Defending Mormonism for fun and profit

[_LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP, when do I get my paycheck for doing this?

Like we don't know.

[_Chap]

I see that Mr. Bachman has been in today to post a list of a hundred sillinesses here.

Perhaps he'll have time, at some point, to read my flat denial of the claim he made earlier on this thread -- the claim that he has been making about me in various venues for the past year or two. I've denied it everywhere else, but he keeps repeating it. So I thought I would deny it here, too. (Hope springs eternal.)

Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

Here, Tal, is an example of a time when you have misrepresented something DCP believes or said. Can you provide a link to an example where DCP ever said anything that can fairly be construed as concluding that it is not clear that we can "know" anthing at all? If not, then you are exposed as a fraud and you should dismantle your spin machine.

Sincerely,
Mark Beesley

To be more precise, this is an instance where DCP strongly denies a claim made about him by TB, viz. and to wit, that DCP is one of those who "sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all".

It remains to be determined whether or not DCP "sometimes" has done this, though it is clear that he does not wish to be thought to have done so. Indeed, I can't think of anybody who would actually be happy to have their conduct of apologetic discourse characterised in this way, even if if might be a fair if hostile summing up of an argumentative position. I should think that "Bitton, McGuire, Juliann" would deny TB's claim as much as DCP would. Again, that does not mean it would be fundamentally unfair to say this of them.

All in all though, I seem to recall that DCP doesn't really get into discussion of foundational claims very much, so I should be a bit surprised if he had gone in for the tactic referred to here. Perhaps TB should take him off the list?

[_mbeesley]

I see that Mr. Bachman has been in today to post a list of a hundred sillinesses here.

Perhaps he'll have time, at some point, to read my flat denial of the claim he made earlier on this thread -- the claim that he has been making about me in various venues for the past year or two. I've denied it everywhere else, but he keeps repeating it. So I thought I would deny it here, too. (Hope springs eternal.)

Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

Here, Tal, is an example of a time when you have misrepresented something DCP believes or said. Can you provide a link to an example where DCP ever said anything that can fairly be construed as concluding that it is not clear that we can "know" anthing at all? If not, then you are exposed as a fraud and you should dismantle your spin machine.

Sincerely,
Mark Beesley

To be more precise, this is an instance where DCP strongly denies a claim made about him by TB, viz. and to wit, that DCP is one of those who "sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all".

It remains to be determined whether or not DCP "sometimes" has done this, though it is clear that he does not wish to be thought to have done so. Indeed, I can't think of anybody who would actually be happy to have their conduct of apologetic discourse characterised in this way, even if if might be a fair if hostile summing up of an argumentative position. I should think that "Bitton, McGuire, Juliann" would deny TB's claim as much as DCP would. Again, that does not mean it would be fundamentally unfair to say this of them.

All in all though, I seem to recall that DCP doesn't really get into discussion of foundational claims very much, so I should be a bit surprised if he had gone in for the tactic referred to here. Perhaps TB should take him off the list?

Well, perhaps we disagree about what might be characterized as fundamentally unfair. The basis for the strength and explanation for the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that an individual can KNOW certain things. We can know that the Book of Mormon is a true record. We can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. We can KNOW that Jesus is the Christ. Without an avenue to gain this knowledge, the Church is no different than any other religion that attemtps to win adherents with attractive programs and promises of eternal reward.

So, if an apologist of the Church were to claim, as Bachman asserts, that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all, they would be undercutting the very thing that makes this Church unique. I cannot imagine DCP ever making such a claim, nor can I conceive of Julianne making such a claim. I am not familiar enough with writings of McGuire or Bitton to know whether or not they would make this claim, but if Bachman wants to salvage any semblance of credibility, he is going to have to produce something in writing to support his accusation as to each of these folks.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm beginning to think Tal is reading Kuhn incorrectly, as a side note.

[_guy sajer]

I see that Mr. Bachman has been in today to post a list of a hundred sillinesses here.

Perhaps he'll have time, at some point, to read my flat denial of the claim he made earlier on this thread -- the claim that he has been making about me in various venues for the past year or two. I've denied it everywhere else, but he keeps repeating it. So I thought I would deny it here, too. (Hope springs eternal.)

Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

Here, Tal, is an example of a time when you have misrepresented something DCP believes or said. Can you provide a link to an example where DCP ever said anything that can fairly be construed as concluding that it is not clear that we can "know" anthing at all? If not, then you are exposed as a fraud and you should dismantle your spin machine.

Sincerely,
Mark Beesley

To be more precise, this is an instance where DCP strongly denies a claim made about him by TB, viz. and to wit, that DCP is one of those who "sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all".

It remains to be determined whether or not DCP "sometimes" has done this, though it is clear that he does not wish to be thought to have done so. Indeed, I can't think of anybody who would actually be happy to have their conduct of apologetic discourse characterised in this way, even if if might be a fair if hostile summing up of an argumentative position. I should think that "Bitton, McGuire, Juliann" would deny TB's claim as much as DCP would. Again, that does not mean it would be fundamentally unfair to say this of them.

All in all though, I seem to recall that DCP doesn't really get into discussion of foundational claims very much, so I should be a bit surprised if he had gone in for the tactic referred to here. Perhaps TB should take him off the list?

Well, perhaps we disagree about what might be characterized as fundamentally unfair. The basis for the strength and explanation for the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that an individual can KNOW certain things. We can know that the Book of Mormon is a true record. We can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. We can KNOW that Jesus is the Christ. Without an avenue to gain this knowledge, the Church is no different than any other religion that attemtps to win adherents with attractive programs and promises of eternal reward.

So, if an apologist of the Church were to claim, as Bachman asserts, that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all, they would be undercutting the very thing that makes this Church unique. I cannot imagine DCP ever making such a claim, nor can I conceive of Julianne making such a claim. I am not familiar enough with writings of McGuire or Bitton to know whether or not they would make this claim, but if Bachman wants to salvage any semblance of credibility, he is going to have to produce something in writing to support his accusation as to each of these folks.

I don't ever recall DCP making this kind of argument, but then I don't go to MAD much. McGuire does, however, advance this argument. Some time ago on this board he and I debated this at length. I guess the irony of a post-modernist argument to support the history/doctrines of a literally minded religion, whose epistemic approach is to claim sole possession of knowledge about absolute truth, is apparent to everyone but Ben.

by the way, I'd be willing to grant a semblance of credence to your claim to KNOW that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that Mormonism is true etc. if you can provide me with one reasonable piece of objective evidence that your knowledge is more legitimate that someone who claims to KNOW something in contradiction through the same, or similar, source.

[_Chap]

It looks as if I can quite safely let guy pick up on this dialog. I couldn't have answered more cogently than he has.

[_The Nehor]

LOAP, when do I get my paycheck for doing this?

Like we don't know.

Call me crazy but I have my doubts that God looks kindly and with approval on any/some/most/all of the things I say here.

[_Mister Scratch]

DCP has stated that he does not think the Book of Mormon is "falisifiable," right? And, if he has said this, then wouldn't this qualify as one of those things which we can never "know"?

[_mbeesley]

I don't ever recall DCP making this kind of argument, but then I don't go to MAD much. McGuire does, however, advance this argument.

The point here is not whether or not DCP or McGuire have made the claim that that we cannot actually "know" anything at all. The point is identifying where such a claim has been been made.

Some time ago on this board he and I debated this at length.

Then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide a link to the topic where McGuire makes the claim.

I guess the irony of a post-modernist argument to support the history/doctrines of a literally minded religion, whose epistemic approach is to claim sole possession of knowledge about absolute truth, is apparent to everyone but Ben.

That's not what I was getting at. I want a simple reference to the writings of the folks in question wherein they have claimed that we cannot actually "know" anything at all.

by the way, I'd be willing to grant a semblance of credence to your claim to KNOW that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that Mormonism is true etc. if you can provide me with one reasonable piece of objective evidence that your knowledge is more legitimate that someone who claims to KNOW something in contradiction through the same, or similar, source.

Again, that is not the issue here. The issue is Bachman's assertion of a claim made by Juliann, DCP, Bitton, and McGuire. I want to see a reference to support Bachman's assertion. Other than seeing that I am uninterested in attempts to deflect attention.

[_beastie]

You can read Ben McGuire's postmodernism on this thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/89 ... etics.html

I was posting as seven of niine.

The problem in following the argument is that Ben is now listed as "unregistered". Once ezboard switched to yuku, unless posters took the time to register again, their comments are listed as "unregistered".

You can see me refer to him as Ben throughout the thread, however. Ben labels himself a postmodernist openly.

He does say what Tal attributes to him. The difference is that he doesn't believe it causes problems for Mormonism.

Here's one of his statements from that thread:

This is right. But I think that this is only a part of that issue. There cannot exist a "True" church, primarily because Truth is largely inaccessible in such a sense. In the same way, this is only one view of the church (which does make such procclamations, I admit).