Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not to say that they aren't doing these things at all, some critical thought, but within the parameters of the group and the mission statement of FM.  They aren't going to take things down a critical path that goes contrary to those tight parameters.  They will improve arguments incrementally only within the tight constraints of the mission statement. 

Do you really think this is the same as unaffiliated objectivity?  

We have never claimed unaffiliated objectivity...and likely never will because most of us view it as a myth.  It is hardly such a extreme dichotomy.  That you phrase it so makes me wonder about how tight your own parameters are for "critical thought".

You keep saying things that indicate you are not aware of the processes that develop the FM products.  The constraints of the mission aren't that tight.  That you perceive them that way is a strong sign of your own bias, imo.

Now I need to go get some work done so probably will not be replying.

Feel free to make comments about our actual product, but you need to reevaluate what you think you know about the inner workings of FM.  If you are depending on DB, he has gotten somethings spectacularly wrong.

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:10 PM, Calm said:

I find it believable that he interpreted something someone said in that fashion, but anyone in leadership actually saying that is beyond my ability to believe.

Well I have since forgotten the wording Bill suggested, as being found in the letter.  I don't know that he quoted it either. 

As to your conclusion, sounds good.  Thanks for commenting.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Coming late to the party.  When I have listened to Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens talk, I think you have to define what it is that they are saying as far as a different narrative.  Without the definition, I am not sure that it is the same narrative that Bill Reel would espouse.

Interesting take.  What might the differences between the Bushman/Givens take and Bill's take be? 

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

 Bill Reel is really another complicated and sometimes confusing topic unto himself.  What I have thought that Bushman and Givens were saying, at least to me, is that more accurate and complete history needs to be added to the curriculum.  The curriculum is incomplete and sadly sometimes substandard.  I think the quote from Givens is that many of our manuals are just "awful."  I don't think he is trying to say that he disagrees with the big conclusions about the restored gospel in the manuals, just it could be a better presentation.  I think they would argue for the time we spend in class on Sundays and seminary be spent introducing things more openly.  An example would be teaching 11 year olds about seer stones and the possibility of translation being done through a seer stone with his head in a hate to exclude the light.  If it is somehow brought up after someone  is 19 or 20, sometimes they feel lied to.  I think the gospel topic essays and other manuals are making inroads into the goal that say is needed for a different narrative.

To be fair, probably like Bill, I don't think in either case I've assumed Bushman nor Givens just meant that things need to be added.  In some ways I figured they both meant overhauls need to be made.  Like erase and restart it.  Likely that take of mine is influenced by my own opinion as to how it should be.  Your take of most of it's good we just need things added here or there to make it more complete is probably pretty credible though. 

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

So, is that (Bushman) narrative the narrative that I believe should happen?  Yes, to some degree.  If I understand Bill Reel, the narrative that he is trying/implying is the one that he presents in his podcasts.  If his narrative isn`t adopted then the Church will fail.  I think his statement of including Bushman with his narrative is to make the assumption that he and Bushman have the same narrative and to add weight to his position.  This of course is my opinion, but I have read a bunch of Bushman and Givens works.  After all, I am readstoomuch.  

Yeah...I don't know.  I don't know that Bill envisions himself as being in accord with everything Bushman thinks.  I doubt he does.  But what I do gather is both he and Bushman think that some of the history taught to us is made up crap and needs to be corrected and drastically changed. 

[strappinglad]

In a legal trial, which side is assumed to have the ' objectivity ' status?

apologist - the gospel is truth, the Church is true, Joseph was a prophet

critic - the gospel is relative, the Church is false, Joseph was a fraud

Only one of these is objective, only one is biased. Present the arguments !

 

Perhaps there could be a color coded dot at the beginning of each persons article to indicate the level of objectivity espoused by the author . Would 3 colors do or do we need ROYGBIV ?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

We have never claimed unaffiliated objectivity...and likely never will because most of us view it as a myth.  It is hardly such a extreme dichotomy.  That you phrase it so makes me wonder about how tight your own parameters are for "critical thought".

You keep saying things that indicate you are not aware of the processes that develop the FM products.  The constraints of the mission aren't that tight.  That you perceive them that way is a strong sign of your own bias, imo.

Now I need to go get some work done so probably will not be replying.

Feel free to make comments about our actual product, but you need to reevaluate what you think you know about the inner workings of FM.  If you are depending on DB, he has gotten somethings spectacularly wrong.

Not relying on DB or on any one perspective and I'm not trying to paint FM in any extreme terms that I've heard others use.  My observation about them having tight parameters to work within is my perspective, and I think its spot on true.  But that being said, I haven't ruled out that those parameters are constantly evolving as is everything in this world including the church's paradigms on its history.  

I don't claim to know the inner-workings either, I have little to no insight on them, I do have insight on the output of FM, and based on the public output is where my primary observations are coming from.  The mission statement alone is proof of tight constraints. 

[juliann]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The new book on apologetics that Greg Kofford books published recently held a round table discussion with many of the authors, you might find the discussion interesting.

https://gregkofford.com/blogs/authorcast/authorcast-66-authorcast-round-table-discussion

I'm just having a discussion and sharing my opinions, thats the point of a message board isn't it?  Yes, many types of apologetics, I gave an example with JFS as it was a good example of someone hiding the complete picture or denying evidence that the person knows exists when confronted with a question about something that runs counter narrative.  This is something that happens to various degrees in apologetics arguments I've seen, including things that FairMormon produces.  

I'm sure as a participant in FM, you feel like their positions are always justified and are above board.  I guess its natural to come to the defense of the things we're vested in, so I can understand why you feel the way you do.  Doesn't make you objective though.  But I'm not interested in critiquing specific FM claims today, that wasn't the point of this thread.  

Eh, FM is a collection of people with different political and religious views. I strongly disagree with some of the members. However, you have no idea why I feel the way I do because you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "apologists." That you think any apologist would claim to be objective is laughable and that is just the beginning of your problems. 

I'm glad you liked the Roundtable, although it only had a few not many authors on it. I did find the comments about my chapter "interesting." 

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  

I don't claim to know the inner-workings either, I have little to no insight on them, I do have insight on the output of FM, and based on the public output is where my primary observations are coming from.  The mission statement alone is proof of tight constraints. 

So you think that supporting something you love is a "constraint."  If you paid attention to the Roundtable, you would have heard about apologetics being an act of devotion. But never mind that. What did you think of Mason and Hardy's talks last year? How tight were the constraints on them? How about Johnson or Ereksen this year? You have done a lot of judging but I have yet to see any support for it other than your own bias. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by juliann

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

Eh, FM is a collection of people with different political and religious views. I strongly disagree with some of the members. However, you have no idea why I feel the way I do because you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "apologists." That you think any apologist would claim to be objective is laughable and that is just the beginning of your problems. 

I'm glad you liked the Roundtable, although it only had a few not many authors on it. I did find the comments about my chapter "interesting." 

 

Wow, well, I guess you don't like my perspective or consider it worthy of consideration.  Different strokes for different folks.  I consider yours worthy of consideration, too bad you won't show me the same courtesy.  Makes having a thoughtful dialogue difficult, which ironically is part of the problem with some apologetics. 

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think that supporting something you love is a "constraint."  If you paid attention to the Roundtable, you would have heard about apologetics being an act of devotion. But never mind that. What did you think of Mason and Hardy's talks last year? How tight were the constraints on them? How about Johnson or Ereksen this year? You have done a lot of judging but I have yet to see any support for it other than your own bias. 

I'm a big fan of Mason and Hardy, and really appreciate them pushing the boundaries of traditional apologetic approaches and I applaud FM bringing these kinds of voices in, ones that have more inclusive and expansive views.  I haven't read any of the 2017 talks, but since you recommend Johnson and Ereksen, I'll make sure to check those out.

You seem to be the one judging the most here, maybe its the medium of the message texts, but I'm feeling like you're on the attack and that I'm just making observations in a very non threatening way and you're taking it personal.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, well, I guess you don't like my perspective or consider it worthy of consideration.  Different strokes for different folks.  I consider yours worthy of consideration, too bad you won't show me the same courtesy.  Makes having a thoughtful dialogue difficult, which ironically is part of the problem with some apologetics. 

Well, when you represent our motivations like the below, I am not really seeing that thoughtful of dialogue:

"As for FAIR, one thing that really helped me to understand their position was to understand their mission statement.  They will support the church, that is their mission statement.  Its not to pursue factual accuracy, or to show the messiness of complex history, their mission is to support the church's narrative as their leaders interpret the church's narrative, and that means even if they have to twist the historical information to do it, they will do it.  Just like some ex-Mormon sources that will always have a negative interpretation of history, FAIR will always have a positive interpretation.  Honest history is not the mission, apologetics is."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Well, when you represent our motivations like the below, I am not really seeing that thoughtful of dialogue:

"As for FAIR, one thing that really helped me to understand their position was to understand their mission statement.  They will support the church, that is their mission statement.  Its not to pursue factual accuracy, or to show the messiness of complex history, their mission is to support the church's narrative as their leaders interpret the church's narrative, and that means even if they have to twist the historical information to do it, they will do it.  Just like some ex-Mormon sources that will always have a negative interpretation of history, FAIR will always have a positive interpretation.  Honest history is not the mission, apologetics is."

I think it's thoughtful by openly admitting this happens on both sides of the polemical divide.  The OP called for discussion on this topic, I know there are passionate individuals on this message board with a personal connection to FAIR so that makes it tricky.  Perhaps I could have used better language, but I'm hoping my overall approach at evenhanded evaluation would come across.  

[Calm]

It didn't.

Implication is if it meets our mission, lying is acceptable.  Our history doesn't have to be honest, after all.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

It didn't.

Implication is if it meets our mission, lying is acceptable.  Our history doesn't have to be honest, after all.

I don't like using that term lying.  I earlier said hiding the evidence to various degrees or slanting the evidence towards a more favorable position.  Everybody knows this happens on both sides of arguments for religious, political and all kinds of topics.  I'm not uncovering some innovative new take on this.  It's pretty obvious this happens and I doubt anyone is surprised.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like using that term lying.  I earlier said hiding the evidence to various degrees or slanting the evidence towards a more favorable position.  Everybody knows this happens on both sides of arguments for religious, political and all kinds of topics.  I'm not uncovering some innovative new take on this.  It's pretty obvious this happens and I doubt anyone is surprised.  

Whether you like using it or not, if it means lying, it means lying.  You are specifically saying FairMormon does this, not that just some unnamed apologists.

Juliann and I proof and approve stuff the FM puts out as a group just like every other active FM member.  Therefore you are calling, whatever label you are using, Juliann and I liars.

That you think we should be tolerant of such a view amazes me.  Would you be if I called you a liar?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like using that term lying.  I earlier said hiding the evidence to various degrees or slanting the evidence towards a more favorable position.  Everybody knows this happens on both sides of arguments for religious, political and all kinds of topics.  I'm not uncovering some innovative new take on this.  It's pretty obvious this happens and I doubt anyone is surprised.  

I for one am surprised at the brazenness of your accusation with at least two of the FairMormon principals on this very thread. 

[Physics Guy]

On 8/18/2017 at 4:23 AM, juliann said:

[T]here are many shades of apologists. Can you give examples?

I'd rather not name names. For one thing, there are some apologists who sometimes annoy me by (as I see it) dumping details onto begged questions, but who also do other things that impress me a lot. On this particular issue I'd be attacking them, but in the bigger picture I don't really want to do that—and this board doesn't seem to me to be quite the academic kind of forum in which precise scope distinctions can be made to stick. For another thing, I don't actually know all that many Mormon apologists, so I can't claim to be making sound sociological analysis about everything that anyone has ever labelled "apologetics". I'm just talking about a pattern that has stood out for me, in my modest-sized sample.

I can give an example that is less tied to one person, because I read it a while ago and don't remember who wrote it. That means there's risk I'm misremembering the actual text, but for what it's worth, there was this article about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. It was a longish article that I had seen cited several times in blog comments as an irrefutably rigorous demonstration that BofM chiasmus was far too elaborate to have been written by anyone who wasn't an expert Hebrew poet. I got flak in comments for criticizing claims about chiasmus without having read this conclusive article on the subject.

So I finally dug up the cited article, and found that although it had a bunch of quantitative detail in it, it made no effort at all to assess the likelihood of false positives in its method. And that likelihood seemed pretty high to me, because the article showed several examples of chiasmus that were identified by highlighting isolated phrases that kind of fit the inverted structure, while skipping over other stuff that didn't. If you allow yourself to do that, you can find chiasmus everywhere, and how elaborate it is will be limited only by your ingenuity.

This methodological issue was a basic one that could be raised (and should have been raised) before getting into any details of word frequencies in particular passages. The apologist blithely ignored the issue, however, and their claims of rigor rested solely on the volume of technical detail that they had piled on top of unexamined premises about method. It verged on what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science", where crackpots go through some of the motions of scientific method while missing essentials, like the post-WW2 Pacific islanders who built bamboo radar dishes to try to lure back the cargo planes.

[Physics Guy]

22 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

An example would be teaching 11 year olds about seer stones and the possibility of translation being done through a seer stone with his head in a hat to exclude the light.  If it is somehow brought up after someone  is 19 or 20, sometimes they feel lied to. 

I've seen this particular point brought up many times as an example of the kind of thing that Mormon apologetics should address. To me it has also given examples of how apologetics can blithely overlook the elephant in the room.

Many of the discussions of seer stones proceed as if the difference between poring over ancient golden plates while wearing miraculous lenses, and staring at a rock in one's hat, were just a minor detail of the scenario, like the difference between preaching a sermon while wearing brown shoes or black. But of course Mormon twenty-year-olds are not feeling "lied to" because they'd always been told that Joseph preached in brown shoes, and now they find that he only wore black.

The problem is that poring over miraculous plates with miraculous lenses is absolutely miraculous, while staring into a hat is something any shyster could do. That doesn't prove that Smith wasn't a prophet. Perhaps seer stones and supernovae are much the same to the Almighty, so who's to say that revelation cannot come in a hat?

The fact remains that the rock-in-hat detail is incongruous in the Smith-as-prophet story. It can be made to fit, but only with some stretching, while it fits the alternative story, in which Smith is a charlatan, very well. If you were making a fictional film about a backwoods religious fraud, the rock-in-hat method of revelation is just the kind of iconic image you'd be glad to invent.

Apologetic responses which barely even seem to notice this aspect of hat-versus-plates, and go on as if gently reminding young Mormons that the content of the sermon is more important than the preacher's shoes, are examples of the kind of apologetics that undermines itself by betraying a disconnect.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Calm]

Quote

"The fact remains that the rock-in-hat detail is incongruous in the Smith-as-prophet story. It can be made to fit, but only with some stretching, while it fits the alternative story, in which Smith is a charlatan, very well. If you were making a fictional film about a backwoods religious fraud, the rock-in-hat method of revelation is just the kind of iconic image you'd be glad to invent."

Do you know this for a fact, that back in JS's day this would have been considered typical con man behaviour?  Or are you just guessing based on your own expectations?

It seems to me, though my knowledge of con men is limited to what I read in literature and see reported in the news these days thankfully, that a con where someone is trying to promote himself as being a prophet would have quite a bit more pomp and circumstance...but perhaps my speculation is too much colored by early days of watching The Wizard of Oz.

Or perhaps you are only talking to modern perception...if so, please clarify.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Calm

[Physics Guy]

I'm talking about modern-day perception. I think rock-in-hat strikes people today as hokey and dubious, while poring over golden plates would still be cool.

I can't say for certain how people felt about these things in the 1830's. But come on. Hats and rocks were commonplace things then, and inscribed golden plates weren't. Perhaps seer stones had a better popular image then than now, but golden plates and miraculous lenses would surely still have been the more impressive picture. 

Indeed, a fraud which was so expert and thorough that it controlled its PR right down to this level of detail would surely have found something cooler than the rock in the hat. A pious trance pose, for example, would have been easy to do, and effective. So the fact that Smith didn't do that is a sort of back-handed point in his favor. And the fact that the rock-in-hat story came out at all is surely a testimony to the sincerity of witnesses who believed in Smith enough to record even less flattering details, instead of prettying everything up.

I'm not saying that there is no effective apologetic response to the rock in the hat. I'm saying that apologists often fail to provide it, and what they do instead is likely to backfire. It's always better to take the bull elephant by the tusks, so to speak.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Calm]

Have you looked lately at the FM response to this topic?  I am curious whether you think we failed to provide it or took the bull elephant by the horns since we do address the con man claims of then and now and discuss how the facts reported at the time can be seen as a favorable conclusion as well as why someone in the here and now can feel the seer stones and hat issues might sound awkward, but do fit the narrative Joseph was telling of the translation, etc.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/"Rock_in_hat"_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation

[cdowis]

del

Edited August 19, 2017 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Whether you like using it or not, if it means lying, it means lying.  You are specifically saying FairMormon does this, not that just some unnamed apologists.

Juliann and I proof and approve stuff the FM puts out as a group just like every other active FM member.  Therefore you are calling, whatever label you are using, Juliann and I liars.

That you think we should be tolerant of such a view amazes me.  Would you be if I called you a liar?

The more I try to clearly explain things in fairness and nuance the more you are taking these things to the extreme.  When I say both sides do something to various degrees, which is not only obvious and reasonable, it isn't even controversial or eye opening.  You take those statements, try to twist them into polarizing claims.  

The irony of all this is that this is very good example of how polemical arguments work all the time.  In essence your tactics are a microcosm of the way both sides battle over religion.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I for one am surprised at the brazenness of your accusation with at least two of the FairMormon principals on this very thread. 

Here comes the cheer squad.  

[juliann]

10 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I'd rather not name names. For one thing, there are some apologists who sometimes annoy me by (as I see it) dumping details onto begged questions, but who also do other things that impress me a lot. On this particular issue I'd be attacking them, but in the bigger picture I don't really want to do that—and this board doesn't seem to me to be quite the academic kind of forum in which precise scope distinctions can be made to stick. For another thing, I don't actually know all that many Mormon apologists, so I can't claim to be making sound sociological analysis about everything that anyone has ever labelled "apologetics". I'm just talking about a pattern that has stood out for me, in my modest-sized sample.

 

I don't mean name names in any other sense than authors would be named in any other situation. That is simply standard procedure when taking on another's position. It should never be seen as an attack because it should be the position that is disputed, not the person. (Boyce's mistake, aside from a poor analysis)  was that he did attack the person.)  I appreciate your willingness to give examples. That is the only way that a discussion rather than an attack can proceed.

I agree that the head in the hat looks goofy to modern eyes. I think it was Ereksen (at the conference) who explained it as a means of concentration....JS had already used the seer stone for that. I think the larger point is that he did not use one means...or any means...a good amount of time. I think that has gotten lost because of the art that has been substituted for the reality.

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The more I try to clearly explain things in fairness and nuance the more you are taking these things to the extreme.

  

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Here comes the cheer squad.  

   double standards will hurt you every time.

Edited August 19, 2017 by juliann