The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Daniel Peterson]

Those are pretty poor examples, Dr. Peterson. Just two issues, out of all the many years that the FARMS Review has been around?

They were simply two exceptionally obvious counterexamples.

Any issue of the FARMS Review will serve quite well, actually, to expose your caricature for what it is.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

That doesn't stack up very well against the thousands of pages that *do* fit with Doctor CamNC4Me's post.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Further, his points relate to "debating all things Mormon." Can it really be said that the FARMS Review, with its rigged peer review process

A Scratchite dogma for which there is absolutely no evidence (unless repetition be counted as "evidence").

and its almost purely solicitation-only publication policy

A feature of the FARMS Review that is pretty much standard for scholarly book reviewing.

Of the many academic book reviews that I've done, all but one or two were solicited by the academic journal's book review editor.

is engaged in anything resembling "debate"?

Yup. Absolutely. It's immersed right in the middle of a major debate.

It seems to me that it is more of a polemical echo-chamber.

You're thinking of this place.

And Doctor Cam is a separate poster.

Sure. And I'm the Tooth Fairy.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Those are pretty poor examples, Dr. Peterson. Just two issues, out of all the many years that the FARMS Review has been around? That doesn't stack up very well against the thousands of pages that *do* fit with Doctor CamNC4Me's post. Further, his points relate to "debating all things Mormon." Can it really be said that the FARMS Review, with its rigged peer review process, and its almost purely solicitation-only publication policy, is engaged in anything resembling "debate"? I don't really think so. It seems to me that it is more of a polemical echo-chamber.

And Doctor Cam is a separate poster.

Thank you, Dr. Scratch. Your analysis is spot on. I am simply talking about "debate" conducted on Internet forums, or in person. Dr. Peterson perhaps provided another consistent Mormon apologist M.O.: "Shifting the debate."

If you will notice I am talking about debate. I am not talking about printed reviews or publications. By "shiftnig the debate" he is forcing the forum's attention away from the original point, and hoping that the discourse will tend toward an easily defensible position.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Daniel Peterson]

The proposition with which this thread opened, that "there is a typical Mormon 'apologist modus operandi (M.O.)' when it comes to debating all things Mormon," was formulated very generally.

You're well advised to back away from it.

[_rcrocket]

And Doctor Cam is a separate poster.

Yes, he's my macaroni friend Antishock8, trying to rehabilitate himself and remake himself from vulgar rabidity to tendentious pomposity. (He's trying to be like you, but he can't write.) I'm glad that you are aligned with him.

Can it really be said that the FARMS Review, with its rigged peer review process, and its almost purely solicitation-only publication policy, is engaged in anything resembling "debate"?

As we've established in the past, you don't know anything about the peer review process. Virtually all private journals which employ a peer review system "rig" it, by carefully selecting the peer reviewers with an objective to advance the journal's mission. Examples include the Evangelical Review or Judaica. FARMS Review is no different. FARMS Review has a point and a mission; your disagreement with the peer review process is merely with the mission of FARMS Review. You think it silly that FARMS Review would review anti-Mormon works and comment upon them. I think that you would also find silly the premises of Judaica. (Or any religion, for that matter.)

[_harmony]

Oh, look! My humble post was honored by none other than Benjamin McGuire! I am truly humbled. Except I'm not a critic and I wasn't acting as a critic when I wrote the post either.

But we won't go into that now.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The proposition with which this thread opened, that "there is a typical Mormon 'apologist modus operandi (M.O.)' when it comes to debating all things Mormon," was formulated very generally.

You're well advised to back away from it.

Sir,

Your warning is noted, and rejected. This is all very interesting observationally. I think we just saw yet another piece of the Mormon apologist's M.O.: Threatening people.

If I am not mistaken I have seen Dr. Peterson threaten to shoot Dr. Scratch, The Nehor threaten to murder various posters, William Schryver threaten to beat someone else to a pulp, and other Mormon apologists threaten to contact ecclesiastical leaders or family. So on and so forth...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4me

[_Daniel Peterson]

A nice summary of some of the highlights of traditional Scratchite martyrology -- recited precisely in the paranoid style of the master himself.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

But you weren't a Mormon Apologist either.

My point is that these kinds of things aren't specific to Mormon Apologists. They are the kinds of issues that occur in these forums. It doesn't really matter what the topic, or who the posters are.

What is being done here though is quite interesting. There is a seeming desire (on the part of the original poster) to simply be able to dismiss an argument by labeling at one of X different kinds of arguments in use by Mormon Apologists. This is very nice if your intention is to avoid having to deal with substance. But it doesn't help with real discussions where these comments can be relevant, can be thoughtful, can be significant in their own right.

Doctor Cam provides a good example of this:

I am simply talking about "debate" conducted on Internet forums, or in person. Dr. Peterson perhaps provided another consistent Mormon apologist M.O.: "Shifting the debate."

This is a clever way of doing exactly what Doctor Cam is talking about. Instead of addressing what Dr. Peterson intended by his comments, Cam treats them as an artifact which can be analyzed, classified and discussed without ever actually dealing with Dr. Peterson's comment in any meaningful fashion.

This is, in a sense, doing exactly what the OP listed as point (a).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Doctor Cam writes:

Your warning is noted, and rejected. This is all very interesting observationally. I think we just saw yet another piece of the Mormon apologist's M.O.: Threatening people.

And yet we have entire threads devoted to threats made towards (or potential threats made towards) Dr. Peterson from other members of this community. Let's see how many more traits we can identify, shall we?

[_harmony]

But you weren't a Mormon Apologist either.

I don't have to be either, Ben. Do you really divide people up into just 2 camps?

What is being done here though is quite interesting. There is a seeming desire (on the part of the original poster) to simply be able to dismiss an argument by labeling at one of X different kinds of arguments in use by Mormon Apologists. This is very nice if your intention is to avoid having to deal with substance. But it doesn't help with real discussions where these comments can be relevant, can be thoughtful, can be significant in their own right.

You do realize, of course, that the most prominent among the LDS apologists here promises us often that he never intends to post with substance. Ever. If he deals with substance, it's not on an internet bulletin board and especially not on this internet bulletin board. I'm glad you realize that we have many real discussions here where comments are relevant, thoughtful and significant in their own right, because obviously the greatest among you is unable to do that. I always thought you were one of the white hats.