The 2015 Sampson Avard Golden Scepter Award

[_grindael]

He tries the same tack with his "Open Letters" to Jeremy Runnells. I started reading the first one but got so bored at his antics that I deemed it unworthy of my time. Great choice, Scratch.

[_grindael]

Neal Rappleye Zelph on the Shelf • 18 days ago

Oh good grief! There are people prone to confirmation bias in every group. Twede's ubsurd ramblings are tailor made for such persons among exMos. The only irony that is too ridiculous is the tendency, among exMos, to act like they are suddenly above such things while Mormons are overwhelmingly subject to it. Neither myth if true.

FairMormon, as a collective, sides apply critical reading to its own arguments and is constantly trying to improve them. That said, as an individual I personally try to apply critical thinking to everything I read, and there is plenty from FairMormon, FARMS, Maxwell Institute, Interpreter, etc. that I disagree with. Low and behold, my personal approval of an argument is not the only standard by which things are approved for publication.

I appreciate your removing it from the post, though I note that despite the lack of evidence you still want to cling to the idea that FairMormon does receive payment. I guess you can still have faith in somethings.

Yes, Church channels have endorsed FairMormon as a resource. (Notice my choice if words. Endorse and support have different connotations.) No, we don't receive SEO help from them.

1 • Reply•Share ›

[_canpakes]

Oh, yeah... this guy.



Some months ago on another forum, before I had heard anything about his reputation and had believed his actual name to be some kind of internet screen name inside joke that I just wasn't privy to, I responded to one of his oddball 'anti-anti Mormon' rants by tossing at him the weakest wet-tissue argument that happened to pop into my head. He was not able to punch his way out of even that, and had to divert to some other oddball tangent.

With that outcome - and considering that I have the intellectual heft and debating prowess of a lukewarm cup of coffee - it is somewhat oddly disturbing that this man is being lauded as the current standard bearer for apologist performance.

[_Kishkumen]

You know, he's a young fellow. Sort of like Smoot was when he started, but with a less annoying style than Smoot. My guess is that over time he will wise up and leave Mopologetics.

[_Kishkumen]

All the signs point to FAIR getting support from the LDS Church. Rappleye and his comrades can insist that there isn't evidence to prove it, but then again, they have no evidence to disprove it. If they want the accusations to go away, they're going to need to itemize and publish the donations, and I think we all know that that will never happen.

The Church does a fair amount of what it does through the donations of money and time from its members. Often a private individual will go buy land for the Church and turn it over to the Church. The Church may have even directed Sister Billionaire to do it, but she did it for the Church. Naturally, this arrangement creates a huge gray area. When is a person acting on her own, and when is she acting at the Church's behest? Who knows?

I feel comfortable saying that had the LDS Church not smiled upon the efforts of FAIR, FAIR would have been shuttered a long time ago.

So, does the Church support FAIR? In a manner of speaking, yes. The precise extent to which they do is unknown. Would I discount the possibility that money is involved? No. Can I say it is? No.

But, I don't think it really matters. The Church finds a way to close up shop on those para-ecclesiastical organizations it does not like or have any use for. Obviously, FAIR has managed to establish itself as an effort that the Church suffers to exist because FAIR is perceived to be of some benefit to the LDS Church.

What benefit is that?

At the very least, to stem the tide of people leaving because the basic historical narrative of the LDS Church does not withstand scrutiny. The LDS Church needs folks out there, some bearing impressive credentials in history or a science, to give members something to hold onto on the big questions where the LDS Church is in real trouble. My bet is that some of these fellows know full well that this is what they are up to, but that their testimony of the truth of the Gospel is such that fudging on mundane matters for the cause is palatable.

In some cases, the fudging may just be the usual confirmation bias.

[_sock puppet]

The Church finds a way to close up shop on those para-ecclesiastical organizations it does not like or have any use for. Obviously, FAIR has managed to establish itself as an effort that the Church suffers to exist because FAIR is perceived to be of some benefit to the LDS Church.

What benefit is that?

At the very least, to stem the tide of people leaving because the basic historical narrative of the LDS Church does not withstand scrutiny. The LDS Church needs folks out there, some bearing impressive credentials in history or a science, to give members something to hold onto on the big questions where the LDS Church is in real trouble. My bet is that some of these fellows know full well that this is what they are up to, but that their testimony of the truth of the Gospel is such that fudging on mundane matters for the cause is palatable.

In some cases, the fudging may just be the usual confirmation bias.

That sounds about right. Of course, any time mention is made that apologists suffer from confirmation bias, they shoot it right back at the critics as if both religious and scientific/logic epistemology suffer equally from it. But there are two important differences that make the role of confirmation bias less a factor, almost benign in the scientific/logic one. First, there is the marketplace of ideas in the scientific/logic model, and that others with a different notion not only have a motivation to prove an existing theory wrong, but open avenues for doing so. Quite the contrast to 'once the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done.' (I know the LDS chafe at that and try to claim it was an isolated slip of the tongue, but it is prevalent in LDS practice today.)

The other difference is that while it is important for both camps to recognize their respective biases, in the religious camp that bias is a badge of honor, one's testimony of the predetermined outcome is cultivated and protected. In the scientific/logic community, it is not honored, but eschewed and conscious steps are taken by the scientist or scholar to counteract the bias. Can't quite imagine a working editor team meeting at FARMS beginning with acknowledgments that 'everyone here is biased by believing LDS truth claims, so what steps do we need to take to counteract that bias as we make decisions on what the next output from NAMIRS would be, so that we neutralize our bias in favor of LDS truth claims.' Yet in many of the secular settings I've been in over my life, a group leader will often excuse a certain person or two from a task because of their known, and persistent, conflicting interests.

[_ludwigm]

Is LDS a worldwide church?
Just asking...