances where we should be especially alert. Peter Novick explains this well:

The impersonal ethos of science is based on the proposition that what science offers is "public knowledge," subject to critical examination by the scientific community. The "replicable experiment" is the prime example of this characteristic of science. . . . The assimilation of historical knowledge to this model was . . . a key move in the establishment of objective, scientific history. On this assumption, ad hominem arguments are surely an irrelevancy, and should be scornfully dismissed.

But are the characteristic products of historians like this? The historian has seen, at first hand, a great mass of evidence, often unpublished, and difficult of access. The historian develops an interpretation of this evidence based on years of immersion in the material—together, of course, with the perceptual apparatus and assumptions he or she brings to it. Historians employ devices, the footnote being the most obvious example, to attain for their work something resembling "replicability," but the resemblance is not all that close.

Most historical writing is, at best, "semipublic." . . . The historian is less like the author of a logical demonstration, though he or she is that in part; more like a witness to what has been found on a voyage of discovery. And arguments which are illegitimate when addressed to the author of a transparently followable syllogism are quite appropriate in the case of a witness.

[TAO]

Will, I think treehugger is pointing out the very post where you point out Anti-Mormon Apostates as an ad-hominem argument. I think he'd be right in that aspect.

However, there are times when ad-hominem is appropriate in argument, especially when it relates closely to the subject. The thing that is in appropriate is unrelated ad-hominem, and slightly related ad-hominem. Generally when using it, you want to get it so that way it has an effect on the matter at hand.

Furthermore, as much as there are apologetic ad-hominems, I am surprisingly pleased with how little there actually is on such a controversial subject (which usually breeds ad-hominem like flies). As far as I have seen, the 'important' apologists have conducted themselves far better than other groups I have known, including oftentimes, the critics themselves.

It is also important to note that saying that ad-hominem making apologetics wrong is, I belive, in and of itself, ad hominem. Whether it is an appropriate ad-hominem or not though... well... I think it's an appropriate one, because it relates closely enough to the subject.

[Analytics]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

...

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I for one neither believe nor promote the so-called “AMMA” as you define it. I think some Mormon apologetics is good, and some is bad. Some addresses the actual issues and legitimate background information, and some is designed to obfuscate the real issues and make ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, can you explain precisely what you mean when you say the AMMA “came to full fruitation in the late Spring of 2012?” Is embracing apostate lies a sufficient condition to clasify an entity as apostate? Do you think the MI accepts the AMMA? Do you think the MI is now an apostate organization?

[Bernard Gui]

Not enough hair...

...on the rock stars.

Bernard

[jwhitlock]

I am surprised Daniel Peterson was let go. This only gives ammo to the church critics. It had nothing to do with poor scholarship, but that's what the critics will say. Daniel Peterson was a lightning rod for their anger. He drove the anti-mormons crazy. How is that a bad thing? I am worried that the church's new direction is to be more accommodating to the anti-mormon position. I feel like we are at war and the politicians have removed one of our most effective generals from the battle field. What are they thinking?

We're not doing our job right unless there's some significant foaming at the mouth going on in the dark side.

[rpn]

So is the real fight over whether one can legitimately talk about the person who makes the argument, their bias, their credentials, their knowledge?

[why me]

As long ago as 1994, in his essay “Text and Context,“ DCP insisted there were times when it was legitimate to use ad hominem arguments. Clearly, this was tacit acknowledgement that FARMS had done so in its then-past, (otherwise why defend it?), and it’s been my observation that it continued to do so until the present using DCP's context outlined below. Many times.

From the essay:

Do you know the case of David Irving, the historian? It seems that he has been personally attacked for years for his writing and statements. And his critics have done this to show that his historical research is clouded by his outside statements and speaking engagements. These attacks of individuals are not that uncommon in the academic world.

And lately, there has been many personal attacks against Bill Ayers, an academic who specializes in education for his involvement with the weather underground and his relationship with the President. He resurfaced because of his contact with Obama. I have seen no protests from the academic community in either case.

It seems perfectly okay in the academic world.

Edited June 23, 2012 by why me

[Aliwe]

We're not doing our job right unless there's some significant foaming at the mouth going on in the dark side.

Just never forget, as you go about the Lord's business, the shadow you yourself cast is also dark.

[jwhitlock]

Just never forget, as you go about the Lord's business, the shadow you yourself cast is also dark.

Really? You familiar with me to that extent?

[Aliwe]

Really? You familiar with me to that extent?

It is a simple aphorism, similar to the adage that if you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. But it is also an interesting psychological probe, when the remark is taken as an attack.

[jwhitlock]

It is a simple aphorism, similar to the adage that if you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. But it is also an interesting psychological probe, when the remark is taken as an attack.

Do you often use trite truisms as the basis for your rationalizations?

While my remark to you was actually innocuous, your response here does reveal your true intention - speaking of psychological probes.

[Analytics]

An example of a FARMS Review that Peterson edited which is below the dignity of BYU is Stephen E. Robinson’s review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (FARMS Review: Volume - 3, Issue - 1, Pages: 312-18). It’s a good example because The Word of God is now published on the Internet.

As a quick background on the book, it contains fifteen essays on various aspects of Mormon scripture. The essays are written by LDS and RLDS intellectuals. The authors are closer to the fringes of Mormonism than to the center. From the editor’s introduction:

All but one of the following fifteen essays chosen for inclusion in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture were written by Mormons from either the LDS or RLDS tradition. (The exception is Susan Curtis.) However, rather than being guided by institutional imperatives, each author has attempted to understand Mormon scripture on its own terms. Additionally, each essay wrestles with the problem of the human and the divine in scripture.

Because one’s belief about revelation affects how one approaches scripture, debate about scriptural interpretation often centers on the nature of revelation. The written “word of God” does not come to us direct but rather through human intermediaries. In the words of J. R. Dummelow, writing in A Commentary on The Holy Bible (New York) in 1908, “It is as sunlight through a painted window—the light must come to us coloured by the medium… It is foolish to ignore the existence of the human medium through which the light has come” (p. cxxxv). Book of Mormon prophets, for instance, repeatedly express anxiety over human limitations to convey in language their spiritual teachings. Nephi prays that “the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong” (LDS 2 Ne. 33:4; RLDS 2 Ne. 15:5), and Moroni writes, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God” (Title Page); A position which does not account for the human in revelation will undoubtedly produce disillusionment or distortion.

Clearly, this book is aimed for Sunstone types.

What one takes away from the review is that the book is a Trojan horse written by dishonest people who are like Korihor, Dracula, and anti-Mormons. Only they are worse than anti-Mormons; he much prefers Walter Martin, Ex-Mormons for Jesus, and the Moody Bible Tract Society because those other guys are more honest. He says, “It is dishonest to pass off ex-Latter-day Saints, non-Latter-day Saints, Reorganized Latter-day Saints, disaffected Latter-day Saints, and hard-core anti-Latter-day Saints as ‘Mormon’ essayists.” However, the book is quite clear about the religious affiliation of its authors, and also quite clear that the book is about examining the scriptures without going through the paradigms of the LDS (or RLDS) Church. That is a valid intellectual exercise.

I have to wonder, if Robinson thinks it is dishonest to claim that these authors are “Mormons from either the LDS or RLDS tradition,” does he think the LDS church is dishonest by counting the LDS authors in its membership count?

The Word of God is actually a good book; its essays take an intellectual look at Mormon scripture without bias from what the Church institutions believe, but rather by taking them on their own terms. This is done from the paradigm that the scriptures aren’t the direct, literal words of God, but rather come through human intermediaries.

Repeatedly comparing this approach to Korihor is a misleading caricature, and the repeated charges of dishonesty are unfounded. The review presents a gross anti-intellectual distortion of the book, and criticizes it for not being something it doesn’t claim to be. BYU shouldn't (and doesn't) want to publish reviews like this. Kudos to them.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Analytics

[William Schryver]

Not surprisingly, no one has cited any examples of the "Myth".

[jwhitlock]

An example of a FARMS Review that Peterson edited which is below the dignity of BYU is Stephen E. Robinson’s review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (FARMS Review: Volume - 3, Issue - 1, Pages: 312-18). It’s a good example because The Word of God is now published on the Internet.

As a quick background on the book, it contains fifteen essays on various aspects of Mormon scripture. The essays are written by LDS and RLDS intellectuals. The authors are closer to the fringes of Mormonism than to the center. From the editor’s introduction:

Clearly, this book is aimed for Sunstone types.

What one takes away from the review is that the book is a Trojan horse written by dishonest people who are like Korihor, Dracula, and anti-Mormons. Only they are worse than anti-Mormons; he much prefers Walter Martin, Ex-Mormons for Jesus, and the Moody Bible Tract Society because those other guys are more honest. He says, “It is dishonest to pass off ex-Latter-day Saints, non-Latter-day Saints, Reorganized Latter-day Saints, disaffected Latter-day Saints, and hard-core anti-Latter-day Saints as ‘Mormon’ essayists.” However, the book is quite clear about the religious affiliation of its authors, and also quite clear that the book is about examining the scriptures without going through the paradigms of the LDS (or RLDS) Church. That is a valid intellectual exercise.

I have to wonder, if Robinson thinks it is dishonest to claim that these authors are “Mormons from either the LDS or RLDS tradition,” does he think the LDS church is dishonest by counting the LDS authors in its membership count?

The Word of God is actually a good book; its essays take an intellectual look at Mormon scripture without bias from what the Church institutions believe, but rather by taking them on their own terms. This is done from the paradigm that the scriptures aren’t the direct, literal words of God, but rather come through human intermediaries.

Repeatedly comparing this approach to Korihor is a misleading caricature, and the repeated charges of dishonesty are unfounded. The review presents a gross anti-intellectual distortion of the book, and criticizes it for not being something it doesn’t claim to be. BYU shouldn't (and doesn't) want to publish reviews like this. Kudos to them.

After reading through Robinson's article, I understand why you had to structure your post the way you did.

Quoting a whole cherry-picked, benign passage from the book Robinson reviewed, and then encapsulating a couple of small out-of-context snippets from Robinson with your own extensive spin on them, along with the obligatory I'm-going-to-tell-you-what-it-said seems to be the only way you could manipulate it to make your point. And of course, you're still beating the drum about how "mean-spirited" all of this really is on the part of apologists.

Needless to say, I find your conclusion about this one just as stretched as your ridiculous rationalizations justifying Bradford and his gutting of MI. Robinson's article is a far better read (and much more entertaining) than what you've conjured up here.

[Analytics]

Needless to say, I find your conclusion about this one just as stretched as your ridiculous rationalizations justifying Bradford and his gutting of MI. Robinson's article is a far better read (and much more entertaining) than what you've conjured up here.

I totally agree; Robinson's article is a great read--extremely entertaining. Not even Rush Limbaugh could stir up more laughs and righteous indignation at the enemy.

But that doesn't mean that repeatedly comparing the book's approach to Korihor isn't a misleading caricature; it doesn't mean that the repeated charges of dishonesty are founded; it doesn't mean the review presents an intellectually honest representation of the book.

[John Ping Pong]

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

How is this for starters?

This is the concluding paragraph in Stephen E. Robinson’s review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, published in the FARMS Review of Books, Volume 3, Issue 1 (1991):

I suppose by now it is clear that I did not like this book. I did not like it primarily because it is dishonest. It is dishonest to pass off the religion of the scholars as the Church of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest to pass off Protestantism in Mormon dress as the religion restored through Joseph Smith. It is dishonest to pass off a rejection and a denial of that religion as merely a "reinterpretation." It is dishonest to pass off ex-Latter-day Saints, non-Latter-day Saints, Reorganized Latter-day Saints, disaffected Latter-day Saints, and hard-core anti-Latter-day Saints as "Mormon" essayists. Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=74

[William Schryver]

How is this for starters?

This is the concluding paragraph in Stephen E. Robinson’s review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, published in the FARMS Review of Books, Volume 3, Issue 1 (1991):

http://maxwellinstit...l=3&num=1&id=74

After all these years of people trying to explain what the ad hominem logical fallacy really is, we still see misconceptions such as these.

<sigh>

No, this is not an example of "ad hominem".

Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver