DiscussMormonism.com

If there is one thing that guarantees my angst about LDS apologetics, it is when apologists forget what apologetics is about: defending your faith. However, people like Bokovoy go on the offensive. When critics decide to defend their own logic the apologist cannot cry about victim hood - as if they are all of the sudden “defending” something. This is what just took place on MAD with my Leonidas exchange.

I respect LDS who believe what they believe because they have faith. Those who say they believe the beliefs because God told them, I never bother them. I respect that. However, I am gradually losing respect for LDS who try to justify their beliefs because those dastardly critics are “hiding facts.” For apologists to complain about critics “hiding” stuff is like the pot calling the cotton black. They use the critics to justify their beliefs.

If you want to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet through faith, then that is fine by me. But don’t start insulting everyone’s intelligence by trying to prove it. If you don’t want us to tell you just how idiotic your arguments sound, then just keep them to yourself. To try proving Smith was a prophet, well that pretty much tells me you’ve completely abandoned your faith and have relied on reason. Reason alone is not going to win any battles for LDS apologists, especially for those who go on the offensive.

But it is amazing how these people turn things around like they did in this thread. Dan Peterson seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the thread was started, not by me, but by David Bokovoy. He threw down a gauntlet challenging people to deal with his “evidence” and he made it perfectly clear his presentation was going to reveal crucial information that those darned critics “won’t tell you.” Confidential Informant started gloating, and when The Dude related my response from this forum, his post was immediately deleted. Because you see, they are not really interested in reasoning anything at all. They want to pontificate for the sake of strengthening testimonies, therefore critical feedback is simply not an option.

David Bokovoy tells us that Smith’s concept of plurality of Gods is evidence that he was receiving divine revelation from on high. Dan Peterson says this is an intellectually defensible assertion. But in order for something to count as valid evidence it must pass minimal expectations.

For example, the fact that my two year old daughter came home last week singing a song in English (she always speaks Portuguese) is not evidence that God taught her the song via divine revelation. According to Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy, if they were consistent in their logic, this is evidence that she received it from God.

Naturally, for me to consider this valid evidence for such an extraordinary claim, I would have to ask them to prove that she was not learning English from her school teacher. But according to Dan, that is not their job. They made the assertion and it stands as “evidence” because nobody has proved otherwise. Apparently I am the one who has to go investigating to disprove their claim. For them, not only do I need to show that she could have learned it from someone else, I have to prove that she did. And until I do, their claim that she received divine revelation is “intellectually defensible.”

Yes my friends, this brain-dead logic is coming from perhaps two of the best apologists LDS apologetics has to offer.

dartagnan wrote:But it is amazing how these people turn things around like they did in this thread. Dan Peterson seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the thread was started, not by me, but by David Bokovoy. He threw down a gauntlet challenging people to deal with his “evidence” and he made it perfectly clear his presentation was going to reveal crucial information that those darned critics “won’t tell you.” Confidential Informant started gloating, and when The Dude related my response from this forum, his post was immediately deleted. Because you see, they are not really interested in reasoning anything at all. They want to pontificate for the sake of strengthening testimonies, therefore critical feedback is simply not an option.

I guess David should start promoting his faith in the fellowship forum if he doesn't want serious feedback. Sheesh. He'd still get tons of support, like "gee David, that was a peachy list of parallels. Thanks for all your hard work and keep them coming!"

Hi Kevin,

Excellent analysis as always.

One of your comments was especially poignant:

dartagnan wrote:I respect LDS who believe what they believe because they have faith. Those who say they believe the beliefs because God told them, I never bother them. I respect that.

YES!! EXACTLY!! I feel precisely the same way. This is why I don't believe that I fall into the caricature that most apologists have cooked up about critics.

If you want to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet through faith, then that is fine by me. But don’t start insulting everyone’s intelligence by trying to prove it.

Again, I feel the same way. If a Mormon's faith works for him or her, then I have no argument with him or her. It's only when intellectual justifications for such faith get thrown into the marketplace of ideas that I consider those justifications to be fair game.

For example, the fact that my two year old daughter came home last week singing a song in English (she always speaks Portuguese) is not evidence that God taught her the song via divine revelation. According to Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy, if they were consistent in their logic, this is evidence that she received it from God.

Naturally, for me to consider this valid evidence for such an extraordinary claim, I would have to ask them to prove that she was not learning English from her school teacher. But according to Dan, that is not their job. They made the assertion and it stands as “evidence” because nobody has proved otherwise. Apparently I am the one who has to go investigating to disprove their claim. For them, not only do I need to show that she could have learned it from someone else, I have to prove that she did. And until I do, their claim that she received divine revelation is “intellectually defensible.”

Excellent example, sir! It's just too bad that you can't bring it to FAIR to illustrate your point.

Yup, nearly 15 years as an apologist online made me realize just how poor the arguments were on the believing side. And what did it say about me that I agreed with them?

Runtu wrote:Yup, nearly 15 years as an apologist online made me realize just how poor the arguments were on the believing side. And what did it say about me that I agreed with them?

I think it says more about you that you don't agree with them now.

skippy the dead wrote:I think it says more about you that you don't agree with them now.

I know that the MAD folks think it says a lot about me (see my post on Ray's exmo-Nazi thread). In the end, what they are selling just doesn't hold up. I think some of them know it. I'm beginning to think that Bokovoy is beginning to realize it, but that's just a hunch.

Excellent example, sir! It's just too bad that you can't bring it to FAIR to illustrate your point.

Actually I brought up this analogy in a response to DCP, but he didn't respond to it. If you want to read through the exchange, I posted it in the Bokovoy thread.

Even if I provided evidence that my daughter had a teacher who taught her English, and was fond of a songs for Boy Scouts, this would not do it for them. This alone would not be considered a reasonable that maybe she didn't learn it from God. For them I would have to provide conclusive proof that she taught this particular song.

The same with the Joseph Smith "hits." They feel free to make all sorts of wild connections and they expect them to be "intellectually defensible" until a critics proves otherwise. The old axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence doesn't resonate with them.

Twelve Mormon apologists serving as jurors is a defendant's worst nightmare. Trying to convince them of reasonable doubt is virtually impossible.

Runtu wrote:

skippy the dead wrote:I think it says more about you that you don't agree with them now.

I know that the MAD folks think it says a lot about me (see my post on Ray's exmo-Nazi thread). In the end, what they are selling just doesn't hold up. I think some of them know it. I'm beginning to think that Bokovoy is beginning to realize it, but that's just a hunch.

I actually wonder if some of the mental supports in Her Amun's brain aren't fraying a little bit at the edges. I know he plays the Hugh Nibley wannabe game enthusiastically enough, but that's gotta be the hardest thing to pull off mentally, and the harsh way he responded to a few things I said recently reminded me more of a wild animal backed into a corner than anything else. Who knows? Maybe he's starting to realize there's something wrong with the "give away the store as long as we're right" mentality of LDS apologetics.

dartagnan wrote: Dan Peterson . . . threw down a gauntlet challenging people to deal with his “evidence” and he made it perfectly clear his presentation was going to reveal crucial information that those darned critics “won’t tell you.”

Oh, so now God has chosen to reveal crucial information to Dan Peterson. It appears that Danny Boy is making ol' Wrinkley expendable.

Yes, the information proving the Mormon Church is out there. God, in his unfathomably wise ways, has chosen to hide it from all of humanity, but as a demonstration of his love for humanity, he has elected to reveal it through his servant, Daniel Peterson.

Dan, the world waits with unretrained eagerness for you to disclose this crucial information once and for all proving that the Mormon Church is God's one and only true church.

I, for one, cannot wait to hear it.

Excellent example, sir! It's just too bad that you can't bring it to FAIR to illustrate your point.

Since we know that MAD posters, and in this case, Dan Peterson, reads MDB, there's no reason why Dart doesn't post his replies here. Being blocked from MAD doesn't stop the conversation; it just moves half of it to another place.