Credentials

[_harmony]

I was speaking of spiritual suicide, JAK, which is what happens to anyone who publically takes on the church. They get ex'ed, cut off from God forever; hence spiritual suicide.

The person who has committed an offense which can result in excommunication is already spiritually dead. An excommunication merely formalizes what has already happened.

Well, it's nice to know your take on a Court of Love. LOL

[_harmony]

I wasn't assuming non-LDS are neutral.

Thank you. Most critics seem to make that their basic assumption.

I was assuming that LDS are biased. And I haven't seen your rebuttal yet about Daniel's credentials not supporting his apologetics. According to your list, they should, but they don't... so where does that leave your conclusion?

I haven't seen DCP make comments out of his area of expertise. You limit his expertise to his ph.d. He has undergradute degrees in Greek and philosophy as well as the Near Eastern languages. He is certainly qualified to write and speak on matters of LDS doctrine and practice.

Any apologetic comment is outside his area of expertise, charity. You yourself said it: there is no Mormon Studies so any apologetic comment is unsupported by credentials.

That said, I don't see what degrees in Greek, philosophy, Near Eastern languages or Arabic Studies has to do with Mormon Studies, Mormon history, or Mormon culture. Daniel's apologetics are not supported by his credentials.

Incidently, neither are yours.

[_harmony]

I wasn't assuming non-LDS are neutral.

Thank you. Most critics seem to make that their basic assumption.

I was assuming that LDS are biased. And I haven't seen your rebuttal yet about Daniel's credentials not supporting his apologetics. According to your list, they should, but they don't... so where does that leave your conclusion?

I haven't seen DCP make comments out of his area of expertise. You limit his expertise to his ph.d. He has undergradute degrees in Greek and philosophy as well as the Near Eastern languages. He is certainly qualified to write and speak on matters of LDS doctrine and practice.

Any apologetic comment is outside his area of expertise, charity. You yourself said it: there is no Mormon Studies so any apologetic comment is unsupported by credentials.

That said, I don't see what degrees in Greek, philosophy, Near Eastern languages or Arabic Studies has to do with Mormon Studies, Mormon history, or Mormon culture. Daniel's apologetics are not supported by his credentials.

Incidently, neither are yours.

[_charity]

I was speaking of spiritual suicide, JAK, which is what happens to anyone who publically takes on the church. They get ex'ed, cut off from God forever; hence spiritual suicide.

The person who has committed an offense which can result in excommunication is already spiritually dead. An excommunication merely formalizes what has already happened.

Well, it's nice to know your take on a Court of Love. LOL

What has your knickers in a knot on this?

[_JAK]

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?

Interesting question. Not being LDS, does the LDS organization actually kill people? Given the charity talk here, it appears they might.

The question, harmony, just what is the level of intolerance in that religious group?

JAK

I hope you are joking, JAK. You see quite a group here who are critical of the Church, who maintain they are members, even members in good standing. They are still alive and kicking.

Of course, the Church does not kill anyone who is critical of it. Even very prominent anti-Mormons just go along digging themselves even deeper and deeper.

Charity,

Your misconception here is revealed in your expression “the Church.” There is no “the Church.”

There are hundreds of churches plural. And what you call “the Church” did not exist prior to its emergence and evolution from the son of a Methodist in the 1800s. So try to get the historicity correct.

It’s nice your church does not kill people. Your expressions might lead one to wonder about that. Your church was unwilling to abandon polygamy until the US Federal Government made clear Utah would be denied statehood unless the state agreed to abandon that practice. Of course although it agreed officially, polygamy is still practices by some Mormons.

While Warren Jeffs is now in jail, that only happened within the past year. And there are still Mormons who worship him as prophet.

An objective history of J.Smith is filled with personal and social problems. There are many other reliable sites as well as books to document this.

JAK

[_harmony]

Your misconception here is revealed in your expression “the Church.” There is no “the Church.”

There you go again, JAK, going off topic. Your comments are 'way off topic.

The subject of this thread is Credentials, not multiple churches or your thoughts on Joseph Smith. Try to keep on topic. It will be a nice change.

That said, The Church to charity means the LDS church. It's her church. It's her world. So? Catholics refer to their church as the church. Neither interferes with the others' conception of The Church. And neither requires any permission from you in referring to their church as the church.

Good grief.

[_charity]

I wasn't assuming non-LDS are neutral.

Thank you. Most critics seem to make that their basic assumption.

I was assuming that LDS are biased. And I haven't seen your rebuttal yet about Daniel's credentials not supporting his apologetics. According to your list, they should, but they don't... so where does that leave your conclusion?

I haven't seen DCP make comments out of his area of expertise. You limit his expertise to his ph.d. He has undergradute degrees in Greek and philosophy as well as the Near Eastern languages. He is certainly qualified to write and speak on matters of LDS doctrine and practice.

Any apologetic comment is outside his area of expertise, charity. You yourself said it: there is no Mormon Studies so any apologetic comment is unsupported by credentials.

That said, I don't see what degrees in Greek, philosophy, Near Eastern languages or Arabic Studies has to do with Mormon Studies, Mormon history, or Mormon culture. Daniel's apologetics are not supported by his credentials.

Incidently, neither are yours.

You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.

I am not in the upper echelon, but I have college level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, which is more than many, if not most of the critics here have.

So, when you are talking about evaluating credentials of apologists or critics, nobody has a degree in Mormon culture, so either listen to them based on what they do know, or leave the room. No one is forcing you to stay.

[_harmony]

You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.

Their experience and intellect are not in doubt, charity. You're the one who said their credentials supported their apologetics. The bare fact is: their credentials do NOT support their apologetics. And their experience and intellect is not superior to many critics I know. You are aware that The Dude, Addictio, Tarski, and others I'm sure I'm forgetting also have PhD's or JD's, aren't you? Yet you discount them because their credentials don't support their criticisms. Why is their experience and intellect not afforded the same stature as Daniel and his friends'? Because they disagree and dispute the apologetics?

Indeed.

You can't have it both ways, charity. Either the credentials must support the apologetics, or credentials don't matter.

No one is forcing you to stay.

I'm not sure why you commented thusly.

[_charity]

You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.

Their experience and intellect are not in doubt, charity. You're the one who said their credentials supported their apologetics. The bare fact is: their credentials do NOT support their apologetics. And their experience and intellect is not superior to many critics I know. You are aware that The Dude, Addictio, Tarski, and others I'm sure I'm forgetting also have PhD's or JD's, aren't you? Yet you discount them because their credentials don't support their criticisms. Why is their experience and intellect not afforded the same stature as Daniel and his friends'? Because they disagree and dispute the apologetics?

Indeed.

You can't have it both ways, charity. Either the credentials must support the apologetics, or credentials don't matter.

No one is forcing you to stay.

I'm not sure why you commented thusly.

Good grief, harmony. "Mormon Apologetics" isn't one field of study. There are ancient languages. Egyptology. Linguistics. Anthropology. Genetics. Geography. Geology. And no, I don't expect any one person to be expert in all at once. What are you thinking?

The "no one is forcing you to stay" comment is meant to indicate that if you don't think the discussion is worthwhile with no credentialed combatants having anything they can say you care to listen to, why do you stick around?

[_richardMdBorn]

You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.

I am not in the upper echelon, but I have college level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, which is more than many, if not most of the critics here have.

So, when you are talking about evaluating credentials of apologists or critics, nobody has a degree in Mormon culture, so either listen to them based on what they do know, or leave the room. No one is forcing you to stay.

But experts can disagree. There are violent disagreements between experts on the 17th C English Civil War. Experts are sometimes wrong. I've ushown this in my own research. I think the whole emphasis by LDS apologists on credentials is a smokescreen to not have to listen to cogent arguments from critics of the LDS church.