Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_William Schryver]

Mad, dishonest, stupid or now ... even vulgar.

I have you beat by one order of denigration.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mad, dishonest, stupid or now ... even vulgar.

I have you beat by one order of denigration.

I understand that one can believe in Mormonism because one is stupid, uninformed, dishonest, or insane. Or, of course, because of some amalgam of those factors.

But can one really believe in Mormonism simply because one is vulgar? If true, this is a new discovery for me, and I'm enormously glad to have learned something novel today.

[_beastie]

Would you care to point to any believer on this board, or at the Maxwell Institute or at FAIR, say, whose belief in Mormonism you regard as rational, honest, intelligent, and informed?

Sure. Do a search on this board for my comments about Katherine the Great. I also have a lot of admiration for Jason on this board. And there are others, but I'd have to look at a member list to jog my memory - but those clear two should answer your question adequately.

Now, of course I don't believe that the cold, hard facts support, for example, the belief that the Book of Mormon is a historical document from ancient Mesoamerica, or that Joseph Smith accurately translated the Book of Abraham from papyri. However, I have stated several times that believing the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction seems as rational to me as accepting portions of the Bible as inspired fiction (the portions that scholars generally believe are not historically accurate). But the fact that I'm an atheist and do not believe the cold, hard facts support any belief in a godbeing does not mean that I don't view some believers as being rational, honest, intelligent, and informed.

Are you really going to pretend that there is any way to reconcile your statement and Hamblin's statement about him always inserting jokes in his articles for you to edit, aside from lying or extremely problematic memories? Shall we parse about what "is is"?

[_Canucklehead]

Mad, dishonest, stupid or now ... even vulgar.

I have you beat by one order of denigration.

I understand that one can believe in Mormonism because one is stupid, uninformed, dishonest, or insane. Or, of course, because of some amalgam of those factors.

But can one really believe in Mormonism simply because one is vulgar? If true, this is a new discovery for me, and I'm enormously glad to have learned something novel today.

No, Will believes in Mormonism and Will is vulgar. The former is not implied by the latter.

[_beastie]

Here's one easily found example of my past praise of Katherine the Great:

I like Brant, but my respect for him eroded a bit after catching in twice making deliberately misleading statements. Ben McGuire is also one of my favorites, although I don't share a common interest with him. I like Paul Osbourne, too, for his honesty. Katherine the Great is, well, great. I always hesitate to rave about her too much, though, because that probably lessens her "cred" on the MAD board, but she seems to be unflinchingly honest and above spin. She shouldn't post here, though, it would turn the MADdites against her, and they desperately need her voice of reason.

Favorite Apologists

I also speak highly of John Clark, although, as with Brant Gardner, I think he misleads his audience.

Oh, I have to add our alter idem as a believer who is honest and unflinchingly fair.

[_William Schryver]

Mad, dishonest, stupid or now ... even vulgar.

I have you beat by one order of denigration.

I understand that one can believe in Mormonism because one is stupid, uninformed, dishonest, or insane. Or, of course, because of some amalgam of those factors.

But can one really believe in Mormonism simply because one is vulgar? If true, this is a new discovery for me, and I'm enormously glad to have learned something novel today.

You must have missed Scottie's quite astounding observation then:

I would imagine when the Mormon God was a human on whatever Earth he lived on, he was like Will.

(See here: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 839#166839 )

One can conclude, I would imagine, that the "Mormon God" attracts his own kind, and seeing as I am (according to the connoisseurs of such things here in the GSTP™) a paragon of vulgarity, it follows that the "Mormon God" and by extension, His Church, are things to which vulgar people are attracted.

Indeed, upon reflection, I must say I have known a good many vulgar people who, despite their several personal failings, have devoutly believed in Mormonism. So what Scottie implies may very well be true. After all:

... not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called ...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sure. Do a search on this board for my comments about Katherine the Great. I also have a lot of admiration for Jason on this board. And there are others, but I'd have to look at a member list to jog my memory - but those clear two should answer your question adequately.

Please be clear that I wasn't asking whether you like any believers.

I'm aware that I'm almost preternaturally easy to dislike, but I don't think that's true of most Mormons.

I was asking whether you consider any Mormon's faith rationally founded, intelligent, based upon an honest survey of the evidence, and sane.

Now, of course I don't believe that the cold, hard facts support, for example, the belief that the Book of Mormon is a historical document from ancient Mesoamerica, or that Joseph Smith accurately translated the Book of Abraham from papyri.

An important qualification.

However, I have stated several times that believing the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction seems as rational to me as accepting portions of the Bible as inspired fiction (the portions that scholars generally believe are not historically accurate). But the fact that I'm an atheist and do not believe the cold, hard facts support any belief in a godbeing does not mean that I don't view some believers as being rational, honest, intelligent, and informed.

But they have to reject such things as the historicity of the Book of Mormon to earn that distinction? In other words, mainstream, orthodox Mormons can't be credited with rationality, honesty, intelligence, or the possession of sound information?

A watershed moment, I think, in the history of apostagetics.

Are you really going to pretend that there is any way to reconcile your statement and Hamblin's statement about him always inserting jokes in his articles for you to edit, aside from lying or extremely problematic memories? Shall we parse about what "is is"?

I'm not "pretending" in any way at all. (The imputation of dishonesty against those who disagree with you is, I think, so very nearly reflexive with you now that you're scarcely conscious of doing it. Constantly.)

I said what I said. He said what he said.

It seems to me that there are other options than your Hobson's choice of either pronouncing him (or me) a simple liar or declaring one or the other of us delusional and altogether out of touch with reality. You seem to live in a pretty simplistic universe.

But you seem comfortable in it, and uninterested in hearing what Professor Hamblin has to say, so . . .

[_Daniel Peterson]

I also speak highly of John Clark, although, as with Brant Gardner, I think he misleads his audience.

Dishonest, in other words.

Oh, I have to add our alter idem as a believer who is honest and unflinchingly fair.

Is his faith rationally grounded and well informed? Does he -- I don't know -- believe the Book of Mormon to be authentically ancient?

[_beastie]

Are you saying that Katherine the Great rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon? I've never seen her do so. Nor have I seen alter idem do so. I think both of those posters would consider themselves orthodox believers. I think Jason's on the fence about it, but hasn't outright rejected it.

But now you're phrasing the question in such a way that automatically ensures that I, an atheist, will "fail". Do you believe that atheists' lack of belief rationally founded, intelligent, based upon an honest survey of the evidence, and sane? Or are you going to answer that question in a similar way that I did?

[_beastie]

Oh, you are are severely over-simplifying how the human mind and belief works. People can mislead their audiences and not think they are lying at all. They feel justified in the slight misleading because future evidence will support their belief anyway. Or they think that the misleading isn't significant enough to matter. People also are heavily influenced by confirmation biases as well as a host of other logical mishaps.

You are comparing my statement about the irreconcilable nature of yours and Hamblin's statements to far more complex belief systems. If you have other options to offer explaining the contradiction between your two statements, by all means, offer it.