Page 1 of 1
NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:33 pm
by _Spurven Ten Sing
Over at MAD, the folks are commenting on Rob Bowman's website, IRR:
If it happens that IRR's research and publications in opposition to the LDS faith earn a living for its principals, meaning that if they changed their minds and decided that the LDS church wasn't the church of the devil after all they would lose their livelihood, then there is a clear conflict of interest, and grounds for distrust of their conclusions.
Doesn't this also call into suspicion NAMIRS and FAIR, Mr. Stargazer? Hmmm???
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/556 ... 1209046264
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:37 pm
by _Buffalo
That argument, if true, really hits the LDS general authorities the hardest.
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:21 pm
by _LDS truthseeker
Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Over at MAD, the folks are commenting on Rob Bowman's website, IRR:
If it happens that IRR's research and publications in opposition to the LDS faith earn a living for its principals, meaning that if they changed their minds and decided that the LDS church wasn't the church of the devil after all they would lose their livelihood, then there is a clear conflict of interest, and grounds for distrust of their conclusions.
Doesn't this also call into suspicion NAMIRS and FAIR, Mr. Stargazer? Hmmm???
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/556 ... 1209046264
And what about all the hundreds of exmo sites that don't make a dime for spreading the truth about the LDS church? Almost all of those people actually pay money to spread the information, not profit by it.
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:22 pm
by _MrStakhanovite
While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:29 pm
by _sock puppet
MrStakhanovite wrote:While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.
Stak,
What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics? As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:44 pm
by _stemelbow
MrStakhanovite wrote:While Rob Bowman is a near philosophical opposite of me, he is an honest guy, who really does strive for accurate representation. If for some odd reason, Rob had a change of heart about Mormonism, I doubt he’d continue with the Mormon focused apologetics.
I agree with the OP and I agree with this. for years I posted over at Apologetics dot com where Rob was a frequent poster too, so I feel I know him a little. I don't get what all the fuss is about over at MDD when people complain about him. He does fairly well.
It reminds me of this place and me (just kidding).
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:28 pm
by _MrStakhanovite
sock puppet wrote:What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics?
I think it’s a non-issue.
Whatever a person’s motivation is behind their work or arguments, those things will be evaluated on merits other than someone’s motivation. Just because someone adores the Church or hates it, still does on invalidate any of the work they do, though Crocket wishes otherwise.
sock puppet wrote:As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.
That might appeal to some people, perhaps those who are bitter or jaded towards a professional clergy, but I’ve come to appreciate the benefits of a solid seminary education, not to mention, training in public speaking.
Re: NAMIRS and FAIR debunked by a mopologist.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:41 pm
by _sock puppet
MrStakhanovite wrote:sock puppet wrote:What do you, as a never Mo, see as the crux issue with paid apologetics?
I think it’s a non-issue.
Whatever a person’s motivation is behind their work or arguments, those things will be evaluated on merits other than someone’s motivation. Just because someone adores the Church or hates it, still does on invalidate any of the work they do, though Crocket wishes otherwise.
sock puppet wrote:As I was raised in Mormonism, ventured to BYU and did a mission, almost invariably when a contrast was made between Mormonism and other religions, the point was made as a badge of correctness that the Mormons did not have a paid clergy, but have a lay clergy. I think that may be it, but I'd appreciate you look at it.
That might appeal to some people, perhaps those who are bitter or jaded towards a professional clergy, but I’ve come to appreciate the benefits of a solid seminary education, not to mention, training in public speaking.
Thanks. It does seem that what Mormons get from the Sunday pulpit is rather pedestrian compared to what other Christians receive. I guess you get what you pay for--or don't.