Credentials

[_charity]

Credentials are ultimately meaningless to the LDS apologist. The internal spiritual witness is the ultimate and only credential. Apologetics is an attempt to give purely faith-based thought processes a rational facade. Why do they do this? Reasoning is ultimately not necessary--only faith.

No credential will ever be acceptable if the credential backs an argument which contradicts the internal spiritual witness. Apologetics is pure mental masturbation.

amantha, you really should only speak about what you know.

We use the word testimony, or spiritual witness when that is appropriate. I am sure you know, or at least should know, that most of the apologists have fully credible degrees from institutions not BYU. They don't get those degrees by bearing their testimonies to their dissertation committees.

To name just a few:

Daniel C. Peterson, ph. d. UCLA
John Gee, ph. d. Yale
William Hamblin ph. d. UMinn
John L. Sorenson ph.d. UCLA
Hugh Nibley, ph.d. UCBerkeley
Terryl Given, ph. d. University of Richmond

I have read articles/books by these men. None of them mentioned a testimony or spiritual witness in their published works.

Your obscene remarks reflect back on your quality of thinking.

The truth hurts, doesn't it Charity! Why else would you raise your hand and identify yourself as being pained by my remarks?

I am going to state right here, that I am being judgemental. I don't think you read very well. I went back over my post and didn't notice the word "pain" even once. Did you compose your response before you even read mine?

[_harmony]

Dr Peterson's PhD in Arabic Studies has nothing to do with Mormon Apologetics or Mormon Studies.

[Guest]

Charity said:

I am going to state right here, that I am being judgemental. I don't think you read very well. I went back over my post and didn't notice the word "pain" even once. Did you compose your response before you even read mine?

Of course you are being judgmental. That is 90% of what you do here. This is what makes you telestial material until you repent. And you can't repent until you stop your campaign of hate toward unbelievers.

As far as the "pain" thing goes--you know what I meant in my post. Don't try to play dumb. All you have been talking about in your last few diatribes is how unapologetic you are for spewing your "truth" and having people identify themselves as "guilty" when they complain about it. You didn't have to speak the words Charity. Your actions speak louder than your words.

Other people here may tolerate your guile. I don't. I see right through you.

Credentials don't matter in a world where the bottom line is a subjective "spiritual" witness.

[_charity]

Dr Peterson's PhD in Arabic Studies has nothing to do with Mormon Apologetics or Mormon Studies.

Yes. And what are you saying? There isn't a ph.d. program in "Mormon Apologetics" or "Mormon Studies." What is your point?

[_harmony]

Dr Peterson's PhD in Arabic Studies has nothing to do with Mormon Apologetics or Mormon Studies.

Yes. And what are you saying? There isn't a ph.d. program in "Mormon Apologetics" or "Mormon Studies." What is your point?

My point is that Daniel's credentials have nothing to do with his apologetics. So anything he writes or speaks about that are related to Mormon Studies or Mormon apologetics has no support from credentials at all. Same goes for Brant Gardner. He's credentialed in Computers (If I recall correctly), so his apologetics stand unsupported by credentials at all, just as Daniel's do.

About the others, I don't know. I've never paid much attention to either their credentials or their apologetics.

[_richardMdBorn]

Charity,

The question I posed in my last post, how do you handle the situation where people with credentials argue for opposite positions. Do you have to, gasp, assess the cogency of their arguments?

[_amantha]

Charity,

The question I posed in my last post, how do you handle the situation where people with credentials argue for opposite positions. Do you have to, gasp, assess the cogency of their arguments?

What argument could possibly be cogent if it contraverts the incontrovertible spiritual witness?

Apologetics is smoke and mirrors. It is mental masturbation. Credentials matter not.

[_charity]

Charity,

The question I posed in my last post, how do you handle the situation where people with credentials argue for opposite positions. Do you have to, gasp, assess the cogency of their arguments?

In general, when we are talking about a population who is unschooled in a particular topioc, listening to "people with credentials" arguing for opposite positions, there are three things we have to do.

Listen to the arguments. But if we don't know anything about the topic, we aren't in a very good position to know which argument is more reasonable.

Check for bias in the experts. For instance, before Robert Ritner ever wrote a word against the Book of Abraham, he had established himself as anti-Mormon by his writings. So, then if he were a credentialed Egyptologist arguing about soemthing about the Book of Abraham, I would wonder if his bias was coloring his judgement. Of course, you have to always wonder about LDS aruging anything, too. But it isn't just a case that all LDS are biased for and all non-LDS are neutral.

Check for our own biases. If it comes down to a toss up over which "expert" to believe, we have to look to see if our prejudice will push us in one direction or the other.

[_harmony]

Of course, you have to always wonder about LDS aruging anything, too. But it isn't just a case that all LDS are biased for and all non-LDS are neutral.

How many times have LDS apologists argued against the church and lived to tell about it?

[_JAK]

What in the world is with all this rational-speak from one who has previously made pontification with absolute certainty?

If you want “credentials,” you also should want objectivity from those with the credentials. Someone with a PhD. from BYU in religion lacks the credentials of someone with a PhD. in religion from an accredited university with no religious bias (or with some other religious bias), someone with a non-colored view of history and from a neutral perspective.

This is where you lost your crediblity. You really think that a person looking at anything LDS comes to the table with no biases? A neutral perspective? First, their mere choice of what to study or examine indicates a bias of some kind. This is so well known in scientific circles that there is even a phrase for it--"experimenter bias."

What’s with all this pandering to science after discrediting science in favor of religious dogma? [/quoe]

It has always been my opinion that there is no conflict between true science and true religion.

Are you realy “charity”? Or are you an imposter. Or are you charity with a new and improved grasp of educational and informational excellence?

You just didn't know me at all.

Charity stated:
This seems to be an easy question. Credentials are essential for any area where you expect me to trust that what you say is correct. If you expect me to take what you say when I don't have the required expertise, then you should convince me by the weight of your credentials that you know what you are saying.

Historians should therefore be able to present their credentials to establish that basis of trust.

Since I don't read Egyptian heiroglypics, if I am to take someone's word that their translation is accurate, I want him/her to show me that I can reasonably trust them.

If you can present an object you have invented, the thing is the proof itself. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, what good are credentials?

Any scientific endeavor I can think of requires some background knowledge. But the research should stand for itself, as the invention would.

By statement you affirm the importance of “credentials.” Then you deny them. Which is it?

The answer is that more education is superior to less education. Religious propaganda of any sort is a cognitive disconnect from genuine information.

The fact that stupidity is published does not establish it as credible. Publishers publish what will sell or what they are paid to publish by special interest groups.

Your flip-flop on the importance of “credentials” is exposed, charity.

First, in this thread, you applaud science, then you discount it objecting to “neutral position” with regard to evidence.

You were right to applaud science and wrong to discredit it. Your computer works because of applied science. Medical treatments and drugs are what they are today because of neutral double blind tests of those treatments and drugs.

Neutrality when approaching evidence for credibility and reliability is essential. Anything less becomes propaganda.

JAK