Outing Annonymous Posters

[_rcrocket]

And yet I have seen her go toe to toe repeatedly with Brant Gardner, and hold her own. Or at least give him an argument worthy enough for him to request her presence on his home board.

I don't know Mr. Gardner. Nor do I care.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, if you think Mormon apologists aren't mean-spirited. With the exception of Brant Gardner, who is a gentleman under virtually all conditions, I've never seen a Mormon apologist who wasn't mean spirited. It's embarrassing how mean-spirited Mormon apologists are. DCP takes mean-spirited to a whole new level.

I think it, again, is in the eye of the beholder. Any anti-Mormon will see almost every member of the Church as a dupe, and a defender as mean-spirited. A pro-Mormon will think almost every anti-Mormon internet poster as vile and mean-spirited.

I'd also like to point out that Mormon apologists, every single one of them, are also amateurs. There is no such thing as a professional Mormon apologist. They all have professional lives removed from, and in some cases far removed from, their apologetics.

I'm not sure why this is important. I agree with you. But, Mormon polity basically presumes that all who speak on theology are amateurs. There is no theology department at any LDS university.

But, I fully acknowledge the weight and persuasive power of the consensus in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fully acknowledge that the Mormon view is usually considered to be laughable and foolish.

Then you aren't much of a Mormon apologist.

But, I don't claim to be a Mormon apologist. I lack the credentials and the background. The only area in which I have done any studying to have any sort of competence is in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and that only in the legal proceedings, which is where my professional training lies. So, I don't claim to be an apologist. Indeed, I have expressed my dissatisfaction at many times as to the tone and content of what I see at FARMS. I can't really speak about FAIR because I don't read it, don't follow it, and don't know it.

So, I agree with you: I am not much of a Mormon apologist.

And as to my friend GoodK, who once again seems to charge me with a lack of integrity for finally rising to my defense by pointing out that I had a duty to report his child's mockery of his/her father and his/her family's distress on a very public board where many who read it already know all there is to know about GoodK's family, I really don't think my good friend GoodK is qualified at his/her tender/advanced age to adjudge integrity -- based upon what he/she has done here.

This is just pointless personal drivel, with no redeeming value whatsoever. (And a 14 year old Boy Scout is considered old enough to judge integrity... and exhibit it.)

I don't think it pointless, but I really don't want to comment much more on Ms/Mr Goodk's original post. It isn't getting me or him/her anywhere.

rcrocket

[_Yoda]

I know you like to remind me many times about how I am a "Bishop" and not a very good example of a Latter-day Saint. How many times have I heard that here?

Maybe you should listen.

I respect the office of Bishop. My father served in the Bishopric when I was growing up, and my husband's father has served as both a Bishop and Stake President. These men are two of the most compassionate men you will ever meet. They took their callings seriously.

They would NEVER debase the office of Bishop by conducting themselves on any type of forum, online or not, the way you have chosen to do.

[_rcrocket]

And, finally, I don't think your posts show that you have a clue as to what an ad hominem is and when an attack on one's second life character is appropriate and not.

Honestly--I don't think that attacking one's character (second life or not) is ever appropriate.

Edited to add---And, it is very clear that ad hom's of ANY kind are not allowed in the Celestial Forum. Per Shades---"You should conduct yourself as if you are arguing with your favorite grandmother..."

Let me give you an example.

In your above post, you condemn me for being a bishop and not a very good representative of the Church. That is a direct attack on somebody's character and public standing -- something calculated to injure and totally unrelated to a particular discussion. That is an ad hominem. That is anonymous demonstrates a number of other problems which I can explain if need be.

But, if I were to start an opening post entitled "Bob's Good Character" and explain that because I am a bishop I should be given extra deference to my views, the post that you made above would not be an ad hominem because it directly refutes my position. You are entitled then to attack my character.

For another example, in the case of Grant Palmer's book, what he did was claim "Insider" status. That sort of left him open to personal exposure of his problems. (Although I, on several occasions, bitterly complained to FARMS about the reviews of Grant which led me to being kicked off of a super-secret apologetics list.) When Metcalfe and Vogel publish their works, they don't claim in their books "Insider" and special character status -- Metcalfe once worked for the Church.

[_Chap]

I fully acknowledge the weight and persuasive power of the consensus in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fully acknowledge that the Mormon view is usually considered to be laughable and foolish. The concept of the resurrection was also foolish, and early anti-Christian commentators scoffed at it and charged the disciples with stealing the body. Angels, too, and healings seem foolish. But, fortunately, my faith doesn't rise or fall on existential proof, for if such were necessary Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Adam would fall as well. Instead, Jesus talks about something other than existential proof in coming to know Him. You all have just lost it.

In that paragraph you can see the signs of a lawyer's training: if you want to attack the other side's case, you have to begin by honestly acknowledging what that case is, and recognising where its strengths are. And rcrocket does clearly see that those who attack LDS apologetics (such as Beastie) often have a very good case on their side, and what is more that the average bystander will typically evaluate that case as a good one in comparison to the LDS case.

rcrocket's riposte as given above may be effective to some degree against certain kinds of non-LDS Christians. It amounts, so far as I can see, to saying that faith in the absence of convincing evidence and indeed to some extent in the face of it is what the deity he believes in demands from his children, and that this deity actually challenges those children by requiring from them faith in the positively implausible. As Jesus is represented as saying to Thomas "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Several of us on this board will be familiar with that kind of argument.

But absent a belief in such a deity, rcrocket's riposte has no force at all. And indeed it is not clear to me that all the earliest followers of Jesus necessarily agreed with his "faith without facts, or even against the apparent facts" position. If we look at what purports to be the earliest public Christian preaching, the speech of Peter in Acts, we see that there is nothing like the promise of Moroni there:

2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, [saying], Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is [but] the third hour of the day.
[...]
2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
2:24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
[...]
2:32 This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[... ]
2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

What we have here is not an appeal to any 'burning in the bosom', but rather to the eye-witness of those speaking: Jesus is alive - you can believe this because we have seen him alive. Clearly this is the kind of testimony a lawyer would love to have to put forward on behalf of his client. And not surprisingly, therefore, it was just that kind of testimony that the early LDS church put at the front of the Book of Mormon, with the testimony of two sets of witnesses: those early LDS, like those early Christians, knew the kind of evidence that reasonable people reasonably demand to be persuaded: hard facts, and multiple eyewitness testimony. (I advance no contention here as to the reliability of either the report of witness in Acts, or the witness statements prefaced to the Book of Mormon - the issue here is what kind of evidence is convincing).

I wonder why rcrocket allows himself to think that he and others should be persuaded by anything less solid and publicly testable?

[_Jason Bourne]

(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)

In light of your personality on this board, this statement is truly the pot calling the kettle black. When have you ever engaged in a civil exchange here? Even when I invited you to participate on my thread in the Celestial Forum, you still had to be reminded to keep away from ad hom's, and one of your posts ended up being split off to another forum because of ad hom's. Frankly, Bishop, I don't think that you are a very good example of how a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should treat their fellow man.

I certainly hope that in the "real world", you conduct yourself differently. I have seen glimpses of the good man that I believe exists under your online facade. It's a shame that you choose not to share that side of yourself here.

But you see Liz Mr Crockett justifies that because in his mind and world hypocrisy is the one of the worst sins in the world. And since you and I are judged (unrighteously in my opinion, which in my study of the New Testament seems to be a pretty grave thing as well...course Bob may just say I am thinly read like he does when anyone challenges him) to be damned hypocrites this can justify to Bob the shabby way he treats us and even obsesses about our anonymity.

[_harmony]

I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Keep in mind that I limit my posts to a board which is extremely hostile to pro-Mormon views.

Really? You post on RfM? Because this board is not extremely hostile to pro-Mormon views. We have several posters who consistently exhibit pro-Mormon views without ever being slammed against the wall. Granted we have several posters who persist in poking holes in the hot air balloon of some Mormon apologists, but that should only serve to help the apologists hone their argument. We should be grateful to those who show the holes in any issue and supporting argument. It can only help move the church forward. Only those who persist in living in the 19th century call that hostile.

[_rcrocket]

(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)

Oooo Bob. Well done. Nice little dig in that lengthy paragraph. I am sure you feel better now. And no Bob, we do not hold the monopoly on mean spirits. You certainly are evidence of that now aren't you.

Here's my problem with your posts, and Harmony's. To claim special status and authority for your posts, you claim to be active members of the Church.

How would you feel if I, to claim special status and authority for my posts, claimed to be the son of a General Authority (I am not) or a bishop? You would deride that.

Similarly, I find your and Harmony's continued resort to your standing in the Church as an irrelevant deflection.

[_Yoda]

In your above post, you condemn me for being a bishop and not a very good representative of the Church. That is a direct attack on somebody's character and public standing -- something calculated to injure and totally unrelated to a particular discussion. That is an ad hominem. That is anonymous demonstrates a number of other problems which I can explain if need be.

Not so. You opened the door. I was responding to a post which you made regarding mean-spiritedness, and how you didn't understand how people here who oppose the Church could conduct themselves in such a mean-spirited way. I was pointing out that you, who have openly discussed the fact that you are a bishop for your ward, have also conducted yourself in a mean-spirited way on the board.

Edited to add---Please explain to me how that is not the topic of discussion. Also please explain to me how I "condemned" you. As I stated in a previous post, I have a great respect for the office of bishop, and when I see someone abuse that office, or act out of character in regards to what that office should represent, you can be damned sure that I'm going to call you on it.

[_harmony]

And yet I have seen her go toe to toe repeatedly with Brant Gardner, and hold her own. Or at least give him an argument worthy enough for him to request her presence on his home board.

I don't know Mr. Gardner. Nor do I care.

Brant Gardner is the Mormon apologist most known for being knowledgable in the same subject Beastie is knowledgable in: ancient Mesoamerica. Now you know. Beastie is considered an equal or at least a worthy opponent by the Mormon apologist most knowledgable about her favorite subject.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, if you think Mormon apologists aren't mean-spirited. With the exception of Brant Gardner, who is a gentleman under virtually all conditions, I've never seen a Mormon apologist who wasn't mean spirited. It's embarrassing how mean-spirited Mormon apologists are. DCP takes mean-spirited to a whole new level.

I think it, again, is in the eye of the beholder. Any anti-Mormon will see almost every member of the Church as a dupe, and a defender as mean-spirited. A pro-Mormon will think almost every anti-Mormon internet poster as vile and mean-spirited.

Sweeping generalizations don't help your argument. "Any"? "every"? Not hardly. Stick to the issue instead of the person, and the mean-spirited attacks magically disappear.

I'd also like to point out that Mormon apologists, every single one of them, are also amateurs. There is no such thing as a professional Mormon apologist. They all have professional lives removed from, and in some cases far removed from, their apologetics.

I'm not sure why this is important. I agree with you. But, Mormon polity basically presumes that all who speak on theology are amateurs. There is no theology department at any LDS university.

Because you said everyone on the other side is an amateur. I was pointing out that everyone on the Mormon side is also an amateur.

[_Jason Bourne]

One wonders why almost every thread Bob posts one becomes, well, about Bob.

How odd.