A conversation with Stan Barker of SHIELDS
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 4:49 pm
As many of you saw, Doctor Scratch started a thread titled "SHIELDS Launches an Attack on Some Schmo." In it, Doctor Scratch quoted some statements from Stan Barker, chief SHIELDS guru. These statements seemed quite outrageous, and the resulting commentary seemed equally devastating thereunto.
I took the opportunity to e-mail Stan to find out if he had anything to say for himself. Here is how it all went down. (For ease of reading, quoted material is in purple; double-quoted material is in blue. As such, the grayish material is original and is thus the most important, of course.)
EXCHANGE #1
EXCHANGE #2
EXCHANGE #3
Stan Barker did not respond to that last e-mail of mine.
Interestingly, Brother Barker forwarded each of his replies to both the LDS Apologetics listserv and the L-Skinny listserv. Since he didn't respond to my last e-mail, chances are LDS Apologetics and L-Skinny didn't see it, either, and thus, as of now, mistakenly believe that he got the last word.
In other news, some of you may be wondering about the ethicality of posting someone else's e-mails wholesale, but Brother Barker himself has elsewhere made it perfectly clear that he has no ethical problem whatsoever with doing such a thing.
So, there you have it. What are your thoughts on these exchanges?
.
I took the opportunity to e-mail Stan to find out if he had anything to say for himself. Here is how it all went down. (For ease of reading, quoted material is in purple; double-quoted material is in blue. As such, the grayish material is original and is thus the most important, of course.)
EXCHANGE #1
Dr. Shades wrote:Hello Stan,
You may be interested in the fact that that there is a thread dedicated to you at MormonDiscussions.com right now.
I must admit, it seems to be extremely devastating to your point of view. I honestly can't see any way for you to counter what they're saying. Is it even possible to respond to the arguments contained therein?
The thread is at:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... f=1&t=9022
Have a nice day,
"Dr. Shades"
Stan Barker wrote:You must be kidding! That was one of the most conflated hyper-excited and irrational rants I have read. We are talking about several different posts here that, in order to attempt to make me look bad, were drawn together as if one post. Amazing. Not only that, I use the word "most" in a sentence, and the writer says that I said *all.* That is honesty? That is rational thinking? I make a simple statement without any real emotion, but in order to paint a bad picture the writer says "angry tone." Later he uses "erupted."
Frankly if you think that kind of nonsense is devastating, it is pointless to even attempt a discusion. And then, after reading this, calling what I wrote a hit piece. Laughable. Absolutely laughable. Comments like implying that I said, "many Mormons don't know diddly squat about Church history and/or doctrine," when what I really said was that many "don't know enough." Major difference. Do you know enuogh? Who does?
Dr. Shades, if this kind of nonsense makes you feel like you guys have made a case, I suggest that you don't go off your meds. It will keep you feeling warm and fuzzy.
Shaking my head... I just can hardly believe anyone would be taken in by such nonsense. It says a great deal about you, if you think they made a devastating case. Again, it isn't worth further discussion. You guys have fun out there, but be careful, the boogyman might get you.
Stan
EXCHANGE #2
Dr. Shades wrote:> You must be kidding! That was one of the most conflated hyper-excited and
> irrational rants I have read. We are talking about several different posts
> here that, in order to attempt to make me look bad, were drawn together as
> if one post.
That is a false statement. It was a single post only, not several different ones. It was posted in a March 19 entry in your weblog, which you can view at:
http://shields-research.org/WP/?p=11
> Amazing. Not only that, I use the word "most" in a sentence,
> and the writer says that I said *all.* That is honesty?
You may have meant that most educated people don't join the church--implying that some do--but from the readers' point of view, it seemed as though you meant that among educated people, those who joined the church actually listened to the message whereas ALL of those who DON'T join simply didn't listen.
Hence the word "all" in the opening post.
> That is rational
> thinking? I make a simple statement without any real emotion, but in order
> to paint a bad picture the writer says "angry tone." Later he uses
> "erupted."
That may not have been your intent, but your use of the triple exclamation points made it seem that way from the readers' point of view.
> Frankly if you think that kind of nonsense is devastating, it is pointless
> to even attempt a discusion. And then, after reading this, calling what I
> wrote a hit piece. Laughable. Absolutely laughable. Comments like
> implying that I said, "many Mormons don't know diddly squat about Church
> history and/or doctrine," when what I really said was that many "don't know
> enough." Major difference. Do you know enuogh? Who does?
So are you implying that nobody knows enough about church history and/or doctrine? If that's indeed the case, why did you merely say that "many" Mormons don't know enough about church history and/or doctrine?
> Dr. Shades, if this kind of nonsense makes you feel like you guys have made
> a case, I suggest that you don't go off your meds. It will keep you feeling
> warm and fuzzy.
You've nitpicked about the word "all" and about your true emotional state at the time of the entry's composition, but you have yet to address the actual meat of the post in question.
> Shaking my head... I just can hardly believe anyone would be taken in by
> such nonsense. It says a great deal about you, if you think they made a
> devastating case. Again, it isn't worth further discussion. You guys have
> fun out there, but be careful, the boogyman might get you.
I fail to see how this addresses the point. Specifically, do you really, truly believe that the only reason educated people (and even uneducated people, for that matter) overwhelmingly reject Mormonism is merely because they don't understand it? Do you honestly believe that if they understood it, they'd overwhelmingly accept it, and *not the other way around?*
Judging from your blog entry, I think you mistake *apologetics* for *Mormonism.* Also, just because someone rejects apologetics doesn't mean they misunderstand it; chances are they reject apologetics precisely *because* they understand it.
Are you able to address the substance of the origial post, instead of mere nitpicking? Because, like I said, I don't see how you can.
Stan Barker wrote:> > You must be kidding! That was one of the most conflated hyper-excited and
> > irrational rants I have read. We are talking about several different posts
> > here that, in order to attempt to make me look bad, were drawn together as
> > if one post.
> That is a false statement. It was a single post only, not several
> different ones. It was posted in a March 19 entry in your weblog,
> which you can view at:
> http://shields-research.org/WP/?p=11
Stan reples:
Interesting. So you originally referred me to:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... f=1&t=9022
I went there, and the first post on that page is as follows:
http://shields-research.org/WP/?cat=9
That link goes to two posts that I made. They are not all one post. But, you tell me that I made a false statement? Dr. Shades, it appears as if you are getting too excited and are having trouble following a discussion. Go back, take another look. I did not make a false statment.
> > Amazing. Not only that, I use the word "most" in a sentence,
> > and the writer says that I said *all.* That is honesty?
> You may have meant that most educated people don't join the
> church--implying that some do--but from the readers' point of view, it
> seemed as though you meant that among educated people, those who
> joined the church actually listened to the message whereas ALL of
> those who DON'T join simply didn't listen.
> Hence the word "all" in the opening post.
Stan replies:
(sigh) So, I didn't mean what I said? That is a pathetic argument. What I said was clear. If you or others can't seem to understand it, (notice that I did NOT say "all" could not understand it), then what is the point of discussing it. It is clear enough. You folks are just trying to build a mountain out of a molehill to make yourselves feel good. My original posts stand and I have nothing to apologize for.
> > That is rational
> > thinking? I make a simple statement without any real emotion, but in order
> > to paint a bad picture the writer says "angry tone." Later he uses
> > "erupted."
> That may not have been your intent, but your use of the triple
> exclamation points made it seem that way from the readers' point of
> view.
Stan replies:
Whatever!!!! 8-)
> > Frankly if you think that kind of nonsense is devastating, it is pointless
> > to even attempt a discusion. And then, after reading this, calling what I
> > wrote a hit piece. Laughable. Absolutely laughable. Comments like
> > implying that I said, "many Mormons don't know diddly squat about Church
> > history and/or doctrine," when what I really said was that many "don't know
> > enough." Major difference. Do you know enuogh? Who does?
> So are you implying that nobody knows enough about church history
> and/or doctrine? If that's indeed the case, why did you merely say
> that "many" Mormons don't know enough about church history and/or
> doctrine?
Stan replies:
Jason, the statement is clear. I'm not going to debate it. Again, an attempt to make something out of nothing. And why? Just to make me look bad. However, in the end, it is you guys who look bad with such a feeble attempt to discredit me. Why is this post so aggravating to you folks? As one person said, (in essense), no one looks as SHIELDS.
> > Dr. Shades, if this kind of nonsense makes you feel like you guys have made
> > a case, I suggest that you don't go off your meds. It will keep you feeling
> > warm and fuzzy.
> You've nitpicked about the word "all" and about your true emotional
> state at the time of the entry's composition, but you have yet to
> address the actual meat of the post in question.
Stan replies:
Whatever that might be.
> > Shaking my head... I just can hardly believe anyone would be taken in by
> > such nonsense. It says a great deal about you, if you think they made a
> > devastating case. Again, it isn't worth further discussion. You guys have
> > fun out there, but be careful, the boogyman might get you.
> I fail to see how this addresses the point. Specifically, do you
> really, truly believe that the only reason educated people (and even
> uneducated people, for that matter) overwhelmingly reject Mormonism is
> merely because they don't understand it? Do you honestly believe that
> if they understood it, they'd overwhelmingly accept it, and *not the
> other way around?*
Stan replies:
You are clearly twisting my words. That, in fact, is not what I said. Go back to the second post on that original page (on the blog you sent me to) and reread the opening paragraph. I said there were 13 PhD's in my ward. Do you somehow suppose they are the only PhD's in the Church? Secondly, many (again, just for your sake, I did not say "all") 7people never really seriously look at the LDS Church's doctrine and history, hence why would they join the LDS Church? This is a specious argument. Many of those really educated people end up joining the LDS Church, but wait, then they are members so you can discount them. Jason, this is really stupid nitpicking. And it completely misses the point I made in my post in the blog. I stand by the post. There is not need to try to debate semantics in order to try to "get me." This is just stupid.
> Judging from your blog entry, I think you mistake *apologetics* for
> *Mormonism.*
Stan replies:
You are free to believe whatever you wish, as you have already so clearly demonstrated. Doesn't change the truth, however.
> Also, just because someone rejects apologetics doesn't
> mean they misunderstand it; chances are they reject apologetics
> precisely *because* they understand it.
Stan replies:
Yes, sure.... just like the folks who have written to me saying that nothing on the SHIELDS site is true, but when asked to provide an example, they quietly dissappear. I've got nothing to apologize for Jason. When they start providing cogent responses to our answers, that demonstrates where we are wrong, you might have a point. Till then, this is a lot of bluff and bluster and a waste of time.
> Are you able to address the substance of the origial post, instead of
> mere nitpicking? Because, like I said, I don't see how you can.
Stan replies:
You know what Jason, I looked at the original post. I addressed a number of issues there. There was so much nonsense, that I must have missed the point. Perhaps you could explain to me what I am missing and therefore not addressing? But please, straw-men, really don't draw much attention from me. There was a specific list of 3 points. I answered number one, #2 requires no answer, and #3 requires no answer. The follow-up comment then misses the point of my blog post (which you did as well). Why should I respond to that which is perfectly clear and try to answer straw men? I'm told that what I wrote was a "hit piece," followed by my "erupting in anger." Silly, very silly and a common tactic for this wishing to sidetrack the discussion and poison the well. So, Schmo can do a hit piece, but when I respond with clear logic and good examples, I'm all excited and angry. Yeah, real scholarly reply. Then it goes downhill from there.
Jason, I see no need to go any further. My comments stand on their own in my original blog posts. Like I've already said, if you folks want to rationalize what you see there and thereby create a "hit piece" on me to make yourselves feel superior, feel free. I could care less. For me, I see this discussion as having come to an end.
Regards,
Stan Barker
Stan Barker wrote:Jason, just a follow-up comment or two. Schmo's original hit piece implies that LDS scholars (including the many, many PhD's that are members of the Church, are somewhat inferior to scholars outside of the LDS Church. But somehow, that doesn't seem to catch anyone's attention. Where is the criticism from your quarters on how nonsensical his arguments are? Don't answer that. I know why there aren't any from your quarter. That is why I posted my comments on our Blog about it. You folks seem to live by quite a double-standard and either never see it as such or simply don't understand. Perhaps the participants on that list regard themselves as some of the leading scholars in the nation? Do you think you are? And if not, why should I care what you think of me? And why should I anyway. Everyone is capable of being stupid and not seeing truth because of prejudices, no matter how objective they claim to be.
My comments stand and nothing posted on your little board refutes them.
Stan
EXCHANGE #3
Dr. Shades wrote:> Stan reples:
> Interesting. So you originally referred me to:
>
> http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... f=1&t=9022
>
> I went there, and the first post on that page is as follows:
>
> http://shields-research.org/WP/?cat=9
>
> That link goes to two posts that I made. They are not all one post. But,
> you tell me that I made a false statement?
Yes. Although Doctor Scratch mistakenly linked to the whole blog page, his thread referred to only one post among them.
> (sigh) So, I didn't mean what I said? That is a pathetic argument. What I
> said was clear. If you or others can't seem to understand it, (notice that
> I did NOT say "all" could not understand it), then what is the point of
> discussing it. It is clear enough. You folks are just trying to build a
> mountain out of a molehill to make yourselves feel good. My original posts
> stand and I have nothing to apologize for.
I am not asking you to apologize. You directly implied that those with Ph.D.s who don't join the church are simply the same ones who didn't adequately listen to it. You're right; you didn't imply that ALL Ph.D.s reject it--since some probably do convert to it here or there--but you did imply that ALL those who reject it simply didn't listen. So it's a simple question of whether "all = all Ph.D.s," or "all = all Ph.D.s who don't join Mormonism."
> Jason, the statement is clear. I'm not going to debate it. Again, an
> attempt to make something out of nothing. And why? Just to make me look
> bad. However, in the end, it is you guys who look bad with such a feeble
> attempt to discredit me. Why is this post so aggravating to you folks? As
> one person said, (in essense), no one looks as SHIELDS.
It's not an attempt to make you look bad. It's merely an attempt to reconnoiter whether you honestly, truly believe that ALL Ph.D.s who reject Mormonism do so merely because they aren't familiar with it. It's also an attempt to discover whether you really, honestly believe that knowledgeable Mormons know more than ALL critics you've ever encountered over 40+ years (or whatever it was). It's true that knowledgeable Mormons may be able to COMPARTMENTALIZE problems within Mormonism better than any critic, but let's face it, critics are, on average, quite a bit more adept at SYNTHESIZING the problems within Mormonism into a fuller understanding of just what the implications are.
Also, it appears as though you believe that it's impossible to reject Mormonism and understand it at the same time. Is that truly your belief? I honestly don't know whether it is or not; I'm merely trying to discover what, specifically, your opinion is. Assuming that's indeed an accurate appraisal of your belief, I'd like to bring to your attention that the opposite is true: The deeper one's understanding of and knowledge about Mormonism, the easier it becomes to reject it. Let's face it, there's a reason that potential converts are only given a scan of the religion; if they discover beforehand that (going on memory here) the sun, or Kli-Flo-Is-Is, borrows its light from the medium of Kae-E-Vanrash via Ha-Ko-Kau-Beam through the revolutions of Kolob, they'd be much less likely to join, ESPECIALLY if they have a Ph.D.
> You are clearly twisting my words. That, in fact, is not what I said. Go
> back to the second post on that original page (on the blog you sent me to)
> and reread the opening paragraph. I said there were 13 PhD's in my ward.
> Do you somehow suppose they are the only PhD's in the Church?
Of course not. But as Some Schmo pointed out, chances are those 13 Ph.D.s in your ward were merely born into it, so it doesn't seem implausible to them.
> Secondly,
> many (again, just for your sake, I did not say "all") 7people never really
> seriously look at the LDS Church's doctrine and history, hence why would
> they join the LDS Church? This is a specious argument. Many of those
> really educated people end up joining the LDS Church, but wait, then they
> are members so you can discount them.
No, I would not discount them. You appear to be conflating "converts" with "born-in-the-covenant" members, which is precisely the distinction that Some Schmo originally made. I really would be interested in knowing the percentage of Ph.D.s who learn about Mormonism and then join vs. those Ph.D.s who learn about Mormonism and then consciously refrain from joining.
> Jason, this is really stupid
> nitpicking. And it completely misses the point I made in my post in the
> blog. I stand by the post. There is not need to try to debate semantics in
> order to try to "get me." This is just stupid.
I'm not nitpicking. I'm trying to get a grasp on whether you truly believe that it's impossible to gain a proficiency with Mormon doctrine and history and then become convinced that it's NOT true (as you directly implied in your blog entry). On the flip side, I'm trying to determine whether you've never considered the notion that the more one learns about Mormonism, the LESS likely they are to join.
> You are free to believe whatever you wish, as you have already so clearly
> demonstrated. Doesn't change the truth, however.
Right. That's why I wish to learn, directly from you, what your opinion is, so that I don't have to make any guesses, educated or otherwise.
> Yes, sure.... just like the folks who have written to me saying that nothing
> on the SHIELDS site is true, but when asked to provide an example, they
> quietly dissappear. I've got nothing to apologize for Jason. When they
> start providing cogent responses to our answers, that demonstrates where we
> are wrong, you might have a point. Till then, this is a lot of bluff and
> bluster and a waste of time.
We're not talking about the SHIELDS site in general here. We're talking about your blog entry wherein you stated that Ph.D.s who don't join the church simply didn't listen to it or don't know enough about it.
> You know what Jason, I looked at the original post. I addressed a number of
> issues there. There was so much nonsense, that I must have missed the
> point. Perhaps you could explain to me what I am missing and therefore not
> addressing?
Hopefully I clarified it above.
> But please, straw-men, really don't draw much attention from
> me. There was a specific list of 3 points. I answered number one, #2
> requires no answer, and #3 requires no answer. The follow-up comment then
> misses the point of my blog post (which you did as well). Why should I
> respond to that which is perfectly clear and try to answer straw men? I'm
> told that what I wrote was a "hit piece," followed by my "erupting in
> anger."
In that case, let's ignore the tone of your blog entry and focus on your beliefs instead, as I have hopefully done.
> Jason, I see no need to go any further. My comments stand on their own in
> my original blog posts. Like I've already said, if you folks want to
> rationalize what you see there and thereby create a "hit piece" on me to
> make yourselves feel superior, feel free. I could care less. For me, I see
> this discussion as having come to an end.
If A) your comments stand on their own, and B) this discussion has come to an end, then I'll have no choice but to conclude that Doctor Scratch's analysis is correct, and that you believe A) educated people who reject Mormonism merely haven't done their homework, and B) by extension, it's impossible for someone to reject Mormonism after they've dug deeply into it.
Is that really what you want?
> Jason, just a follow-up comment or two. Schmo's original hit piece implies that LDS scholars
> (including the many, many PhD's that are members of the Church, are somewhat inferior to
> scholars outside of the LDS Church.
I see that nowhere implied. Just because LDS Ph.D.s fail to recognize the logical flaws within the church because they were raised in it doesn't mean that all other Ph.D.s DON'T fail to recognize the logical flaws within their own traditions because they were raised in them as well. It's an extremely common phenomenon among the entire human family.
> But somehow, that doesn't seem to catch anyone's
> attention. Where is the criticism from your quarters on how nonsensical his arguments are?
It's not nonsensical; it's self-evident.
> Don't answer that. I know why there aren't any from your quarter. That is why I posted my
> comments on our Blog about it. You folks seem to live by quite a double-standard and either
> never see it as such or simply don't understand. Perhaps the participants on that list regard
> themselves as some of the leading scholars in the nation? Do you think you are? And if not,
> why should I care what you think of me? And why should I anyway. Everyone is capable of
> being stupid and not seeing truth because of prejudices, no matter how objective they claim
> to be.
Precisely. That's why I seek to truly understand your beliefs on this issue. Would you prefer that I simply make assumptions?
> My comments stand and nothing posted on your little board refutes them.
In that case, please help me to understand them better.
Stan Barker did not respond to that last e-mail of mine.
Interestingly, Brother Barker forwarded each of his replies to both the LDS Apologetics listserv and the L-Skinny listserv. Since he didn't respond to my last e-mail, chances are LDS Apologetics and L-Skinny didn't see it, either, and thus, as of now, mistakenly believe that he got the last word.
In other news, some of you may be wondering about the ethicality of posting someone else's e-mails wholesale, but Brother Barker himself has elsewhere made it perfectly clear that he has no ethical problem whatsoever with doing such a thing.
So, there you have it. What are your thoughts on these exchanges?
.
