Credentials

[_JAK]

Wooooooooo. The Danite Band!

Harmony, my point in that was that you cannot just assume that non-LDS who engage in debate with LDS apologists are neutral.

It’s a non sequitur comment. We don’t assume “neutral” indefinitely, we look for evidence that someone or a group of people (such as medical scientists) are demonstrating their neutrality absent evidence which moves them from neutral to a position of conclusion.

Evidence that heroine is bad for people is established. Knowledgeable people, informed people are not “neutral” about what heroine does when people take it into their bodies.

Again, it’s the evidence which shifts an objective observer to a position. For many years the tobacco companies denied that smoking cigarettes was harmful. They marketed successfully for decades. It took a long time and the fight was with some of the most wealthy companies (at the time) marketing cigarettes in the USA. (More than 350,000 Chinese now smoke. That's more than the population of the entire US, and the marketing goes on.)

But, eventually and after many deaths, the evidence was overwhelming and persuasive. One cannot be “neutral” on the question: Does smoking cigarettes harm health?.

Your idea of “neutral” seems to be that one must remain “neutral” in spite of evidence rather than be persuaded by the evidence.

Apologists for any religion should be held accountable for their claims. If they cannot establish clear, conclusive support for their claims, those claims should be rejected.

Not once have you or has anyone else attempted to deny that there are many religious doctrines and dogmas. The evidence for many is irrefutable. And to claim that one, one out of all these is the only true one is an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary claims require, demand extraordinary evidence. Quoting ancient scripture or plagiarized ancient scripture is neither extraordinary nor is it evidence for the superiority of one religious myth over another religious myth.

JAK

[_harmony]

Good grief, harmony. "Mormon Apologetics" isn't one field of study. There are ancient languages. Egyptology. Linguistics. Anthropology. Genetics. Geography. Geology. And no, I don't expect any one person to be expert in all at once. What are you thinking?

*sigh* Those subjects are tenuously connected only in the minds of Mormons. charity. Others don't see any connection between Egyptology, ancient languages, linguistics, anthropology, genetics, geography, geology, or even Mesoamerican Studies to Mormonism. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. That's why Mormon apologists and the apologist wannabees try so hard to make the connection. Because even the slightest connection would give Mormon apologetics legitimacy, a legitimacy it does not now have.

I'm thinking that you harp on credentials like they bestow some sort of patina on the apologists, until someone points out that their credentials don't support their apologetics. Daniel's PhD has nothing to do with anything remotely connected to Mormon Studies, Mormon history, or Mormon culture. Even his undergrad in Greek, philosophy, and ancient languages has nothing to do with Mormons at all. Daniel's only connection to any of that is his life's experiences. Well, guess what. His life's experiences carry no greater weight than The Dude's, or Addictio's, or Truth Dancer's, or even mine. Only his PhD weighs more than my own degrees, and his PhD has nothing to do with Mormons at all. None of Brant's credentials supports any of his apologetics. The man has a degree in computer something if I remember right. His credentials couldn't be further from his apologetics, yet people fawn all over him for his completely unsupported apologetics.

The "no one is forcing you to stay" comment is meant to indicate that if you don't think the discussion is worthwhile with no credentialed combatants having anything they can say you care to listen to, why do you stick around?

You're the one hooked on credentials, not me. I'm simply telling you why they don't matter.

[_charity]

You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.

I am not in the upper echelon, but I have college level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, which is more than many, if not most of the critics here have.

So, when you are talking about evaluating credentials of apologists or critics, nobody has a degree in Mormon culture, so either listen to them based on what they do know, or leave the room. No one is forcing you to stay.

But experts can disagree. There are violent disagreements between experts on the 17th C English Civil War. Experts are sometimes wrong. I've ushown this in my own research. I think the whole emphasis by LDS apologists on credentials is a smokescreen to not have to listen to cogent arguments from critics of the LDS church.

I know experts disagree. And experts can be wrong. I think this is what I addressed in my initial post. When the person with no experience or knowledge hears two experts disagree, how do they decide who is right? One of the criteria has to be on how knowledgable that expert is. Credentials, degrees, etc are one way to look at that question.

I am a member of an apologist organization. Believe me, the critics are listened to. And then examined very carefully.

[_ludwigm]

Good grief, harmony. "Mormon Apologetics" isn't one field of study. There are ancient languages. Egyptology. Linguistics. Anthropology. Genetics. Geography. Geology. And no, I don't expect any one person to be expert in all at once. What are you thinking?

*sigh* Those subjects are tenuously connected only in the minds of Mormons. charity. Others don't see any connection between Egyptology, ancient languages, linguistics, anthropology, genetics, geography, geology, or even Mesoamerican Studies to Mormonism. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. That's why Mormon apologists and the apologist wannabees try so hard to make the connection. Because even the slightest connection would give Mormon apologetics legitimacy, a legitimacy it does not now have.
...

- Show the "caractors" which are originated to Joseph Smith (or not), to any nonmormon expert of ancient language, egyptology or linguistic!
- Ask any nonmormon expert of egyptology about the egyptian remains in America (e.g. sold mummies) !
- Ask any nonmormon expert of linguistic about hebrew in native new world languages!
- Show the DNA data of the amerindians to any nonmormon expert of genetics!
- Show the geographical data(??) of the two Cumorahs to any nonmormon expert of geography. (One Cumorah for the plates, another for the battle of millions. Or is there a third Cumorah for cement-houses? )
- Geology? Was there a volcano eruption or an earthquake which has deleted only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth?

Harmony is right. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. They all want to work with facts. When they find some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source, then they begin to handle it. Then, after evaluation, they make hypotheses, then they make theories, then don't drive themselves in despair if it faults. This is the way science works.
And it works.

[_Pokatator]

Charity, can you agree with any of the following statements?


Someone can have credentials and have no credibility.

Someone can have credibility without credentials.

There can be brilliant people that have no advanced education, no so-called credentials and yet be credible.

There are many educated idiots with "so-called" credibility and yet are not credible.



My point is you are painting with too broad of a brush, credentials do not ensure credibility.

[_BishopRic]

Charity, I have a doctrate degree from UC Berkeley, but I would guess that means nothing to you...

I'm not saying it should, but as long as you're throwing around "credentials," maybe you should do a list of the "critics" too?

[_charity]

- Show the "caractors" which are originated to Joseph Smith (or not), to any nonmormon expert of ancient language, egyptology or linguistic! {/quote]

This is a strawman argument, probably arising because you don't understand what the Book of Mormon said. Their language was known only to themselves. It wasn't Egyptian.

- Ask any nonmormon expert of egyptology about the egyptian remains in America (e.g. sold mummies)

See agove.

- Ask any nonmormon expert of linguistic about hebrew in native new world languages!

Brian Stubbs has been doing work in this area, which is recognized by non-LDS linguist. Check out this link.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... V3LnBocA==

- Show the DNA data of the amerindians to any nonmormon expert of genetics!

The leading critic of the Book of Mormon on DNA has made the strongest statement by a geneticist in favor of the current state of the studies. Simon Southerton has said himself that there should be no trace of "Hebrew" DNA from a small colony of people, such as the Lehites, due to the bottleneck effect. Can't get better than that.

- Show the geographical data(??) of the two Cumorahs to any nonmormon expert of geography. (One Cumorah for the plates, another for the battle of millions. Or is there a third Cumorah for cement-houses? )

I hope any geography would have a better grasp of what the Book of Mormon says than you obviously do.

- Geology? Was there a volcano eruption or an earthquake which has deleted only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth?

Actually, geological evidence does place great volcanic evidence where the Book of Mormon describes it. You aren't up on the science in this area.

Harmony is right. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. They all want to work with facts. When they find some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source, then they begin to handle it. Then, after evaluation, they make hypotheses, then they make theories, then don't drive themselves in despair if it faults. This is the way science works.
And it works.

I guess you haven't kept up with the work of many scientists in this field. But it is easier to cling to the told material which fits with your agenda than to do with the new.

[_charity]

Charity, can you agree with any of the following statements?


Someone can have credentials and have no credibility.

Someone can have credibility without credentials.

There can be brilliant people that have no advanced education, no so-called credentials and yet be credible.

There are many educated idiots with "so-called" credibility and yet are not credible.



My point is you are painting with too broad of a brush, credentials do not ensure credibility.

What you said is all true.

How do you evaluate the information that you encounter where you have no knowledge of the subject at all?

[_charity]

Charity, I have a doctrate degree from UC Berkeley, but I would guess that means nothing to you...

I'm not saying it should, but as long as you're throwing around "credentials," maybe you should do a list of the "critics" too?

What is you doctorate in? If it is in geology, I wouldn't necessarily take it that you knew much about the history of the Tlingit people of southern Alaksa. You would have to establish why you felt I should believe you about them.

[_BishopRic]

Charity, I have a doctrate degree from UC Berkeley, but I would guess that means nothing to you...

I'm not saying it should, but as long as you're throwing around "credentials," maybe you should do a list of the "critics" too?

What is you doctorate in? If it is in geology, I wouldn't necessarily take it that you knew much about the history of the Tlingit people of southern Alaksa. You would have to establish why you felt I should believe you about them.

I think the only way I could convince you I know anything is to tell you I had a spiritual witness about it. That seems to be the only "credential" you'll listen to -- and of course, only if it agrees with your "witness" too...