Blake Ostler wrote: mormonbrit — I think if a faith is based on a balance of probabilities it really ain’t faith at all — it’s just weighing evidence. However, I agree with you that the role of FARMS is that of defense lawyer. However I see that role much differently.
I’m a lawyer. I know that I cannot change anyone’s prior base beliefs and prejudices — I can just work with them to get a favorable verdict. So I work with whatever prejudices the jurors have already. I hire jury consultants to know all about my jury panel so that I can do that effectively.
I also know that my job in a trial is not to give an exposition of the law. It is to convince the jury. I will use whatever is available, arguments, evidence, sympathy for my client, appeals to commonly held values and belief and so forth.
If one is already member of the church, then it is the other side (the prosecution) that has the burden proof. If I have a testimony, then the opponents must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my faith is not justified. So I could do just defensive arguments to show the holes in reasoning and create doubt about my opponents charges against the Church. I can show that the witnesses who have stated claims against my client have a bad reputation and done disreputable things and so shouldn’t be believed. I don’t have to have absolute proof, just plausible reason why the church could be true.
If I am a missionary introducing someone to the gospel, the standard of proof is higher. But I have a smoking gun for persuasion — the Holy Ghost. I know that what really matters is a change of heart and not merely a change of mind. However, I also know that the experience of the Holy Ghost can become a faded memory for some. My job is to remind them of their experiences with spirit, see if I can open them to re-experience it — and that sometimes requires showing that what is claimed is possibly true. Those who leave because they adopt a different value system and reject the Church because it requires them to sacrifice something cannot be reached by these methods.
Here is what I see happening at FARMS in light of this analogy. Bradford has decided that rather than conducting the trial, the proper role for FARMS to become a law school. Instead of employing means of persuasion in response to attacks on the Church, he wants to teach about the law. Now there is nothing wrong with a law school (except they are ineffective and mere hoop-jumping exercises). However, the purpose of FARMS was to go into trial and exonerate the client from charges of being guilty of not being possibly true — or being a bad influence on society and the like. As I see it, that is just misunderstanding what needs to be done.
This defense lawyer metaphor is such BS. You don't get to make up the law and manufacture evidence when you're a defense lawyer. And the presumption of innocence is based on the overall constitutional idea of individual liberty: that criminal prosecution should be slanted in favor of a defendant's rights instead of government power. The presumption that the Church is true!!! in his reasoning is confirmation bias, not some grand principle analogous to being innocent until proven guilty.
What Blake Ostler really means is that Mopologists have the role of Underpants Gnomes:
Bob Loblaw wrote:From one Bob to another: Which FARMS are you talking about? Not the one I know. The one I know published hit pieces, faked photos showing "two inks" on the KEP, and otherwise scrounged around for any possible parallels. And nowhere were they "exploring the nature of the Book of Mormon," as they were always working towards predetermined conclusions. Where I come from, that's called pseudoscience, not scholarship.
In this case, it's neither pseudoscience nor scholarship. It's really LDS apologetics.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Kishkumen wrote:What a poorly written, train wreck of an attempt to write a sentence. I stopped reading at that point. If what he has to say is important for others to read, then he can give his composition the effort to achieve clarity that the topic demands.
It was almost Droopyesque in its opacity.
The opening sentence was a bit difficult, but the body of the text is quite lucid and well argued. Of course, at 7th to 8th levels of reading comprehension and thought formation, someone like myself or Ostler are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to make ourselves understood on subjects of inherent complexity and nuance.
I also think you just don't like what he said.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Blake is no Droopy. He has published numerous books and articles on philosophy and Mormon theology. I will admit that I haven't read them all since I long ago lost any real interest in philosophy (and because I decided that "Mormon theology" doesn't really exist . . . but I digress). I was frankly surprised to see him chime in here and advocate for DCP attack-dog style apologetics (or, in his words, a defense lawyer). I was also surprised and disheartened to see Rosalynde Welch's poorly written attack on Mormon Stories.
1. One does not have to publish anything to be a serious thinker.
2. The "attack-dog" meme among the Mormocks is a self serving myth that apostate critics hope, once repeated enough times, will simply become true through the power of sheer monotony. I've yet to see an example presented.
3. I will be publishing something in the future at some point - and none of the Mormocks will like what it has to say one little bit.
I promise.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
2. I will be publishing something in the future at some point ...
I promise.
Droopy has been a Schryver sock puppet ALL ALONG?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Blake is no Droopy. He has published numerous books and articles on philosophy and Mormon theology. I will admit that I haven't read them all since I long ago lost any real interest in philosophy (and because I decided that "Mormon theology" doesn't really exist . . . but I digress). I was frankly surprised to see him chime in here and advocate for DCP attack-dog style apologetics (or, in his words, a defense lawyer). I was also surprised and disheartened to see Rosalynde Welch's poorly written attack on Mormon Stories.
1. One does not have to publish anything to be a serious thinker.
2. The "attack-dog" meme among the Mormocks is a self serving myth that apostate critics hope, once repeated enough times, will simply become true through the power of sheer monotony. I've yet to see an example presented.
3. I will be publishing something in the future at some point - and none of the Mormocks will like what it has to say one little bit.
I promise.
Well, Socrates never published anything so I guess that's technically true. You, however, seem to be more interested in gratifying your ego and scoring debate points rather than engaging in any "serious" thought.
I personally think Dan likes the attack-dog meme. He and others relish being seen as zealous defenders of the faith. You can't seriously believe there is no difference in style and approach between DCP/Hamblin/Midgley and, to take one example, Terryl Givens?
And you can call me whatever names you want brother but I will not respond in kind.
Droopy wrote:The opening sentence was a bit difficult, but the body of the text is quite lucid and well argued.
Which is why I said it was almost Droopyesque. To be fully Droopyesque, it would have to be as poorly written throughout as that first sentence.
Of course, at 7th to 8th levels of reading comprehension and thought formation,
Repeating the same thing over and over is a sign of dementia. What's the matter? Can't think of anything witty, so you just trot out the same old retread?
someone like myself or Ostler are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to make ourselves understood on subjects of inherent complexity and nuance.
Here's a tip, Droops: complexity and nuance are not well served by opaque and pretentious writing.
I also think you just don't like what he said.
Maybe, but his writing was awful. Surely a seasoned connoisseur of the English language like you can recognize that.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
