NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Spurven Ten Sing
_Emeritus
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:01 am

NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _Spurven Ten Sing »

Over at MAD, the folks are commenting on Rob Bowman's website, IRR:
If it happens that IRR's research and publications in opposition to the LDS faith earn a living for its principals, meaning that if they changed their minds and decided that the LDS church wasn't the church of the devil after all they would lose their livelihood, then there is a clear conflict of interest, and grounds for distrust of their conclusions.


Doesn't this also call into suspicion NAMIRS and FAIR, Mr. Stargazer? Hmmm???

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/556 ... 1209046264
"The best website in prehistory." -Paid Actor www.cavemandiaries.com
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _Buffalo »

That argument, if true, really hits the LDS general authorities the hardest.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_LDS truthseeker
_Emeritus
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _LDS truthseeker »

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Over at MAD, the folks are commenting on Rob Bowman's website, IRR:
If it happens that IRR's research and publications in opposition to the LDS faith earn a living for its principals, meaning that if they changed their minds and decided that the LDS church wasn't the church of the devil after all they would lose their livelihood, then there is a clear conflict of interest, and grounds for distrust of their conclusions.


Doesn't this also call into suspicion NAMIRS and FAIR, Mr. Stargazer? Hmmm???

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/556 ... 1209046264



And what about all the hundreds of exmo sites that don't make a dime for spreading the truth about the LDS church? Almost all of those people actually pay money to spread the information, not profit by it.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _sock puppet »

MrStakhanovite wrote:While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.

Stak,

What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics? As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _stemelbow »

MrStakhanovite wrote:While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.


I agree with the OP and I agree with this. for years I posted over at Apologetics dot com where Rob was a frequent poster too, so I feel I know him a little. I don't get what all the fuss is about over at MDD when people complain about him. He does fairly well.

It reminds me of this place and me (just kidding).
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

sock puppet wrote:What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics?


I think it’s a non-issue.

Whatever a person’s motivation is behind their work or arguments, those things will be evaluated on merits other than someone’s motivation. Just because someone adores the Church or hates it, still does on invalidate any of the work they do, though Crocket wishes otherwise.

sock puppet wrote:As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.


That might appeal to some people, perhaps those who are bitter or jaded towards a professional clergy, but I’ve come to appreciate the benefits of a solid seminary education, not to mention, training in public speaking.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.

Post by _sock puppet »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
sock puppet wrote:What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics?


I think it’s a non-issue.

Whatever a person’s motivation is behind their work or arguments, those things will be evaluated on merits other than someone’s motivation. Just because someone adores the Church or hates it, still does on invalidate any of the work they do, though Crocket wishes otherwise.

sock puppet wrote:As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.


That might appeal to some people, perhaps those who are bitter or jaded towards a professional clergy, but I’ve come to appreciate the benefits of a solid seminary education, not to mention, training in public speaking.

Thanks. It does seem that what Mormons get from the Sunday pulpit is rather pedestrian compared to what other Christians receive. I guess you get what you pay for--or don't.
Post Reply