In apologetics, all is permitted.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I've posted it before, but this Monty Python sketch perfectly exemplifies Mormon Apologetics (and it's waaay more entertaining):

Dead Parrot

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

You don't know what you're talking about, KA.

It's as simple as that.

But I've always liked that sketch.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I've read a lot of Mormon apologetic pieces, Dr. Peterson.

I know a dead parrot when I see one.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've read a lot of Mormon apologetic pieces, Dr. Peterson.

I know a dead parrot when I see one.

Clearly, you don't.

A word of friendly advice: Your kind of "dead" parrot will probably bite you, given half a chance.

[_John Larsen]

I've read a lot of Mormon apologetic pieces, Dr. Peterson.

I know a dead parrot when I see one.

Clearly, you don't.

A word of friendly advice: Your kind of "dead" parrot will probably bite you, given half a chance.

What in the hell does that mean?

[_John Larsen]

Peterson:

I read your post. I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Larsen:

I read your post. I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

[_The Dude]

I hope the people who say "I don't trust radiomentric dating because the physical constants of the universe cannot be assumed as constant" aren't the same people who say "the physical constants of the universe had to be just right for life to exist as we know it, and therefore God fine-tuned the universe for us." Because a person who claims both of those things (deeply contradictory things) would lose considerable credibility with me.

I don't think I've seen that before. Along the same lines, you typically don't see a fundamentalist who sees big bang theory as atheistic nonsense also argue that the universe requires a finite beginning that can only be sufficiently explained by the existence of a God.

What I have seen numerous times is the same person argue that the natural origin of life is extremely unlikely, therefore God on the one hand and on the other argue that nature is set up so the origin of life is inevitable, therefore God on the other.

Or when the same person says "Evolution isn't a science because there's no way to disprove it," and then he links you to a creationist website that claims hundreds of examples that disprove evolution. That's gotta be my favorite.

Anyway, after 8pm tonight, when they lift my suspension over on MA&D board, I'm going to post on that thread and ask cjcampbell what he thinks of the fine-tuning argument for God. How much you want to bet he says it's a great argument for theism?

[Guest]

Here is the statement of purpose for the scientific journal Anthropological Linguistics:

Anthropological Linguistics, a quarterly journal founded in 1959, provides a forum for the full range of scholarly study of the languages and cultures of the peoples of the world, especially the native peoples of the Americas. Embracing the field of language and culture broadly defined, the editors welcome articles and research reports addressing cultural, historical, and philological aspects of linguistic study, including analyses of texts and discourse; studies of semantic systems and cultural classifications; onomastic studies; ethnohistorical papers that draw significantly on linguistic data; studies of linguistic prehistory and genetic classification, both methodological and substantive; discussions and interpretations of archival material; edited historical documents; and contributions to the history of the field.

Reading this, we know exactly what the intent is, the intended audience and the methodology used in the selection and evaluation of scholarship submitted to the journal.

Let's compare that to the purpose of FARMs. This is the statement of purpose for the FARMS Review:

The principal purpose of the FARMS Review is to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books published, primarily on the Book of Mormon. The evaluations are intended to encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon and the other ancient scriptures.

You will notice vague and undefined terms like "informed choices" and "judgments". It is not accurate or factual scholarship that is encourage, but scholarship that can be relied upon. It doesn't state who can rely on it and rely on it for what--but we all know the answer to that. It is hard in the abstract to evaluate what makes something able to inform choices and make judgments. This journal clearly isn't about science or method at all. It is about making reliable judgments to inform choices.

Here is the statement for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies:

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is a scholarly journal devoted to the latest research on the Book of Mormon, including articles on the geography, names, terms, and events in the Book of Mormon, as well as archaeological finds in the Old World and the New World. The Journal also highlights new scientific methods and technologies that may aid in Book of Mormon research.

First of all, "new scientific methods"? As far as I know, the scientific method dates back to at least the Greeks and hasn't really gone through any revision. I am interested to learn all about these "new sciences". Secondly, this statement is entirely disingenuous because we all know that the journal would not print anything critical of the Book of Mormon. So it is a journal that is only devoted to one point of view on a topic and methods that support that point of view, ergo apologetic.

Here is FAIR's statement:

The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice.

At least they don't pretend to be scholarly. It is simply about one thing--answering critics. Like I say, anything goes (at least according to this statement) as long as it is well-documented.

[_The Dude]

John Larsen:

The example you gave in your OP, about the atonement having the power to alter the fundamental laws of physics, could be viewed as either a really good example of apologetics, or a really bad example of apologetics. I wonder what DCP thinks? Either way, it is a real example you didn't make up yourself, so I think you are off the hook as far as being accused of inventing self-serving definitions. And strawmen, for that matter.