Critiques of Church leadership

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

I am not an authority on the FARMS books on this topic, but I am starting to suspect I may have studied it as much as you have.

And neither am I, because the computer assemblage of the Dead Sea Scrolls had aided world knowledge of them and in preserving them.

Furthermore, Seattle is not aware of their interest. It is fairly well settled that FARMS is NOT searching for comparisons in their research. They find them interesting. That way you won't be disturbed when there are variations from what one might expect.

In this matter, Seattle's distinct biases blind him.

Many well-meaning scholars are working hard to discover new matters. Seattle expects them only to be looking at apologetics, when in reality many are just in discovery mode. Some of it very obscure and only interesting to a minute number of persons, but often intellectual studies are that way. How many people enjoy deconstructionism?

I suppose Henry Eyring doesn't qualify, even though he is credited with significant theories in thermodynamics, because he just taught at the University of Utah, or Elliott Butler, a significant physical chemist, who earned his Phd at Cal Tech, and published one of the seminal chemistry books for college chemistry, but he taught at lowly BYU.

I imagine if we could steer Seattle away from his biased, blindspots, he could fairly and justly apply the academic standards of which he is justly proud. However, steer him into any area where without study or inquiry, such as anything LDS, and he acts like a scorned woman, who ignores reason and accountability, gets puffy without reasonable discourse.

SU, friend, you are terribly biased against these persons and never give them a fair shake. I'm not saying the world will hail them with the Noble Prize in anything, but they are persons of intellect who are not endeavoring to defraud anybody. The positions you articulate are far from being removed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Everybody may be wrong, but geeze give some of these guys an honest shake. They would consider your points of view honestly even if they ultimately rejected them.

[Robin]

It seems like the FARMS boys keep banging the same key on the piano...

YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of elephants in the New World.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of LDS-style temple ceremonies and covenants in the New/Old Testament and Book of Mormon.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that no indigenous people of the Americas had Jewish ancestry.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE of Nephite metallurgical knowledge that would have allowed the development of a metal alloy soft enough to write on but not so insanely heavy as to be unwieldy.

Of course FARMS tries to make this sound more positive, so they frame these points using this pattern:
1. The Bait: Present a piece of archaeological evidence
2. The wild Inference: Relate the evidence to something Mormoney
3. The disclaimer: Point out that this isn't the only interpretation (and probably not the most widely accepted).
4. Appeal to the infinite: There is promising research on the horizon, but we won't ultimately be able to prove our inference until we know everything (so PLEASE KEEP GIVING US MoreMoney!).

Example:
1. Ancient MesoAmericans developed large stone pools. Here are some photos of them taken on my last FARMS funded trip to Guatemala.
2. The existence of such features is consistent with a culture that would perform washings and anointing and ceremonial baptisms.
3. But we can't be certain that this was the only use for these vessels.
4. Perhaps our trip next spring will yield more (photographs) evidence. A full understanding of these people and their ancient culture will finally prove what Mormons have known all along. Help us keep up the good work!

So maybe this is fraud. And maybe they are engaged in real intellectual work too. I bet apologetics pay the bills.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

It seems like the FARMS boys keep banging the same key on the piano...

YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of elephants in the New World.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of LDS-style temple ceremonies and covenants in the New/Old Testament and Book of Mormon.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that no indigenous people of the Americas had Jewish ancestry.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE of Nephite metallurgical knowledge that would have allowed the development of a metal alloy soft enough to write on but not so insanely heavy as to be unwieldy.

Of course FARMS tries to make this sound more positive, so they frame these points using this pattern:
1. The Bait: Present a piece of archaeological evidence
2. The wild Inference: Relate the evidence to something Mormoney
3. The disclaimer: Point out that this isn't the only interpretation (and probably not the most widely accepted).
4. Appeal to the infinite: There is promising research on the horizon, but we won't ultimately be able to prove our inference until we know everything (so PLEASE KEEP GIVING US MoreMoney!).

Example:
1. Ancient MesoAmericans developed large stone pools. Here are some photos of them taken on my last FARMS funded trip to Guatemala.
2. The existence of such features is consistent with a culture that would perform washings and anointing and ceremonial baptisms.
3. But we can't be certain that this was the only use for these vessels.
4. Perhaps our trip next spring will yield more (photographs) evidence. A full understanding of these people and their ancient culture will finally prove what Mormons have known all along. Help us keep up the good work!

So maybe this is fraud. And maybe they are engaged in real intellectual work too. I bet apologetics pay the bills.

I imagine you've oversimplified, because I only read an occasional article of theirs. That's not how I interpret what they say, and you know that.

They actually get involved in minutae. And their conclusions are much more carefully articulated than you give them credit for.

And they have sufficiently rebuffed most of the ancient criticisms. In your minds, the critiques are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, if a mind is made up, nothing they can ever say will be anything but a fraud to you, because you have a closed mind, and anything not fitting within your paradigm is rejected out of hand.

However, what you and Seattle do is a common rhetorical tactic, it's dishonest, but it's common: simplify, then exaggerate.

I imagine the two of you are actually afraid that somebody, be it FARMS or somebody else might actually find someting substantiating some of their claims, because they you'd have to reevaluate some of your paradigms. That's the crux.

Those of us, and I'd classify most adult LDS over thirty-five in that realm, have adjusted our paradigms in light of historical evidence to increase our understanding, while still finding faith. Once you've walked through the proverbial door, you close it behind you, closing your mind to possibilities. Those of us with flexible paradigms leave open a multitude of doors with paradigms never rigid but flexible. In my mind, it leaves more room for intellectual expansion and growth.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Robin

It seems like the FARMS boys keep banging the same key on the piano...

YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of elephants in the New World.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of LDS-style temple ceremonies and covenants in the New/Old Testament and Book of Mormon.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that no indigenous people of the Americas had Jewish ancestry.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE of Nephite metallurgical knowledge that would have allowed the development of a metal alloy soft enough to write on but not so insanely heavy as to be unwieldy.

Of course FARMS tries to make this sound more positive, so they frame these points using this pattern:
1. The Bait: Present a piece of archaeological evidence
2. The wild Inference: Relate the evidence to something Mormoney
3. The disclaimer: Point out that this isn't the only interpretation (and probably not the most widely accepted).
4. Appeal to the infinite: There is promising research on the horizon, but we won't ultimately be able to prove our inference until we know everything (so PLEASE KEEP GIVING US MoreMoney!).

Example:
1. Ancient MesoAmericans developed large stone pools. Here are some photos of them taken on my last FARMS funded trip to Guatemala.
2. The existence of such features is consistent with a culture that would perform washings and anointing and ceremonial baptisms.
3. But we can't be certain that this was the only use for these vessels.
4. Perhaps our trip next spring will yield more (photographs) evidence. A full understanding of these people and their ancient culture will finally prove what Mormons have known all along. Help us keep up the good work!

So maybe this is fraud. And maybe they are engaged in real intellectual work too. I bet apologetics pay the bills.

Oh, come on, Robin. You are cherry-picking and building a caricature and you know it.

Making fun of religous apologists has always been easy to do. Apologists will always face an uphill battle. And the quality of the work varies widely.

I think Jay Santos is right. This whole thread is a little silly.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I imagine you've oversimplified, because I only read an occasional article of theirs. That's not how I interpret what they say, and you know that.

They actually get involved in minutae. And their conclusions are much more carefully articulated than you give them credit for.

And they have sufficiently rebuffed most of the ancient criticisms. In your minds, the critiques are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, if a mind is made up, nothing they can ever say will be anything but a fraud to you, because you have a closed mind, and anything not fitting within your paradigm is rejected out of hand.

However, what you and Seattle do is a common rhetorical tactic, it's dishonest, but it's common: simplify, then exaggerate.

I imagine the two of you are actually afraid that somebody, be it FARMS or somebody else might actually find someting substantiating some of their claims, because they you'd have to reevaluate some of your paradigms. That's the crux.

Those of us, and I'd classify most adult LDS over thirty-five in that realm, have adjusted our paradigms in light of historical evidence to increase our understanding, while still finding faith. Once you've walked through the proverbial door, you close it behind you, closing your mind to possibilities. Those of us with flexible paradigms leave open a multitude of doors with paradigms never rigid but flexible. In my mind, it leaves more room for intellectual expansion and growth.

Dude, YOU STARTED this whole thread.

What in Hade's name were you talking about? You suggested that Mormon Intellectuals were always critical, and seldom built things up. When I accepted your assertion at face value, everyone piled up on me. So what were YOU talking about?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Oh, come on, Robin. You are cherry-picking and building a caricature and you know it.

Making fun of religous apologists has always been easy to do. Apologists will always face an uphill battle. And the quality of the work varies widely.

I think Jay Santos is right. This whole thread is a little silly.

My FARMS brother sent me a .jpg of a MesoAmerican artifact that looked SLIGHTLY elephant-like. It made me smile.

Another thing that makes me smile is that from now on I am going to think of MikeWaters as a 'Mormon Intellectual.'

Apologists play a strange role in religion. On the one hand, they shouldn't even be necessary. You don't need pseudo-science to suggest the possibility that Christ atoned for your sins, or that he died and was resurrected. You accept those events with faith, and faith alone. And if you have faith to believe that a man can be killed, and then come back to life... or that one individuals suffering can alleviate the consequences of your sins, then why couldn't you accept that JS was everything that he claimed to be, and that the BOM is everything JS claimed it was? They are all comparable chasms, and it ultimately requires a bridge of faith to 'just get over it.' In the words of one popular Mormon Intellectual, (MikeWaters), faith and reason are completely different approaches to religious belief, and faith is the ONLY sure foundation for a testimony.

On the other hand, institutions like the church realize that they are more successful in their proselytizing efforts when there is a general air of plausibility about certain events. There enter the apologists -- the plausibility fabricators.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

It seems like the FARMS boys keep banging the same key on the piano...

YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of elephants in the New World.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY of LDS-style temple ceremonies and covenants in the New/Old Testament and Book of Mormon.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that no indigenous people of the Americas had Jewish ancestry.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE of Nephite metallurgical knowledge that would have allowed the development of a metal alloy soft enough to write on but not so insanely heavy as to be unwieldy.

Of course FARMS tries to make this sound more positive, so they frame these points using this pattern:
1. The Bait: Present a piece of archaeological evidence
2. The wild Inference: Relate the evidence to something Mormoney
3. The disclaimer: Point out that this isn't the only interpretation (and probably not the most widely accepted).
4. Appeal to the infinite: There is promising research on the horizon, but we won't ultimately be able to prove our inference until we know everything (so PLEASE KEEP GIVING US MoreMoney!).

Example:
1. Ancient MesoAmericans developed large stone pools. Here are some photos of them taken on my last FARMS funded trip to Guatemala.
2. The existence of such features is consistent with a culture that would perform washings and anointing and ceremonial baptisms.
3. But we can't be certain that this was the only use for these vessels.
4. Perhaps our trip next spring will yield more (photographs) evidence. A full understanding of these people and their ancient culture will finally prove what Mormons have known all along. Help us keep up the good work!

So maybe this is fraud. And maybe they are engaged in real intellectual work too. I bet apologetics pay the bills.

LOL! This is one of your better posts. Yes, it borders on parody, but like all skillful parody it exaggerates to illustrate an essential truth.

You also scooped me with your last sentence. I was going to say, maybe fraud is too grandiose an accusation. Maybe they are just doing their jobs; doing the best work they could get to pay the bills and get their kids educated, like most of the rest of us. In this sense they deserve some understanding.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by homeboy

This whole thread is a little silly.

Now this brings us back to Archea's original post--why genuine Mormon intellectuals tend to be such sour pusses.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

My FARMS brother sent me a .jpg of a MesoAmerican artifact that looked SLIGHTLY elephant-like. It made me smile.

Another thing that makes me smile is that from now on I am going to think of MikeWaters as a 'Mormon Intellectual.'

Apologists play a strange role in religion. On the one hand, they shouldn't even be necessary. You don't need pseudo-science to suggest the possibility that Christ atoned for your sins, or that he died and was resurrected. You accept those events with faith, and faith alone. And if you have faith to believe that a man can be killed, and then come back to life... or that one individuals suffering can alleviate the consequences of your sins, then why couldn't you accept that JS was everything that he claimed to be, and that the BOM is everything JS claimed it was? They are all comparable chasms, and it ultimately requires a bridge of faith to 'just get over it.' In the words of one popular Mormon Intellectual, (MikeWaters), faith and reason are completely different approaches to religious belief, and faith is the ONLY sure foundation for a testimony.

On the other hand, institutions like the church realize that they are more successful in their proselytizing efforts when there is a general air of plausibility about certain events. There enter the apologists -- the plausibility fabricators.

Also a good post. This is the point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Also a good post. This is the point.

so exaggerative parody is your point?

Once a lawyer always a lawyer.