Reviewed: FAIR's "Apologetics by the Numbers"

[_Jersey Girl]

Your comments killin me, when I actually go to the meetings, theres guys there that look just like that.

I have to argue with Scratch though, DCP can't be the Krispe Kreme King, that guy on the left ain't lettin anybody anywhere near the doughnuts.

Well...I really was a union shop steward in Jersey and I do wear overalls. Just try to go with it, okay?

Jersey Girl
:-)

[_Bond...James Bond]

Updated Photo:

[_Mister Scratch]

Image taken at the Mister Scratch Collective:


This cannot possibly represent the "Mr. Scratch Collective." Unless one considers the possibility that its numbers have been artificially exaggerated by means of some clever CGI.

Here is the actual Mr. Scratch Collective. "The Dude" would be present, but he was off on a beer run when the photo was taken.

Hello there, Opie, and welcome to the board! I have to say, I do admire your gumption in showing yourself after your quite nasty post to my blog. Not very nice, Opie! In any case, I forgive you (as does my "endowment"). Welcome to the board!

[_jayneedoe]

Updated Photo:

There's a thread on MAD asking people which finger they wear their CTR ring on.

I can't post there, but if I could I'd tell them to look at your picture. Then they'd realize they don't wear them on their fingers. They wear them on their balls!

Jaynee

[_Mephitus]

ROFL nice one jaynee

They are also known as the "testicle lock box"

[_Bond...James Bond]

There's a thread on MAD asking people which finger they wear their CTR ring on.

I can't post there, but if I could I'd tell them to look at your picture. Then they'd realize they don't wear them on their fingers. They wear them on their balls!

Jaynee

Everyone knows those CTR rings are too big to stay on the testicles of most apologists. Duh. :)

Bond

[_Ray A]

Perhaps the most classic thing in this essay is this contradiction, which Prof. Peterson apparently overlooked. First he makes this claim:

Critics of FARMS and FAIR commonly make several claims. Among them is the notion that writers for each organization offer neither evidence nor analysis in support of Mormon beliefs, but simply bear their testimonies. Honest readers of the FARMS Review or articles on the various FAIR Web sites will know how seriously to take that allegation.

(emphasis added)

And then, later in the essay, he says:

We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored. And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do.

(emphasis added)

LOL!!!!

There is no contradiction here, Scratch. FARMS does offer evidences for what they believe (and yes, they do believe in the basic Restoration claims too). In "Journey of Faith", a DVD on the old world evidences for the Book of Mormon, there is an impressive array of LDS scholars giving evidences. Whether or not one accepts these evidences as substantial is irrelevant (I find some of them difficult to accept, but the quality of research and presentation is good). Have you viewed "Journey of Faith"? The DVD, if I recall, goes for some 90 minutes and focuses purely on evidences for the Book of Mormon. I recall no "testimony bearing", though there may have been one of two which did not really register with me. How much have you read and viewed from FARMS?

Here is some more for your "enlightment", which touches upon some of the content of the DVD in regard to Lehi's trail:

In Book of Mormon studies, we are continuing a careful study of the Book of Mormon texts, which began with the publication of a detailed transcription of the original and the printer's manuscripts. The culmination of years of research has seen landmark documentaries on Lehi's journey and the famed incense trail, with plans for a similar treatment in the New World....

Kevin Barney has also contributed to FARMS, and many class him as no bland apologist. Professor David Wright also contributed to the first volume of the FARMS Review, with his review article "The God-inspired Language of the Book of Mormon: Sturcturing and Commentary"(Vol.1, Issue 1, pp. 10-17): http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display ... eview&id=5 (In spite of the fact that Wright does not believe the Book of Mormon to be historical.)

If you would like to see FARMS improve, Scratch, then why not voice some specific criticisms, with detailed footnotes pointing out inaccuracies and problems? Instead, this "review" of yours paints FARMS with a broad cynical brush in an attempt to draw some cynical laughter, with your own "LOL" leading the way. I agree that FARMS is primarily apologetic, but to say that they do not provide evidences and only rely on testimony, is grossly misleading.

[_CaliforniaKid]

In my opinion, Kevin Barney is a brilliant fellow, head and shoulders above many of his compatriots in LDS apologetica. I'm also somewhat fond of Blake Ostler, even though I disagree with him about most things. The real bane of the FARMS Review is Louis Midgley.

[_dartagnan]

If you would like to see FARMS improve, Scratch, then why not voice some specific criticisms, with detailed footnotes pointing out inaccuracies and problems?

I did that once. I responded to a review by Brian Hauglid which was horrible and terribly inaccurate.

http://www.kevingraham.org/Islam/hauglid.htm

[_Runtu]

If you would like to see FARMS improve, Scratch, then why not voice some specific criticisms, with detailed footnotes pointing out inaccuracies and problems?

I did that once. I responded to a review by Brian Hauglid which was horrible and terribly inaccurate.

http://www.kevingraham.org/Islam/hauglid.htm

I did that, too, responding to a rather poorly put-together piece by John Clark. The apologist response was minimal and tangential, in my opinion.