The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_maklelan]

Given that your concerns consist of the idea that nobody would ever have reason to lie on their deathbed,

Don't believe I said that. My point was clearly that your reasoning didn't really jive with the actual historical context. Don't be reductive with my arguments.

conveniently complete with their family BEGGING them to confess, I'm afraid that your concerns are pretty much unaddressable. They lie almost completely outside of the realm of observed human nature.

A ludicrous statement.

People lie. People lie about their lies. People cover up embarrassing things that they've done, said, and bought into. Being on one's deathbed doesn't automatically transform a liar into a beacon of truth.

People also don't lie, and don't lie about their lies, and admit embarrassing things, even on their death bed. The point is, your assumptions don't really provide a logical explanation for the way things played out. Since it's absolutely clear that you are also abysmally ignorant of the actual historical circumstances, you're obviously just making stuff up and concluding that it makes sense to you.

[_Some Schmo]

And you seem intent on intentionally ignoring the distinction between historiography and mythology. I'm not talking about theology or ideology, I'm talking about historical facts. You've done a horrible job of obfuscation and evasion. I know that doesn't bother you (so don't waste your time explaining that to me), but if you can't even address your naïveté regarding Joseph Smith's life, you can hardly aver that your assessment of his psyche is anything but make believe.

No, I don't think so. There are multiple accounts of similar events, and depending on which accounts you believe, you'll make conclusions which favor whatever conclusion you'd like to draw. In other words, what you're calling "historiography" I'm calling "mythology." After all, I imagine you'd call the first vision "history" (although I wonder which version).

I'm not trying to obfuscate or evade. I'm trying to reconcile the lore with observable reality. I never claimed I had the correct answer to the puzzle or was stating fact; I am just speculating. I'll leave the wild assertions of facts to the Mormons. But let me tell you something: believing the guy was a scam artist who was afraid for his life if he didn't keep quiet about his past mistakes is far easier than believing he was some fictional, capricious god's mouthpiece on earth.

And sorry, but given you're the kind of guy who believes in angels, god visions, and other supernatural events, I don't think you're in any position to determine what's make believe and what isn't.

As for my "naïveté regarding Joseph Smith's life," let me address it now: you're correct; I could know a lot more. Guilty as charged. The problem is, once a person comes out with a story "when I was 14, I went into the forest and saw god," I'm beyond giving that person any more credit than the original bogus story deserves.

[_maklelan]

No, I don't think so. There are multiple accounts of similar events, and depending on which accounts you believe, you'll make conclusions which favor whatever conclusion you'd like to draw.

But you clearly aren't basing your guesses on variant historical accounts. You're basing them on the impression inside your head. Besides, the events to which I refer are rather firmly established historical events.

In other words, what you're calling "historiography" I'm calling "mythology." After all, I imagine you'd call the first vision "history" (although I wonder which version).

I'm not trying to obfuscate or evade. I'm trying to reconcile the lore with observable reality.

And my point is that you refuse to observe either. You are quite literally imagining the past. You betray very little, if any, familiarity with the history of Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints. You can't build an evaluation of his motivations and intentions if the entire scenario only exists inside your head.

I never claimed I had the correct answer to the puzzle or was stating fact; I am just speculating. I'll leave the wild assertions of facts to the Mormons. But let me tell you something: believing the guy was a scam artist who was afraid for his life if he didn't keep quiet about his past mistakes is far easier than believing he was some fictional, capricious god's mouthpiece on earth.

Only if you presuppose the supernatural is impossible. Since natural laws, by definition, don't apply to the supernatural, you can only claim this based off of subjective personal experience.

And sorry, but given you're the kind of guy who believes in angels, god visions, and other supernatural events, I don't think you're in any position to determine what's make believe and what isn't.

Straw man. I'm discussing the interpretation of historical documents (not mythology), and I am far more qualified to discuss historical methodologies than you. This tree you're barking up is utterly irrelevant, and I'll thank you to stop pretending assessing the historical backdrop of Smith's actions is somehow associated with mythology.

As for my "naïveté regarding Joseph Smith's life," let me address it now: you're correct; I could know a lot more. Guilty as charged. The problem is, once a person comes out with a story "when I was 14, I went into the forest and saw god," I'm beyond giving that person any more credit than the original bogus story deserves.

Utterly irrelevant. Your disbelief regarding his claims has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on establishing a motivation for his very real and very historical actions. Don't bring this straw man up again or I'm through with this discussion.

[_Analytics]

When I choose to speak out at length on the Witnesses, it will be in the form of a book. Possibly two.

I do sometimes pay attention to such threads, though, for illustrative material and to remind me of claims that I shouldn't forget to counter.

When you write the book, be sure to include the quote from Gil Grissom on CSI when he said, "Normally an eyewitness is the least reliable evidence we have."

[_Daniel Peterson]

When you write the book, be sure to include the quote from Gil Grissom on CSI when he said, "Normally an eyewitness is the least reliable evidence we have."

If you actually led your life on the basis of that principle, your life would be an utter mess. I assume that it isn't, so I'm pretty confident that you don't.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, it goes beyond that. It's not just that they are LDS; it's that they are sympathetic to Mopologetic orthodoxy.

Most, of course. Not all.

The proof is in the pudding:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

If there were "non sympathizers" among the peer reviewers, I'm confident that the finished product would look very different. But, your goal has never been balance and fairness, so that's that.

Also, the primary mission of the FARMS Review is to smear and attack critics.

This is straight from the malevolent Scratchist credo, but is, of course, flatly untrue.

Readers can see for themselves:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

I don't even need to defer to the phantom "fair-minded readers" you're always alluding to. I can name two actual people---Dr. Shades and Trevor, both of whom you yourself have praised for their "fairness," and both of whom side with my take on the Review. Trevor might disagree with the overall force, tenor, and word-choice of my assessment, but I think he'd agree generally that you guys have embraced an "attack dog" mentality. And Dr. Shades has echoed my take using almost verbatim language.

If you want to persuade people that "fair minded" readers (non-TBMs, presumably) see the Review the way you claim they will/do, you ought to cite actual people. Heck, even apologist sympathizers like Richard Bushman have chided you for your belligerence. You don't have a case here at all.

"Normal" journals---as I'm sure you know, Bob---select peer reviewers first and foremost based on expertise. That's not "rigging" the peer review process in the same sense that I mean. FARMS Review does not use expertise as its primary selection criterion. It relies instead on "loyalty to the cause."

More Scratchite dogma, palmed off as if it were fact.

Scratch has, of course, never written for the Review and has never edited for the Review. He's never had any access to the confidential process of vetting manuscript submissions for the Review. He's never been the editor of the Review (that's me), and, accordingly, has never actually known who my confidential reviewers are nor seen what they've sent to me. He just makes this stuff up.

Well, you don't know this for certain. For all you know, I *have* written for the Review, or I'm friends with one of the peer reviewers, etc. Best not to make assumptions, Dr. Peterson.

And let's bear in mind that FARMS Review, in the editor's own words, is "sui generis", meaning that it is likely the only "scholarly" book review journal in existence that is devoted primarily to attacking, smearing, and discrediting critics.

I have, of course, never said any such thing.

You did. You said it in the context of a discussion on FARMS's peer review process. "Sui generis" indeed.

I doubt very much that your law journal was stuffed with the same kind of snide, mocking, degenerate attack pieces that litter the pages of FARMS Review.

"Degenerate"????

Rofl. Yes, well, what other better word is there to describe what you guys have done over the years? The precedent you've set?

The "past few issues" have been pretty tame in this regard

So. FARMS Review 11/2 (1999) wasn't representative of our general viciousness. And FARMS Review 14/1 (2002) wasn't representative of our general viciousness, either. And "the past few issues" likewise haven't represented our general viciousness.

"I'm shrinking!" says Scratch, rather pathetically.

You seem to be misrepresenting my position, Dr. Peterson. I didn't say that the past few issues weren't "representative of [your] general viciousness." I said they were "pretty tame in this regard." In other words: some of the crappy elements typical of Mopologetics were still there (I'm thinking of pieces by Gee and Midgley), but overall, the issues were "tamer" compared to some of the ones in years past. The bad parts of the Review persist, probably due in part to your malign influence. But, it does kind of seem like things are simmering down, and that's a good thing.

[_Thama]

Since it's absolutely clear that you are also abysmally ignorant of the actual historical circumstances, you're obviously just making stuff up and concluding that it makes sense to you.

You're confusing skepticism of your scenario for ignorance of the facts. Hell, the Witnesses are one of the best arguments you have. They just don't carry as much weight, nor is their story as conveniently convincing, as you'd like it to be.

[_maklelan]

You're confusing skepticism of your scenario for ignorance of the facts. Hell, the Witnesses are one of the best arguments you have. They just don't carry as much weight, nor is their story as conveniently convincing, as you'd like it to be.

But you base this assessment of the weight of their story on a totally uninformed evaluation of its historical backdrop, which means it's simply made up. That means nothing to me.

[Guest]

Since it's absolutely clear that you are also abysmally ignorant of the actual historical circumstances, you're obviously just making stuff up and concluding that it makes sense to you.

You're confusing skepticism of your scenario for ignorance of the facts. Hell, the Witnesses are one of the best arguments you have. They just don't carry as much weight, nor is their story as conveniently convincing, as you'd like it to be.

Along with an incredibly naïve set of assumptions about when, how, how often, and why people lie.

Take for example, the James Strang witnesses:

James J. Strang translated metallic plates and eleven witnesses signed testimonies that they saw the plates—none ever denied their testimony. The testimony of the Voree Plates is published in the Revelations of James J. Strang; and the testimony to the Book of the Law of the Lord is published in front of that law.

If one set of witnesses is telling the truth, the other is lying. In any case, it establishes that people do lie about these things, and they are capable of engaging in a conspiracy, as it were, to lie about these things.

What would you say Mak to someone who said he believed in Strang as a prophet based on the testimony of these witnesses?

[_harmony]

You're confusing skepticism of your scenario for ignorance of the facts. Hell, the Witnesses are one of the best arguments you have. They just don't carry as much weight, nor is their story as conveniently convincing, as you'd like it to be.

But you base this assessment of the weight of their story on a totally uninformed evaluation of its historical backdrop, which means it's simply made up. That means nothing to me.

Mak... how do you know what foundation Thama uses for hi evaluation?