The Apostate Myth Of Mormon Apologetics

[John Ping Pong]

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

And a dog has five legs if you call his tail a leg.

[jwhitlock]

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.

And it doesn't mean that it's not entirely accurate either. I, for one, think Robinson hit the nail squarely on the head.

[TAO]

Willl, I pointed out an ad-hominem earlier, and also pointed out why ad-hominem might be okay in certain scenarios.

Also, note, that ad-hominem doesn't need to be a person. It can be for an organization or any other thing which 'speaks for itself' so to say.

[John Ping Pong]

I, for one, think Robinson hit the nail squarely on the head.

In an ad hominem sort of way.

Edited June 23, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[Analytics]

And it doesn't mean that it's not entirely accurate either. I, for one, think Robinson hit the nail squarely on the head.

How would you know? You haven't read the book. All you've read is his review, which gives no indication of what the book actually says, much less the quality of its arguments. It seems that avoiding those things was the very point.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Analytics

[jwhitlock]

How would you know? You haven't read the book. All you've read is his review, which gives no indication of what the book actually says, much less the quality of its arguments. It seems that avoiding those things was the very point.

Do you have a gift for knowing what I have or haven't done? Such liberal assumptions seem to be much of what you base your viewpoints on.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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

Not the whole fight, but that certainly is part of the package..... it makes a lot of difference if an author is writing from an Eastern perspective say, and a western bias when it comes to the Bible, God, etc. It actually does make a difference if a person writing on Mormon themes is an actual Mormon or one who isn't. It is the same with whether one is a Democrat or Republican or some other party on whether one's political views jives with what is written.....

[John Ping Pong]

Do you have a gift for knowing what I have or haven't done? Such liberal assumptions seem to be much of what you base your viewpoints on.

No ******footing, jwhitlock.

Have you read the book or haven't you?

Straight up, man!

(Edited to Add: Perhaps "feline" footing would have passed software muster.)

Edited June 23, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[Bill Hamblin]

I've read the book. Robinson's review is spot on. And he was absolutely right about the dishonest mask that some apostates try to wear. That happens. It happens all the time. If it is accurate that they are being dishonest, it is legitimate academic discourse to say their dishonest. Like that silly woman running for senate who claimed she was a Cherokee Indian. It's not ad hominem to say she's being dishonest. It's the truth.

[wenglund]

I would guess that most of your qualified respondants are banned from this site.

...and this in spite of their stellar behavior and their reticense to engage in ad hominemes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Ping Pong]

I've read the book. Robinson's review is spot on. And he was absolutely right about the dishonest mask that some apostates try to wear.

I understand you agree with Robinson's review of the book, and that you apparently agree with his characterization of its authors.

But does your agreement or disagreement have anything to do with the issue of whether Robinson's quoted remarks are ad hominem in nature?

P.S. I am still waiting for jwhitlock to answer the question.

[jwhitlock]

I've read the book. Robinson's review is spot on. And he was absolutely right about the dishonest mask that some apostates try to wear. That happens. It happens all the time. If it is accurate that they are being dishonest, it is legitimate academic discourse to say their dishonest. Like that silly woman running for senate who claimed she was a Cherokee Indian. It's not ad hominem to say she's being dishonest. It's the truth.

There's some pretty subtle redefinition that goes on in the book. The redefinition of what prophetic foreknowledge is really all about (Hutchinson, chapter 3) is very reasonable sounding, for instance. However, one comes away with the vague impression that prophetic claims are probably not really trustworthy.

Dishonesty doesn't have to be blatant. It just needs to give an impression that's not particularly accurate. Robinson's review was correct.

[Analytics]

I've read the book. Robinson's review is spot on. And he was absolutely right about the dishonest mask that some apostates try to wear. That happens. It happens all the time. If it is accurate that they are being dishonest, it is legitimate academic discourse to say their dishonest. Like that silly woman running for senate who claimed she was a Cherokee Indian. It's not ad hominem to say she's being dishonest. It's the truth.

Most of the people who wrote those essays were in fact members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You agree with Robinson that it is dishonest for the book to refer to them as Mormons? Do you think the Church itself is being dishonest when it refers to them as Mormons?

I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. But this review was designed to discredit the book without addressing or even divulging the arguments that it makes. Great apologetics? I guess. Academic in nature? Give me a break.

[Bill Hamblin]

Most of the people who wrote those essays were in fact members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You agree with Robinson that it is dishonest for the book to refer to them as Mormons? Do you think the Church itself is being dishonest when it refers to them as Mormons?

I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. But this review was designed to discredit the book without addressing or even divulging the arguments that it makes. Great apologetics? I guess. Academic in nature? Give me a break.

There is a thing called MINO = Members in name only. Several of the authors had told me personally that they were atheists. This is not true for all of the authors, but many--enough. The claim that they were Mormons was a marketing pretense. It's like Dehlin. He's an atheist. His claim to be a Mormon in any meaningful sense of the word--other than MINO--is fundamentally dishonest. Isn't this obvious?

[Bill Hamblin]

I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. But this review was designed to discredit the book without addressing or even divulging the arguments that it makes. Great apologetics? I guess. Academic in nature? Give me a break.

An entire volume of the Review was dedicated to the arguments of the book, in excruciating detail. You obviously haven't read it, and don't have a clue about the reality of the matter. You are simply chanting the apostate party line. It addressed and divulged almost every argument made in the book, with numerous quotations and citations.

http://maxwellinstit...ew/?vol=6&num=1

Why are you spouting such preposterous nonsense?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[William Schryver]

An entire volume of the Review was dedicated to the arguments of the book, in excruciating detail. You obviously haven't read it, and don't have a clue about the reality of the matter. You are simply chanting the apostate party line. It addressed and divulged almost every argument made in the book, with numerous quotations and citations.

http://maxwellinstit...ew/?vol=6&num=1

Why are you spouting such preposterous nonsense?

The simple fact is that they want to redefine the meaning of ad hominem to signify any argument that is related to the person himself, even if those arguments are germane to the critique being made. But you can't talk sense into their heads about it. They won't hear you. They insist upon their fallacious definition of the term, and with it they can transform virtually any critique into an "ad hominem attack". Except, of course, the critiques they write, many of which are replete with bona fide ad hominem arguments.

Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver

[Jaynee Doe]

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.

Then MI should stop insisting it does not use ad hominem arguments. It does. Often.

[Aliwe]

There is a thing called MINO = Members in name only. Several of the authors had told me personally that they were atheists. This is not true for all of the authors, but many--enough. The claim that they were Mormons was a marketing pretense. It's like Dehlin. He's an atheist. His claim to be a Mormon in any meaningful sense of the word--other than MINO--is fundamentally dishonest. Isn't this obvious?

I have seen the same dynamic in other venues. One woman who calls herself "XCatholic" demonstrates such a total ignorance of the most basic doctrines of the Catholic Church that she had to get her education soley from Jack Chick tracts, yet she insists she was born and raised Catholic. This gives her a certain cachet she wouldn't have otherwise as she attacks that church. People will listen more intently to an "insider" who leaves a denomination, especially if dirty laundry and the tickling of ears is involved.

[treehugger]

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

William, you stated - and I have provided your exact words, and the link to your exact words, that you do not see "significant use of ad homenim and antagonistic rhetoric"; I responded that your statement is an admission of use but that you do not see the use as significant.

You have acknowledged ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric exist in both MI and FAIR.

You now claim a victory which is both hallow and deceitful.

(and before you respond with more "prove it" type statements, first prove that I have made the claim that ad hominem and/or antagonistic rhetoric exist in MI or FAIR writings. here is a starting point though, I only every responded to your statement of claiming no "significant use".)

[treehugger]

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".

And a dog has five legs if you call his tail a leg.

John Ping Pong, moving the goal post from "ad hominem" to "ad hominem logically fallcy" is par for the course. Regardless, go to my first post in this thread and read Williams own words wherein he acknowledges that he does not see "significant use" of specifically "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" (Note: that Williams own words are "ad hominem" and not "ad hominem logical fallacy")

William had ample oppurtunity to restate his position from the older post, I even used his words - in context - to create a thread. In that thread I made the claim that William is acknowledging use of "ad hominem", william responded to the thread, but he never then nor presently has stated that my explanation of his statement is incorrect; he had ample oppurtunity to correct my understanding of his statement, he did not correct my understanding of his statement; therefore, it must be concluded that he agreed and presently agree with my explanation of his statement.

[Kevin Christensen]

I've got and have read The Word of God as well as Robinson's review, and Midgely's in the same volume. Much later, I went back and provided a detailed response to Melody Charles. So far, I've not been cited an example of horrible ad hominem. Two things to note. In 23 volumes (40 separate publications, over 20 fifty authors), this is Robinson's only contribution to the Review. Why should critics attempt to generalize about the whole history of the Review from a single example from 1991? Ask any statistician about how easy it is to draw a line that accurately represents general trends based a single anomalous sample. And a curve would be more helpful anyway.

It's clear that for most of the authors (Kevin Barney being a clear exception, and John Widsoe having been recruited posthumously), the content of the articles casts the title of the book in an ironic light. Barney of course, has made some excellent contributions to the Review. Why not look to his articles as more representative?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 23, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Scott Lloyd]

From The Word of God, editor's introduction as quoted by Analytics:

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.

Not to nitpick, but was the editor aware that members of the RLDS Church, now the Community of Christ, do not call themselves Mormons?

Edited June 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

William, you stated - and I have provided your exact words, and the link to your exact words, that you do not see "significant use of ad homenim and antagonistic rhetoric"; I responded that your statement is an admission of use but that you do not see the use as significant.

A clever, if superficial, bit of verbal legerdemain. But strictly speaking, it is false.

If you don't know any politicians, then you also don't know any significant politicians. If you haven't overeaten, then you also haven't signficantly overeaten. Saying "I haven't seen any significant X" is a reasonable way of pre-empting some uber-pharisee trying to contradict you by producing some utterly insignificant and irrelevant instance of X.

There are those -- and I know this from personal experience -- who treat any unqualified statements (by LDS defenders) as assertions of mathematical precision. And they infest this very forum. If, in a discussion of the dealings of US Senators, I were to say "I don't know any politicians" and then it turned out that I was in fact slightly acquainted with Chigley O'Bunkum who once ran unsuccessfully for a seat on my local District Council, then that would enough for some around here to triumphantly proclaim that they've caught Pahoran in a lie.

Will's use of the qualifier simply protects him from that kind of hyper-critical abuse.

You now claim a victory which is both hallow and deceitful.

This is an accurate characterisation of your own claim.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

An entire volume of the Review was dedicated to the arguments of the book, in excruciating detail. You obviously haven't read it, and don't have a clue about the reality of the matter. You are simply chanting the apostate party line. It addressed and divulged almost every argument made in the book, with numerous quotations and citations.

http://maxwellinstit...ew/?vol=6&num=1

Why are you spouting such preposterous nonsense?

Because it's what he does.

I've interacted with Analytics for a long time. He has, or had, a website with "LDS4U" as part of its URL. Any unsuspecting person might expect it to be positive towards the Church, right? Well, they'd be wrong; it was a thoroughly anti-Mormon site from beginning to end.

And now, because the new management of the MI have put the kibosh on defending the Church, Analytics and his fellow-travellers are absolutely delighted. He, in particular, is revelling in his pious pose as one who "supports the leaders of the Church" in a view that he merely projects upon them from his own mind. In fact, what he'd really like to "support" them in would be the complete abandonment of the Church's unique truth claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

4 Pages. I have yet to see an example of ad hominem attack from MI.

I have seen posts where people are nit picking over significant or insignificant. But I have seen no posts that show such ad hominem.

Note: I am not even denying it exists. But if you make the accusation, you should be able to support it with at least a few quotes.

Incidentally, I use this dictionary definition for ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Notice that in either case the argument is one of avoiding the pertinent issue by use of misdirection.

I would like to see ONE instance of this from MI. Just one.