The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Dr. Shades]

Most members would have welcomed the news that it was all a fraud, if it were a fraud.

You really think so, eh?

We critics have been giving you the news that it's all a fraud for years and years now--why haven't you welcomed the news?

[_beastie]

by the way, I don't think the "conspiracy" was along the lines of: we're going to flat-out lie about seeing an angel and plates in order to maliciously deceive people. I think the "conspiracy" was more along the lines of: we saw an angel through the "eyes of faith" or "spiritual eyes", which may mean that it was largely a spirit-filled, yet imaginary, figurative experience that occurred within the mind, but if people interpret it to mean a physical visitation, we won't correct them.

In other words, I think it was likely a conspiracy of exaggeration.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If we could jes' git rid o' that pesky histarical reckerd, beastie, yer yarn'd purty well account fer the faks that was left over.

[_harmony]

If we could jes' git rid o' that pesky histarical reckerd, beastie, yer yarn'd purty well account fer the faks that was left over.

Which part of the historical record are you referrring to? Because Paul Dunn's record is pretty much trashed. And her description of the aftermath of any confession by the witnesses is pretty accurate, at least when you take in what actually happened. (thinking the William Law situation, when he found out only one of Joseph's many lies).

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm talking about the part where the Witnesses go out of their way to stress the physicality and objective reality of their experience.

Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/1 (2005): 18-31, is a nice place to start on this issue.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vo ... m=1&id=357

[_Yoda]

If we could jes' git rid o' that pesky histarical reckerd, beastie, yer yarn'd purty well account fer the faks that was left over.

Dan, your little jokey dismissal of Beastie here actually gives Beastie the upper hand, not you.

If Beastie's remarks do not reflect historical events accurately, please point out where she has been misleading.

Beastie has been very professional and thoughtful in her presentation.

It is the type of discourtesy you are displaying here that shows apologists in a bad light.

Why do you refuse to seriously engage her?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If we could jes' git rid o' that pesky histarical reckerd, beastie, yer yarn'd purty well account fer the faks that was left over.

Dan, your little jokey dismissal of Beastie here actually gives Beastie the upper hand, not you.

If Beastie's remarks do not reflect historical events accurately, please point out where she has been misleading.

I have, of course, just done so. Six minutes prior to your post.

It is the type of discourtesy you are displaying here that shows apologists in a bad light.

What "discourtesy"?

On this board of all places, where defenders of Mormonism are routinely characterized as sexually troubled, sociopathic, dishonest, vicious, incompetent, mercenary, uncultured, irrational, and etc., expressing a quite serious point in (shudder!) some sort of dialect stands out as a terrible act?

Why do you refuse to seriously engage her?

Because, as I've said and I've said and I've said again and I've said again, I've found interacting with her quite exasperating. I don't wish to do it any more.

I've said that I'm opting out, yet I continually face demands from beastie and from others that I interact with her. And when I decline to do so, I'm told that I need to explain my lack of interest. And when I explain my lack of interest, I'm criticized for being nasty to beastie. So I say, Alright, let's just leave it at the idea that I'm not interested in prolonged conversations with beastie. Why keep bringing this up? At which point, there are demands from beastie and from others that I interact with her. And when I decline to do so, I'm told that I need to explain my lack of interest. And when I explain my lack of interest, I'm criticized for being nasty to beastie. So I say, Why keep bringing this up? Just get used to the fact that I'm not interested in prolonged conversations with beastie. Whereupon, there are demands from beastie and from others that I interact with her. And when I decline to do so, I'm told that I need to explain my lack of interest. And when I explain my lack of interest, I'm criticized for being nasty to beastie.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I find it odd Dr. Peterson has the stamina to interact continuously with Ms. Beastie, and then claim continuously that he lacks the stamina to interact continuously with Ms. Beastie.

What an odd behavioral trait.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Daniel Peterson]

I find it odd Dr. Peterson has the stamina to interact continuously with Ms. Beastie, and then claim continuously that he lacks the stamina to interact continuously with Ms. Beastie

QED.

Thanks, poor fellow, for illustrating my point so quickly.

When beastie says something egregiously false or misguided, of course -- as she did here -- I'll quickly correct her. That's different than the endless back-and-forth of attempting sustained conversation with her, which I'll no longer do.

I now anticipate several posts about my disinclination to engage in prolonged conversation with beastie, which will demand that I account for that disinclination, and which, if I respond, will fault me for responding.

[_Yoda]

Dan, we were posting at the same time. Your network is just faster than mine. :)

I'm glad that you addressed your specific concerns.

You have to admit, though, Dan, that there is a dismissive attitude toward women that exists in apologetics. Since I had not seen you engage in this type of behavior, I was miffed that you might have been stooping to it. I'm glad I was wrong. :)