Ed Decker == Mormon apologist?

[cdowis]

Shocking!  Ran across a video of a debate between Walter Martin and Ed Decker where he was defending Mormonism.
"Walter Martin vs. Ed Decker Dialogue on the Doorstep with a Mormon"

Ed Decker was an apologist?

Edited November 2, 2017 by cdowis

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Shocking!  Ran across a video of a debate between Walter Martin and Ed Decker where he was defending Mormonism.

Ed Decker was an apologist?

Decker joined the Church in 1956 when he was about 21, and was excommunicated in 1976.  So unless the video debate took place between 1956 and 1976, I would say he was not an apologist for the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Shocking!  Ran across a video of a debate between Walter Martin and Ed Decker where he was defending Mormonism.
"Walter Martin vs. Ed Decker Dialogue on the Doorstep with a Mormon"

Ed Decker was an apologist?

Decker was likely engaged in role play so that Martin could demonstrate how to “properly” engage with a Latter-Day Saint.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Decker was likely engaged in role play so that Martin could demonstrate how to “properly” engage with a Latter-Day Saint.

You'd think with that kind of set up they could have done a better job

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

Shocking!  Ran across a video of a debate between Walter Martin and Ed Decker where he was defending Mormonism.
"Walter Martin vs. Ed Decker Dialogue on the Doorstep with a Mormon"

Ed Decker was an apologist?

Whether Decker was an apologist or not may be controversial, but we do know of instances in which people on this board were once apologists and then later became harsh critics.  Examples I can think of include Brent Metcalfe, Kevin Graham, and Kerry Shirts.  You can probably think of others. 

[amo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whether Decker was an apologist or not may be controversial, but we do know of instances in which people on this board were once apologists and then later became harsh critics.  Examples I can think of include Brent Metcalfe, Kevin Graham, and Kerry Shirts.  You can probably think of others. 

"Kerry Shirts", the "backyard professor"... ?  Really ?

Edited November 3, 2017 by amo

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, amo said:

"Kerry Shirts", the "backyard professor"... ?  Really ?

Here's the book that seems to have done him in, as described in his review:

Deconstructing Mormonism

Quote

Now for a confession. I am singularly *unprepared* to deal with this. What?! An apologist for almost 2 decades ***unprepared***? Having tackled innumerable anti-Mormon and idiotic pro-Mormon (you simply have no idea how indubitably silly some conservative Mormon apologetics is, I mean you just have NO IDEA!) thinking for years, reading literally hundreds of books of all kinds and types to broaden my education and ability to discuss intelligently the reasons Mormonism is viable? Am I serious? Unfortunately, yes, I am. Here are a few reasons why I feel completely inadequate to the task of taking on Riskas. I, as a Mormon (and the serious VAST majority of all the rest of you Christian in the Western World have had this problem as well, don't you even pretend you don't), have been told what to think my entire life. I came to recognize this a few years ago actually, and have actually gotten a rather horrid taste in my mouth for apologetics. We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told. Thomas Riskas has shown me the cost now of being raised and kept in abject ignorance of HOW TO THINK through theology ALL THE WAY TO THE LOGICAL, EVIDENTIAL END. This is ***critical*** to grasp. We always (we - meaning we Mormons and ALL the rest of you Christians, whether you admit it or not) stop at the faith-promoting points whether in scripture, or listening to inspired leaders (who also always make sure whatever is taught and said ends up building testimony, not analyzing viable contrasts), or reading church related literature. The simple Sally, ****, and Jane mentality that has been spoon fed to us for decades has now come home to roost with some very powerful evidence that our faith is simply not prepared for *real* thinking, *real* knowledge, and *real* problems of DOUBT, that dastardly devilish doubt, that we all have, we all are taught to fear and think is of Satan, and that we all ignore, entirely to our perils, either sooner or later. Because we have been conditioned to simply have faith and believe, have faith and believe, have faith and believe, the sledge hammer of logic and doubt is now shattering the glass of faith.

 

His blog for the last few years is here:

 

https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/

 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Here's the book that seems to have done him in, as described in his review:

Deconstructing Mormonism

 

His blog for the last few years is here:

 

https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/

 

 

I remember one of his last videos that was shared on this board (a long time ago) where he just kind of lost it, was angry, swearing, etc.  His enlightenment was showcased in anger and name calling.  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Here's the book that seems to have done him in, as described in his review:

Deconstructing Mormonism

 

His blog for the last few years is here:

 

https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/

 

 

Here's a review of "Deconstructing Mormonism": http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a review of "Deconstructing Mormonism": http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow.  That's the book that did him in?  I figured that it would be more subtle and unbiased.  It seems really weird that someone with a testimony of the gospel would be influenced by a book who's author declares right from the beginning that religious belief is an "affront to man’s rationality and intellect."

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's the book that did him in?  I figured that it would be more subtle and unbiased.  It seems really weird that someone with a testimony of the gospel would be influenced by a book who's author declares right from the beginning that religious belief is an "affront to man’s rationality and intellect."

Having spent the last 20 years reading all sorts of stuff about LDS history and doctrines, and having been arguing with critics and opponents for those same 20 years, and having been spent the last 16 years getting training and experience in legal theories / doctrines / arguments, I am coming to the conclusion that any of us can talk/write his way into and out of . . . accepting pretty much anything.  Or rejecting pretty much anything.

I think what keeps us grounded is . . . faith and the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Having spent the last 20 years reading all sorts of stuff about LDS history and doctrines, and having been arguing with critics and opponents for those same 20 years, and having been spent the last 16 years getting training and experience in legal theories / doctrines / arguments, I am coming to the conclusion that any of us can talk/write his way into and out of . . . accepting pretty much anything.  Or rejecting pretty much anything.

I think what keeps us grounded is . . . faith and the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

I actually agree.  But in my experience, people with a testimony don't take books that start out with "religion isn't rational" all that seriously.  They do sometimes eventually take them seriously, but I've just never seen anyone make the leap from "I know the church is true" to "religion is irrational" in one (obvious from the outset anti mormon) book.  

Maybe my experience has been flawed though.

[cinepro]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I actually agree.  But in my experience, people with a testimony don't take books that start out with "religion isn't rational" all that seriously.  They do sometimes eventually take them seriously, but I've just never seen anyone make the leap from "I know the church is true" to "religion is irrational" in one (obvious from the outset anti mormon) book.  

Maybe my experience has been flawed though.

Well to be fair, I would hardly say that growth in religions around the world comes from people who are "rational and intellectual". 

I suspect the vast majority of religious people join as children, and for the adults that join, they're either not inclined towards being "rational and intellectual" as a rule (i.e. they already accept irrational premises as a prerequisite to their investigation), or they are but they make their choice based on reasons that don't focus on being rational or intellectual.

Certainly everything I've ever seen as a member and missionary in the LDS Church would bear that out.  It may be a minuscule bit of anecdotal evidence, but larger trends would also seem to support that.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well to be fair, I would hardly say that growth in religions around the world comes from people who are "rational and intellectual". 

I agree.  Faith is more a matter of the heart.  But for many Mormons, staying with their faith requires a grounding in faith and the Spirit and "rational and intellectual" reasoning.

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I suspect the vast majority of religious people join as children, and for the adults that join, they're either not inclined towards being "rational and intellectual" as a rule (i.e. they already accept irrational premises as a prerequisite to their investigation), or they are but they make their choice based on reasons that don't focus on being rational or intellectual.

To the extent "rational and intellectual" argument supplants faith and the Spirit, I quite agree.  But if taken together . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well to be fair, I would hardly say that growth in religions around the world comes from people who are "rational and intellectual". 

I suspect the vast majority of religious people join as children, and for the adults that join, they're either not inclined towards being "rational and intellectual" as a rule (i.e. they already accept irrational premises as a prerequisite to their investigation), or they are but they make their choice based on reasons that don't focus on being rational or intellectual.

Certainly everything I've ever seen as a member and missionary in the LDS Church would bear that out.  It may be a minuscule bit of anecdotal evidence, but larger trends would also seem to support that.

You don't believe it's reasonable to believe in God and also don't believe that most members are inclined to being reasonable either?  Is that what you are saying?  I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. 

[cdowis]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Having spent the last 20 years reading all sorts of stuff about LDS history and doctrines, and having been arguing with critics and opponents for those same 20 years, and having been spent the last 16 years getting training and experience in legal theories / doctrines / arguments, I am coming to the conclusion that any of us can talk/write his way into and out of . . . accepting pretty much anything.  Or rejecting pretty much anything.

 

You may find he opening dialogue of this video interesting.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by cdowis

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You don't believe it's reasonable to believe in God and also don't believe that most members are inclined to being reasonable either?  Is that what you are saying?  I'm not sure if i understand what you mean. 

I've never heard a theory about god (or gods) that could be considered fundamentally rational.  

If you are considering a claim for XYZ, and the person trying to convince you that XYZ is true says "Okay, the first thing I need you to do is firmly believe that XYZ is true", you're not dealing with a rational argument.

 

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I've never heard a theory about god (or gods) that could be considered fundamentally rational.  

If you are considering a claim for XYZ, and the person trying to convince you that XYZ is true says "Okay, the first thing I need you to do is firmly believe that XYZ is true", you're not dealing with a rational argument.

 

Korihor makes an attempt

Alma 30 [23]  And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

[24] Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

[25] Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

[26] And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world --

[27] And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

[28] Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God -- a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be.

[37] And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

[38] And he answered, Nay.

[43] And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

Edited November 3, 2017 by cdowis

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I've never heard a theory about god (or gods) that could be considered fundamentally rational.  

Rational:

Quote

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:

a rational plan for economic development.

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:

a calm and rational negotiator.

3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:

The patient appeared perfectly rational.

4. endowed with the faculty of reason:

rational beings.

5. of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers:

the rational faculty.

6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning:

a rational explanation.

I think belief in God is eminently "rational."

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If you are considering a claim for XYZ, and the person trying to convince you that XYZ is true says "Okay, the first thing I need you to do is firmly believe that XYZ is true", you're not dealing with a rational argument.

But Latter-day Saints don't interpose a "first thing ... is firmly believe..." requirement.  Alma 32 and a "seed of faith" and all that.

In legal parlance, there is something called "presumption of good faith" that applies in some contexts.  I think it can and should apply to a religious context.  It's just a presumption, after all.  And a rebuttable one.

If we can grant such a presumption to our fellow man as to their conduct, why not to God as to His existence?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I've never heard a theory about god (or gods) that could be considered fundamentally rational.  

 

 

Rational is just another word for reasonable though and a rational person is one who can think sensibly and clearly.  Are there really no reasonable arguments for the existence of God?

Quote

If you are considering a claim for XYZ, and the person trying to convince you that XYZ is true says "Okay, the first thing I need you to do is firmly believe that XYZ is true", you're not dealing with a rational argument.

I agree, but in my experience that's not how religion is usually presented (it's not how I presented in my mission).  

Whenever we would try to convince someone that God existed, for example, we told them what they would need to do to personally have experiences with Him and then we encouraged them to try those things and report back what happened.  What is unreasonable or irrational about that?

I've also never heard anyone say to an investigator "in order to know that church is true, you must first believe that the church is true."   

Edited November 3, 2017 by bluebell

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Rational:

I think belief in God is eminently "rational."

-Smac

I agree that if you believe in God, then it is eminently "rational."  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, amo said:

"Kerry Shirts", the "backyard professor"... ?  Really ?

Yup.  On this board.

[cinepro]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rational is just another word for reasonable though and a rational person is one who can think sensibly and clearly.  Are there really no reasonable arguments for the existence of God?

 

  I believe there are tons of reasonable arguments for different theories about god(s).  I also believe that there are tons of reasonable arguments against the different theories about god(s).  That's why the most thoroughly "rational" view would be agnosticism (or "not knowing").

 

Quote

I've also never heard anyone say to an investigator "in order to know that church is true, you must first believe that the church is true."   

 

How would you try and convince someone to accept the LDS theory of God and other LDS claims without them first needing to believe in the LDS theory of God and the other LDS claims?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

  I believe there are tons of reasonable arguments for different theories about god(s).  I also believe that there are tons of reasonable arguments against the different theories about god(s).  That's why the most thoroughly "rational" view would be agnosticism (or "not knowing").

I'm not sure that the existence of multiple options means the most rational option is to believe nothing.

Quote

How would you try and convince someone to accept the LDS theory of God and other LDS claims without them first needing to believe in the LDS theory of God and the other LDS claims?

The same way that I would try to convince someone that exercising builds muscle.  I'd give them the tools to experiment on what i said and then ask them to do so.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well to be fair, I would hardly say that growth in religions around the world comes from people who are "rational and intellectual". 

I suspect the vast majority of religious people join as children, and for the adults that join, they're either not inclined towards being "rational and intellectual" as a rule (i.e. they already accept irrational premises as a prerequisite to their investigation), or they are but they make their choice based on reasons that don't focus on being rational or intellectual.

Certainly everything I've ever seen as a member and missionary in the LDS Church would bear that out.  It may be a minuscule bit of anecdotal evidence, but larger trends would also seem to support that.

The problem with Riskas' Deconstructing Mormonism is that it is fundamentally flawed in its basic assumptions about what Mormonism is.  Not that a lot of them (perhaps most LDS members) actually understand the theological underpinnings of their own faith, but that those who do can immediately wonder how Riskas could get so much so wrong:  He argues that "Mormonism is not only a demonstrably irrational belief system at its core, but represents the worst in all theistic faiths as an authoritarian and 'revelation'-based system of mind-control."  "Mind control"?  Scientology maybe, but Mormonism?  Really?  Has he read Orwell's 1984?

Moreover, one has  only to read unbeliever Sterling McMurrin's books on the theological and philosophical foundations of Mormonism to realize that, far from being anti-natural (supernatural) and anti-humanist at base, Mormonism is actually quite sophisticated theologically, and is decidedly humanistic and naturalistic -- exactly what Riskas says that he prefers.  Too bad that he left it all behind without becoming familiar with it.