The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21663
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
Dr. Peterson,
This entire board is testament to my latest observation. I shall go on calmly and lucidly stating the Truth.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
This entire board is testament to my latest observation. I shall go on calmly and lucidly stating the Truth.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
I think the exchange between mak and I has proven the accuracy of Thama's summary:
Thama, page 1
Mak wants to present the case that it's plausible that the plates could have engravings on both sides – In other words, it’s still possible under certain conditions. To do so, he has to ignore certain collected descriptions - Pratt's collected statements saying the engraving was deep enough to be "stained" or be filled with cement, and then Emma's statement that the plates were the thickness of thick paper. Then he has to redefine what Emma’s statement likely meant:
becomes “laterally sliding the pages against one another”, and not indicating that the plates were thin enough to fold, or, In other words, “pliable”.
This reminds me sooooo much of other discussions regarding the Book of Mormon. Making the case of plausibility – it’s still possible under certain conditions – first depends upon redefining the text. So when the Book of Mormon states that the citizens of Ammonihah did not feel obligated to listen to Alma because he had abandoned the position of chief-judge, that does not mean that the citizens of Ammonihah were, like the citizens of Zarahemla, obligated to follow the dictates of the chief judge. When the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites actually took possession of conquered Nephite cities, it doesn’t really mean that they had total political control of those cities. (as an aside, these redefinitions of the Book of Mormon text are necessary because the “certain conditions” that has to be met is that the Jewish/Christian group must be so small and powerless as to expect it to have zero influence on the rest of Mesoamerica) Once the redefining has taken place, then the case for plausibility can be made.
The argument about Joseph Smith and hard labor is a bit more subtle, but I think it still can demonstrate Thama’s point. Critics are trying to make the case that Joseph Smith benefited from being the leader of the LDS movement in that he no longer was forced to engage in manual labor to earn a living. Given the difficulty of his pre-LDS life, in terms of labor and income, this seems probable. Even if Joseph Smith still occasionally engaged in manual labor, it was still far less than his former life required, and hence, would still be viewed as a benefit of the new lifestyle. Apologists are trying to make the case that it’s plausible this would not be viewed as a benefit because he still occasionally did engage in manual labor.
I think it’s obvious this method only works with people who desperately want a way to continue believing in the LDS church, despite these problems, whether due to the weight of their testimony or social issues. As others have stated (I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another one), as long as the method works on some wavering believers, then it is a success, because that group of believers is retained whereas otherwise they’d be lost. So even if the method works with just a minority of wavering believers, it’s still a success, and, really, the only option for apologists, due to the hand they’ve been dealt in the first place.
Thama, page 1
This is an inevitable consequence of the differing standards for victory that each side takes. The critic uses probability as his victory line (as in, there was almost certainly no race with Middle Eastern genetics that migrated to the Americas in pre-Colombian times), while the apologist uses plausibility as his (as in, it is still possible under certain conditions that there was a race with Middle Eastern genetics in the pre-Columbian Americas). As Mormons frequently point out, their standard for knowledge is spiritual, and secular research only supplements this knowledge (or maintains its plausibility). Both sides claim victory because both sides have achieved victory according to their own standards.
Mak wants to present the case that it's plausible that the plates could have engravings on both sides – In other words, it’s still possible under certain conditions. To do so, he has to ignore certain collected descriptions - Pratt's collected statements saying the engraving was deep enough to be "stained" or be filled with cement, and then Emma's statement that the plates were the thickness of thick paper. Then he has to redefine what Emma’s statement likely meant:
They seemed to be pliable like st thick paper, and would rustle <with a mettalic sound> when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
becomes “laterally sliding the pages against one another”, and not indicating that the plates were thin enough to fold, or, In other words, “pliable”.
This reminds me sooooo much of other discussions regarding the Book of Mormon. Making the case of plausibility – it’s still possible under certain conditions – first depends upon redefining the text. So when the Book of Mormon states that the citizens of Ammonihah did not feel obligated to listen to Alma because he had abandoned the position of chief-judge, that does not mean that the citizens of Ammonihah were, like the citizens of Zarahemla, obligated to follow the dictates of the chief judge. When the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites actually took possession of conquered Nephite cities, it doesn’t really mean that they had total political control of those cities. (as an aside, these redefinitions of the Book of Mormon text are necessary because the “certain conditions” that has to be met is that the Jewish/Christian group must be so small and powerless as to expect it to have zero influence on the rest of Mesoamerica) Once the redefining has taken place, then the case for plausibility can be made.
The argument about Joseph Smith and hard labor is a bit more subtle, but I think it still can demonstrate Thama’s point. Critics are trying to make the case that Joseph Smith benefited from being the leader of the LDS movement in that he no longer was forced to engage in manual labor to earn a living. Given the difficulty of his pre-LDS life, in terms of labor and income, this seems probable. Even if Joseph Smith still occasionally engaged in manual labor, it was still far less than his former life required, and hence, would still be viewed as a benefit of the new lifestyle. Apologists are trying to make the case that it’s plausible this would not be viewed as a benefit because he still occasionally did engage in manual labor.
I think it’s obvious this method only works with people who desperately want a way to continue believing in the LDS church, despite these problems, whether due to the weight of their testimony or social issues. As others have stated (I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another one), as long as the method works on some wavering believers, then it is a success, because that group of believers is retained whereas otherwise they’d be lost. So even if the method works with just a minority of wavering believers, it’s still a success, and, really, the only option for apologists, due to the hand they’ve been dealt in the first place.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
Uh oh. Two critics in a row have proclaimed victory.
If the count had reached three in a row, the battle would have been over. The game would have been up.
That's why I had to post this.
If the count had reached three in a row, the battle would have been over. The game would have been up.
That's why I had to post this.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
beastie wrote:Mak wants to present the case that it's plausible that the plates could have engravings on both sides – In other words, it’s still possible under certain conditions. To do so, he has to ignore certain collected descriptions - Pratt's collected statements saying the engraving was deep enough to be "stained" or be filled with cement, and then Emma's statement that the plates were the thickness of thick paper.
Pratt never saw the plates, so it's irrelevant. If you want to insist he's merely reporting on an eyewitnesses testimony then produce that testimony. Shouldn't be too hard to find the account of one of the witnesses, should it?
beastie wrote:Then he has to redefine what Emma’s statement likely meant:They seemed to be pliable like st thick paper, and would rustle <with a mettalic sound> when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
becomes “laterally sliding the pages against one another”, and not indicating that the plates were thin enough to fold, or, In other words, “pliable”.
Pliability is still perfectly logical if we accept the rustling was lateral movement. You're the one dictating what it cannot mean based on mere assumption.
beastie wrote:This reminds me sooooo much of other discussions regarding the Book of Mormon. Making the case of plausibility – it’s still possible under certain conditions – first depends upon redefining the text. So when the Book of Mormon states that the citizens of Ammonihah did not feel obligated to listen to Alma because he had abandoned the position of chief-judge, that does not mean that the citizens of Ammonihah were, like the citizens of Zarahemla, obligated to follow the dictates of the chief judge. When the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites actually took possession of conquered Nephite cities, it doesn’t really mean that they had total political control of those cities. (as an aside, these redefinitions of the Book of Mormon text are necessary because the “certain conditions” that has to be met is that the Jewish/Christian group must be so small and powerless as to expect it to have zero influence on the rest of Mesoamerica) Once the redefining has taken place, then the case for plausibility can be made.
The argument about Joseph Smith and hard labor is a bit more subtle, but I think it still can demonstrate Thama’s point. Critics are trying to make the case that Joseph Smith benefited from being the leader of the LDS movement in that he no longer was forced to engage in manual labor to earn a living. Given the difficulty of his pre-LDS life, in terms of labor and income, this seems probable. Even if Joseph Smith still occasionally engaged in manual labor, it was still far less than his former life required, and hence, would still be viewed as a benefit of the new lifestyle. Apologists are trying to make the case that it’s plausible this would not be viewed as a benefit because he still occasionally did engage in manual labor.
I think it’s obvious this method only works with people who desperately want a way to continue believing in the LDS church, despite these problems, whether due to the weight of their testimony or social issues. As others have stated (I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another one), as long as the method works on some wavering believers, then it is a success, because that group of believers is retained whereas otherwise they’d be lost. So even if the method works with just a minority of wavering believers, it’s still a success, and, really, the only option for apologists, due to the hand they’ve been dealt in the first place.
So your weak defense of your assumptions regarding what metal inscriptions can and cannot do was merely a springboard into something you felt more equipped to defend. I see.
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
I may have used the term conviction in error, but that is a minor point.
May have used? Either you did or you didn't use it!
Minor error? How hardly! That's a powerful word (conviction) whether used in an argument to win points on a message board or to decide the fate of someone in a court of law.
You've lost credibility with me. But you probably don't care.
Carry on.
Paul O
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
Paul Osborne wrote:I may have used the term conviction in error, but that is a minor point.
May have used? Either you did or you didn't use it!
I don't know enough about 19th century jurisprudence to say for certain.
Minor error? How hardly! That's a powerful word (conviction) whether used in an argument to win points on a message board or to decide the fate of someone in a court of law.
So is the word condemned, which is used by witnesses to the trial. So is "honorably acquitted," the words Oliver Cowdery used, which is a fine example of him lying through his teeth. In any event, the evidence that Smith was a money-digging imposter was and is overwhelming, which is why Albert Neely found him guilty.
You've lost credibility with me. But you probably don't care.
Astute thee!
Last edited by Guest on Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
Daniel Peterson wrote:Calculus Crusader wrote:I may have used the term conviction in error, but that is a minor point.
Just as your insinuation that Joseph Smith commissioned himself a lieutenant general, when proven false, was a "minor point."
No, you were justified in calling me out on that. What I should have written was "Joseph Smith had his community of dupes proclaim him lieutenant general, a position for which he lacked the requisite qualifications; this was ratified by a commission from the Governor of Illinois, who wanted the dupes' votes.
Just as your claim that Joseph Smith gave up manual labor when he founded his church, having been proven false, turned out to be a "minor point."
There is more evidence of Joe's cons than there is of his manual labor after he started his cons.
You've been backtracking all day.
It's better to clear these things up now, so that, in the future, the Mormon goon squad cannot derail the case against their founding charlatan, when such an argument might reach those who are not irrevocably duped.
Calculus Crusader wrote:The quality of your links is deteriorating, professor.
Not so. This last one provides a number of further links.
Think of it as a cluster bomb.
Yes, but instead of raining submunitions it rains excrement.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
Pratt never saw the plates, so it's irrelevant. If you want to insist he's merely reporting on an eyewitnesses testimony then produce that testimony. Shouldn't be too hard to find the account of one of the witnesses, should it?
According to the LDS church’s official website, which I linked previously, Pratt collected eye-witness testimonies. The LDS church apparently views his description, based on collected statements, as reliable and accurate. Of course I understand why it is not possible for you to do so. If you accepted Pratt’s statement then it would automatically prove my point, which is that the descriptions of the plates are problematic and sometimes contradictory.
Pliability is still perfectly logical if we accept the rustling was lateral movement. You're the one dictating what it cannot mean based on mere assumption.
Your premise is not logical given the context of Emma’s statement. I don’t know how to state this any more simply and plainly. When English speakers refer to the rustling sound that pages of a book make when “thumbed”, they’re talking about flipping the pages, not sliding the pages against each other. Moreover, Emma specifically said they were of the thickness of thick paper – which means it could be folded.
So your weak defense of your assumptions regarding what metal inscriptions can and cannot do was merely a springboard into something you felt more equipped to defend. I see.
This is what blows my mind. You really, genuinely think that I haven’t defended my assumptions well. You really, genuinely think you are justified in saying Emma didn’t mean the pages could be folded in a “flipping” manner, hence, the rustling sound and the thickness of thick paper, but instead just meant metal plates sliding against each other. You really, genuinely think that is a solid argument. It blows my mind.
by the way, if the rustling just describes metal plates sliding against each other, then the thickness question is entirely irrelevant – they can be as thick as needed and still make a sliding sound. So why insist that Pratt wasn’t correct? Does it have to do with the weight of the plates?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
beastie wrote:According to the LDS church’s official website, which I linked previously, Pratt collected eye-witness testimonies. The LDS church apparently views his description, based on collected statements, as reliable and accurate.
So what?
beastie wrote:Of course I understand why it is not possible for you to do so. If you accepted Pratt’s statement then it would automatically prove my point, which is that the descriptions of the plates are problematic and sometimes contradictory.
I would never deny that their description is problematic and contradictory. Of course it is. It always has been. You're simply making up these facts.
beastie wrote:Your premise is not logical given the context of Emma’s statement.
I'll not move beyond this comment until you respond fully to my concern. Please tell me why it is illogical, in light of Emma's statement, to posit that the "rustling" of the plates may refer to their lateral movement against each other.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi
I'll not move beyond this comment until you respond fully to my concern. Please tell me why it is illogical, in light of Emma's statement, to posit that the "rustling" of the plates may refer to their lateral movement against each other.
It is illogical due to the context of her statement. She was comparing the plates to thick paper in a book.
I really don't understand why you don't seem able to grasp this.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com