The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_Mister Scratch]

Would it undermine your credibility if it were discovered that you try to coax money out of wealthy LDS in order to help finance Mopologetics?

No. Not at all.

We make no secret of the fact that our fundraiser seeks to raise funds. We don't hide the fact that we encourage donations:

http://farms.BYU.edu/subscribe/?donate

We're hardly unusual in this regard:

"Giving to the Huntington" is a feature of the Huntington Library website.

http://www.huntington.org/Advancement/Giving.html

"Give now," says the Audubon Society.

http://www.audubon.org/

"Join or give," says the Sierra Club.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageS ... in_or_Give

"Support our work," say Doctors Without Borders.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/do ... DAodsQh0xw

"Support MESA," says the Middle East Studies Association.

http://www.mesa.arizona.edu/Forms/support.htm

"Support Harvard," says Harvard University.

https://post.harvard.edu/harvard/devel/ ... intro.html

"Donate," says the Barbershop Harmony Society.

http://www.barbershop.org/

And so on and so forth.

Non-profit organizations routinely seek donations.

Normal, reasonable people don't find this surprising, let alone sinister and menacing.

And which of these organizations publishes attack pieces like "That Old Black Magic", or any number of other bellicose FROB pieces? The funding becomes far more "sinister" when you take into account what the money is being used to support. (Including your $20,000 FARMS Chair fee.) That's the difference, Dan, and that is why I am asking you now about your motivations. You say that you "believe" that you need to do apologetics, but where does this sort of smearing and vicious character assassination fit into that "belief"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And which of these organizations publishes attack pieces like "That Old Black Magic", or any number of other bellicose FROB pieces? The funding becomes far more "sinister" when you take into account what the money is being used to support. (Including your $20,000 FARMS Chair fee.) That's the difference, Dan, and that is why I am asking you now about your motivations. You say that you "believe" that you need to do apologetics, but where does this sort of smearing and vicious character assassination fit into that "belief"?

Actually, I'm not a believer in your demonology. You'll have to work these doctrinal issues out on your own, I'm afraid.

[_Mister Scratch]

And which of these organizations publishes attack pieces like "That Old Black Magic", or any number of other bellicose FROB pieces? The funding becomes far more "sinister" when you take into account what the money is being used to support. (Including your $20,000 FARMS Chair fee.) That's the difference, Dan, and that is why I am asking you now about your motivations. You say that you "believe" that you need to do apologetics, but where does this sort of smearing and vicious character assassination fit into that "belief"?

Actually, I'm not a believer in your demonology. You'll have to work these doctrinal issues out on your own, I'm afraid.

You are only saying this because I am the one making the charge. You have taken very seriously past criticisms of the Review's bellicose tone. You know this. To claim now that you aren't concerned is disingenuous.

Again: why do you "believe" that you need to do apologetics? I'm sure many of us are interested to learn about this.

[_Gadianton]

Honorable mentions for top happenings:

1. Dr. Peterson's "Humble Apologetics" FAIR Conference paper

2. Publication of Dr. John Gee's Joseph Smith Papyri paper

Dr. Gee:

It is also worth knowing that for nearly one hundred years it has been standard operating procedure to dig for dirt on the background of anyone who enters the debate.

Dr. Gee:

If you do address the issue in print, you need to know that the two sides in the dispute will never leave you alone. It is a life sentence with no possibility of parole....Before you rush into print, you might want to ask yourself: "Do I want to spend the rest of my one moment in annihilation's waste by dealing with this?"

3. John A. Tvedtnes, who has had ten books and more than 300 articles published, joins SHIELDS as an associate.

A fine contribution Tom! It would seem this thread has it all and is in a very strong position to remain #1 for the Christmas season.

[_Trevor]

Of course it would undermine my credibility.

Are you concerned that the credibility of the LDS leadership might be similarly damaged by the fact that they are paid? Or do you think this is "apples and oranges"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Of course it would undermine my credibility.

Are you concerned that the credibility of the LDS leadership might be similarly damaged by the fact that they are paid? Or do you think this is "apples and oranges"?

An excellent point. It occurs to me that all of DCP's huffing and puffing has to do with some very strange belief that defense of the Lord's Church should all happen on a volunteer basis. Or does it? What does he actually think? Does he "believe" that all members of the Church should rigorously engage in apologetics? If he had things his way, would a portion of tithing funds be funneled off into apologetics? (Actually, doesn't this already happen, to a certain extent?)

Or, does all of this really stem from a very basic, tacit admission which is implicit in the very existence of apologetics: i.e., that the LDS Church needs to be defended. It cannot hold on its own.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, for us living here on Earth, where we have tons of measured results of the phenomenon of gravity (not to mention objects and mass), and are able to make precise predictions about it, it's easy to say you're nuts if you really believe that.

Look at that... didn't even take more than a sentence.

[Mod Scottie: Remember, attack the post, not the poster. You can't call LoaP "nuts".]

Hey man, I wasn't saying LoaP really was nuts, I said he was nuts if he believed that. I said that on purpose because I don't think he really does.

I think you're getting a little fast and loose with the red pen, my man.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, for us living here on Earth, where we have tons of measured results of the phenomenon of gravity (not to mention objects and mass), and are able to make precise predictions about it, it's easy to say you're nuts if you really believe that.

Look at that... didn't even take more than a sentence.

Telling someone they are "nuts" proves nothing philosophically, and in terms of solipsism. I am nuts only because your delusion insists such is the case.

Who said anything about proof? (Although, there is plenty). My claim didn't take much to defend, and that's all my point was.

You think by introducing philosophy, you're going to mess with hard science? Well, that's like bringing a sewing needle to a football game, man. You aren't going to have much success. People are just going to wonder what you're doing there.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, for us living here on Earth, where we have tons of measured results of the phenomenon of gravity (not to mention objects and mass), and are able to make precise predictions about it, it's easy to say you're nuts if you really believe that.

Look at that... didn't even take more than a sentence.

[Mod Scottie: Remember, attack the post, not the poster. You can't call LoaP "nuts".]

Hey man, I wasn't saying LoaP really was nuts, I said he was nuts if he believed that. I said that on purpose because I don't think he really does.

I think you're getting a little fast and loose with the red pen, my man.

"
Schmo---

I never thought I would say this, but I think we should welcome the "red pen." Let us welcome it, my friend. Let us welcome it, and let us observe how the TBMs endure it. You see: they cannot take it, unless it is dealt out in the utterly Fascist MAD format. So, I say: bring on the "red pen". Let DCP and other Mopologists try to respond to my analyses without ad hominem attack. Personally, I welcome the "red pen."

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo---

I never thought I would say this, but I think we should welcome the "red pen." Let us welcome it, my friend. Let us welcome it, and let us observe how the TBMs endure it. You see: they cannot take it, unless it is dealt out in the utterly Fascist MAD format. So, I say: bring on the "red pen". Let DCP and other Mopologists try to respond to my analyses without ad hominem attack. Personally, I welcome the "red pen."

To edit or not to edit, that is the question.

I don't have a blanket objection to moderation, per se, but I do have an objection to saying you're going to moderate a certain way and then going beyond the defined mandate.

I think this is exactly what Shades was talking about, and why he thought he was going to let other people do it so they could see just how far it can go. A moderator can think they're doing the right thing, but then the error of their ways is pointed out, so they have to read just a little bit closer and think just a little bit harder every post to determine if this is a red pen post or not. That's when they start to realize, "Is this really worth it?"

As for DCP, well... most folks realize the weight of his arguments relies on ad homs... that's not really new. It's clear you strike a nerve with him, which tells me you're probably on to something.