The Apostate Myth Of Mormon Apologetics

[cinepro]

None of the examples Cinepro provided are actually ad hominem in any sense of the word.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was broadening the scope of the conversation, and didn't intend my examples to apply to the discussion of "ad-hominems" specifically (hence, the term doesn't actually appear in any of my posts).

I could have started a new thread, but I figured there were already enough threads, and that everyone would figure out what I was talking about.

I guess I'll have to settle for being half right.

[Calm]

venomous

Fangs are sticking out again, Bill, you really should watch that.

[wenglund]

I think what some people may find aversive about the FARMS reviews is the plenitude of sarcasm and witticisms. This is understandable, and Dr. Peterson has said as much.

However, I believe this aversion may be a function of cultural differences rather than a lack of maturity or scholasticism on the part of the Reviews editor or contributors.

After all, as instructional and communication tools go, sarcasm and witticism can be some of the most salient, clear and unmistakable, and persuasive ways of making a scholarly point.

It is just that some people are more used to soft-peddling, and may prefer their argumentational coffee served with sugar and cream rather than straight up--particularly if the arguments are directed at them.

However, others, like myself, favor at times witnessing the deft paring and thrust of verbal swords, particular where the guts of an opponents arguments may be wrent asunder with the mere flick of the sardonic wrist.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Blowing Smoke. <chuckle> You are an angry venomous person, Bill. You can't see this in yourself, so why should I waste my time showing it in your colleagues' work? You can't see the obvious, as you've demonstrated in your reaction to Cinepro's examples. I'm satisfied with stating the obvious, and citing my own sense of the matter that I have obtained while reading reviews from FARMS/Neal A. Maxwell Institute over the past many years. That's my reference. Take it for what it's worth.

Speaking of tone and so-called ad hominem responses and not seeing things for oneself....here we have a reasonable CFR responded to with deflective name-calling and character assassinations. We couldn't have asked for a better object lesson. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

Fangs are sticking out again, Bill, you really should watch that.

My fangs are vampiric, not serpentine. Sorry to disappoint.

[treehugger]

There's the rub. Sometimes vs. regularly.

Mike, you lost the argument the moment you replied. And here is why. Even if you believe it exists, you are under no obligation to admit such nor demonstrate it.

William Schyver, has already acknowledged it exists. He has not challenged this caricature of his statement. He, for all intents and purposes, agree with the caricature of his month old no "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric". In fact he did not even challenge the caricature of his statement when there was a thread created specifically using his statement and my caricature of it.

So, by chimming in, you have taken the burden of proof from William and claimed it as your own responsibility.

Tell you what - the last issue on the website is Vol. 23 No. 1. You can find it here:

http://maxwellinstit...w/?vol=23&num=1

it contains 3 pieces authored or co-authored by Lou Midgley, one by Greg Smith (author of the now widely speculated about piece on Dehlin), and one by Dan Peterson - the current ring leaders of all that is evil with NAMI. Why don't you show us how this issue is such a wonderful example of the sort of thing you suggest occurs regularly in the Review?

Maybe both issues from Volume 22?

Let's stop simply taking what might be viewed as the worst of the worst and claiming that it is wholly representative of the entire publication.

Ben M.

Ben, please see the first page of this thread and follow the links to Williams previous statement concerning his perception of the use of ad hominem and antagonistoc rhetoric in MI and FAIR.

[juliann]

Blowing Smoke. <chuckle> You are an angry venomous person, Bill.

Hi Mike, I have to admit this is what makes trying to come to grips with the objections so extraodinarily difficult. We now, on one page, have two examples of rather disturbing invective from those who lecture on "tone".

Can you really not see how puzzling this is to most of us? How is anyone to improve tone when this occurs?

[Bill Hamblin]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was broadening the scope of the conversation, and didn't intend my examples to apply to the discussion of "ad-hominems" specifically (hence, the term doesn't actually appear in any of my posts).

I could have started a new thread, but I figured there were already enough threads, and that everyone would figure out what I was talking about.

I guess I'll have to settle for being half right.

That's interesting. So you are saying you agree with us that claims that FARMS publications are nothing but relentless ad hominem are, in fact, grossly exaggerated (at best).

[wenglund]

Mike, you lost the argument the moment you replied. And here is why. Even if you believe it exists, you are under no obligation to admit such nor demonstrate it.

William Schyver, has already acknowledged it exists.

You keep repeating this non-sequitur even though is was logically corrected earlier in this thread.

He has not challenged this caricature of his statement. He, for all intents and purposes, agree with the caricature of his month old no "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric". In fact he did not even challenge the caricature of his statement when there was a thread created specifically using his statement and my caricature of it.

Now you are adding the fallacy of arguing from silence to your repeated non-sequitur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

You are an angry venomous person, Bill.

Isn't it funny that the people who accuse FARMS of ad hominem, are, in fact the ones that actually engage in relentless ad hominem.

The real cosmic irony is the apostate insistence that FARMS publications are not worthy of consideration as scholarship because of (supposed) widespread ad hominem, are, by making this claim, in fact engaging in the classic ad hominem. Truly bizarre.

[Calm]

My fangs are vampiric, not serpentine. Sorry to disappoint.

I knew there was some reason I thought vampires were wimpy.

Please tell me you don't sparkle at least. I don't think I've ever seen you in sunlight.....except as a kid and you probably weren't turned at that time.

Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

I knew there was some reason I thought vampires were wimpy.

Please tell me you don't sparkle at least. I don't think I've ever seen you in sunlight.....except as a kid and you probably weren't turned at that time.

Eeuuuwwwww. How could you think such a thing!? My avatar is Vincent, not Edward.

[jmason]

No doubt the day will come when there will be a "separation among the people" (D&C 1?), but until that day I for one prefer a more ecumenical, academic approach at the MI. Most readers of the Mormon Review and other Maxwell Institute publications are intelligent enough to decide for themselves who are the Korihors with printing presses and who are the wolves in sheep's clothing--if they are inclined to make judgements like that. It is my opinion that such judgements--when made by book reviewers, apologists, etc.--are rarely helpful, and can drive a wedge between good people whose only difference may be their level of belief and understanding, a wedge which can then force one to take sides prematurely...or at least one's decision may be premature. It is my understanding that, scripturally speaking, the tares are to be allowed to grow among the wheat until the harvest is ready (i.e., the day when there will be "a separation among the people"), when both tares and wheat are mature, and then the Lord of the harvest will do his work, separating the two.

Disclaimer: I am not an academic, rather I am a businessman, and as such may not understand some of the finer points in this whole debate; in fact I will frankly admit that much of it has been over my head, for example the debate about what does and does not constitue ad hominem attacks. So in other words, all of this above is just my uneducated opinion. I will also state that I only started reading material from the Mormon Review when I heard about the change in the guard and this debate grew up around it....

[Mike Reed]

Greg Smith's wasn't a book review, and I would expect Smith to be on better behavior (less venomous), considering the transition that was underway with the new name of the volume being the Mormon Studies Review; but even still we read the following:

"A hostile Babylon had, as one might expect, little use for a Palmyra prophet." Comparing M4M and others opposing the Church's involvement with Prop 8 to Babylon.

"But as I read what Compton and her fellow contributors wrote, I found it increasingly hard to regard this 'rule' as anything more than a fig leaf to draw in the unwary, or as a sop to any conscience that might be unnerved by an attack on the church or its leaders."

"After the smoke-screen claim that M4M will not tolerate personal attacks or criticism of the church and its leaders..."

"(despite the dreadful effort of D. Michael Quinn to argue otherwise in Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example)...."

Dan Peterson's remark in the Editor's Introduction:

"The reference in the title is to the notorious anti-Mormon mountebank, charlatan, and demagogue Ed Decker, best known for his once-popular, sensationalizing, anti-Mormon pseudodocumentary The God Makers."

But again... changes were already underway within the Maxwell institute, and it is therefore understandable that the tone would be more profession. Contrary what has been the case years before, the review of this volume was not primarily concerned with reviewing the work of skeptics. We also had several contributors in this volume, including Hauglid, Gardener, and Grow who have reputations for being professional and balanced. Even still... Dan Peterson could not prevent needless jabs above from going to print. Neither could he refrain from publishing the following:

One of my own personal favorite reviews was published in the third issue of the Review. Loftes Tryk's The Best Kept Secrets in the Book of Mormon was (unintentionally, I think) among the funniest books I had ever read, and I absolutely loved reviewing it. Any critic of the church who argues, in print, that the initials LDS reveal the true origin of Mormonism because they stand for "Lucifer Devil Satan" is definitely going to have my attention:

Last year, in this

Review

, I examined Peter Bartley's polemic against the Book of Mormon, and termed it "rather worthless." I had not yet read Loftes Tryk's

The Best Kept Secrets in the Book of Mormon

, which is incomparably worse. For all his many, many flaws, Peter Bartley now seems to me by contrast the Shakespeare, the Michelangelo, the Aristotle, the Einstein of anti-Mormonism. If Bartley's book is no Rolls Royce—if, indeed, it more closely resembles an engineless Studebaker sitting on grass-covered blocks behind a dilapidated barn—it is nonetheless infinitely more sober and respectable than Loftes Tryk's literally incredible volume, a gaudily painted Volkswagen disgorging dozens of costumed clowns to the zany music of a circus calliope.

This issue also featured one of the most memorable opening lines we've ever published, when Stephen Robinson began his review of a revisionist volume from Signature Books with "Korihor's back, and this time he's got a printing press." One of our finest essay titles would come in volume 5 (1993): "Playing with Half a Decker," Louis Midgley's review of Dean Maurice Helland's doctoral dissertation.

[William Schryver]

Blowing Smoke. <chuckle> You are an angry venomous person, Bill. You can't see this in yourself, so why should I waste my time showing it in your colleagues' work? You can't see the obvious, as you've demonstrated in your reaction to Cinepro's examples. I'm satisfied with stating the obvious, and citing my own sense of the matter that I have obtained while reading reviews from FARMS/Neal A. Maxwell Institute over the past many years. That's my reference. Take it for what it's worth.

I've frequently noted the fact that the irony-chip is the first thing to malfunction when former believers exit the chapel doors.*

* = Figuratively speaking, of course. There are many "former believers" who continue to give the impression of church activity in order to enhance the effectiveness of their "fifth-columnist" agenda.

[cinepro]

Let's look at your tonish vocabulary. "Invective filled hatchet job". What are we meant to do with that? What real information does it give us?

Let's look at the vocabulary you dismiss as a invective flled hatchet job (as best I can surmise and I do have to admit it is a highly speculative task)

Apart from your other points, I will note that the "invective filled hatchet job" comment was a joke because the review was written by Bob Crockett, who posts here.

But I still stand by my points about "tone", even on the Bagley reviews.

Edited June 26, 2012 by cinepro

[Nevo]

I have to admit that Dr. Peterson's review of Loftes Tryk's opus is one of my all-time favorite Review pieces. I used to read this one out loud to friends. End of an era I guess.

[William Schryver]

William Schyver, has already acknowledged it exists. He has not challenged this caricature of his statement. He, for all intents and purposes, agree with the caricature of his month old no "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric". In fact he did not even challenge the caricature of his statement when there was a thread created specifically using his statement and my caricature of it.

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said by transforming it into a caricature.

I clearly understand the difference between polemics and ad hominem, even if you clearly do not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said by transforming it into a caricature.

I clearly understand the difference between polemics and ad hominem, even if you clearly do not.

Here here.

[Mike Reed]

Moderators banned me from the thread... interesting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Moderators banned me from the thread... interesting.

Huh, they did?

[treehugger]

treehugger, on 26 June 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

William Schyver, has already acknowledged it exists. He has not challenged this caricature of his statement. He, for all intents and purposes, agree with the caricature of his month old no "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric". In fact he did not even challenge the caricature of his statement when there was a thread created specifically using his statement and my caricature of it.

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said by transforming it into a caricature.

I clearly understand the difference between polemics and ad hominem, even if you clearly do not.

why are you bringing up polemics?

The original statement you posted over a month ago was about not seeing "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric", what does polemics have to do with this statement from a month ago?

Are you now claiming that what you meant was that you have seen no use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetorc" in MI or FAIR?

What does polemics have to do with my assertion that your OP herein, disagrees with the statement in made in another thread. I am just trying to understand why you are all the sudden claiming polemics.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[Senator]

So, is to be understood from all this and other threads, that:

Ad hominem apologetics = Bad = We don't do that

But

Polemical apologetics = Good = We do do that ??

[John Ping Pong]

I clearly understand the difference between polemics and ad hominem, even if you clearly do not.

Clearly.

Polemics is what we do.

Ad hominem is what the other guys do.

Edited to Add: Great minds apparently think alike, Senator.

Edited June 26, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No its more like: apologetics = bad. When a Mormon does it.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram