DiscussMormonism.com

mikwut wrote:Hi Buffalo,

I did read the article. I might agree with your taste for how it could have been presented but that isn't an academic disqualifier for the article. I have read plenty of peer-reviewed articles in history, philosophy, science and the law that include strong advocacy for the position and the criticism's offered. They include sarcasm, acrimony, irony, even ridicule. My goodness its about the arguments man, and I don't fault even those I disagree with for a style of persuasion or criticism.

Your criticism, even if valid, amounts to trivial concern and ignores the arguments that are found throughout the article.

my regards, mikwut

mikwut wrote:Hi Buffalo,

Well, I'm not an academic (just married to one), but all of the academic publications I've read have been written using a professional, academic voice.

You present an ideal. I believe it is easily noticed that impartial judgment is often not practiced in academic writing. Everyone even respected peer-reviewed and published academic writers have agendas. Academic writing often carefully selects evidence that bolsters their positions, omits evidence that does not, and interprets evidence in ways that supports their claims. This is what rhetoric is all about, and all academic writing is rhetorical. Einsteins theories received harsh, judgmental, severe criticisms that make the articles Dr. Petersen posted seem tame.

The writing is also persuasive which is I think is appropriate from the FARMS pov, the irony is that the book being reviewed was not an intentionally persuasive piece. Rather, it is a purported "academic" piece emulating the ideal you subscribe to but it failed in many ways that were pointed out by The article Dr. Petersen linked. Why would anyone not be bothered that quotes don't say what the critiqued author declares them to say? I am bothered by that and appreciative of the full context the article Dr. Petersen linked provides. I don't find one ad hominem in the article. I don't think it is a secret or a criticism that BYU/FARMS has an agenda. I don't think it is a secret or a criticism that Signature Books has an agenda. I think readers can read both and determine a rational conclusion after doing so. I think it says more about the person on both sides that doesn't read thoroughly all of the evidence and arguments but rather resorts to their own agenda driven ideas that apologists write in an inappropriate way and that's all good enough for them or overly emphasize that fact.

I don't think it's a trivial concern. And I have seen ad hominems used by them against Grant Palmer

I would like to see them because that term is often misunderstood and misapplied. I am personally not offended by much on either side outside of out and out personal insults and denigration that have no place. I personally don't believe Dr. Petersen or FARMS displays offensive writing, but even if they did I would be more concerned with the evidence and argument then the style and the rhetoric. I care about truth that way.

my regards, mikwut

I do not say that Palmer is dishonest or deliberately deceptive. I believe, however, that in his enthusiasm to rationalize his own lack of faith in the foundational stories he misleads his readers by imputing motives to Joseph Smith that are not there and by emphasizing changes and inconsistencies that are either insignificant or nonexistent.

But I doubt that Palmer is in an ethical position to pose the question because he vaunts himself as an insider, a veteran teacher of the gospel, and an enlightened mentor who—in a gesture of paternal beneficence—offers to disabuse us of our childlike beliefs. The book reveals what Palmer had wanted to teach in an LDS institute but could not. Now retired, he can at last teach his view of Mormon origins. But the book bears the imprint of its own origins. In one sense, it is less a history than a piece of confessional literature. As it turns out, the book provides an insider's view of Palmer himself. Thus Palmer has also succeeded in his second stated objective for writing: to help "church members to understand historians and religion teachers like myself" (p. x).

Buffalo wrote:I wasn't really complaining about their agenda, but their "vox mopologia" writing style. I expect an agenda from everyone.

Examples of ad hominem:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=514
(the entire article)

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=533

I do not say that Palmer is dishonest or deliberately deceptive. I believe, however, that in his enthusiasm to rationalize his own lack of faith in the foundational stories he misleads his readers by imputing motives to Joseph Smith that are not there and by emphasizing changes and inconsistencies that are either insignificant or nonexistent.

But I doubt that Palmer is in an ethical position to pose the question because he vaunts himself as an insider, a veteran teacher of the gospel, and an enlightened mentor who—in a gesture of paternal beneficence—offers to disabuse us of our childlike beliefs. The book reveals what Palmer had wanted to teach in an LDS institute but could not. Now retired, he can at last teach his view of Mormon origins. But the book bears the imprint of its own origins. In one sense, it is less a history than a piece of confessional literature. As it turns out, the book provides an insider's view of Palmer himself. Thus Palmer has also succeeded in his second stated objective for writing: to help "church members to understand historians and religion teachers like myself" (p. x).

Pahoran wrote:
Okay, so when you whiiiiiined about "ad hominem" and "vox mopologia" etc, what you really meant was that you assumed the article would be laden with such things because you didn't like what someone else had written about Mister Palmer.

(You are wrong, by the way, that those articles are "ad hominem" in any meaningful way. It was Palmer who chose to make himself, his background and his credentials an issue in the debate. The reviewers were examining the claims he made for himself. If he hadn't wanted those claims examined, he shouldn't have made them.)

By contrast, your expressions of anti-FARMS prejudice are classic ad hominem. You dismissed the article, without once engaging any of its arguments, based entirely upon your expectation of what "Mopologists" are likely to write.

Regards,
Pahoran

mikwut wrote:Buffalo,

If I say "God exists because of spiritual experience" and you respond, "your a bad lawyer so God doesn't exist" that would be an ad hominen. Because questions of my ability as a lawyer are not legitimate and relevant to the argument I raised. But, questions of personal conduct or character even intentions based on that are sometimes relevant and are not properly called ad hominen fallacies if they go to the issue. For example, If I rather say, "God exists because I am good lawyer" then pointing out flaws in how good of a lawyer I am are not ad hominen fallacies or improper "attacks". I raised the issue.

The examples you gave are not examples of the fallacy nor are they just blatant personal attacks they are germane to issues Grant Palmers book opened the door to.

Ironically, just for trivia and irony. My father worked for CES for over 30 years. Many of those years were spent as Institute and area director positions. Similarly to what Grant Palmer's book utilizes to add credibility to Mr. Palmer. In my opinion my father's ability at apologetics, his time spent in the books if you will and his most credible periods to add to his credibility came from his time teaching - not his administrative duties.

my best, mikwut

Palmer's character is completely irrelevant to his arguments.

mikwut wrote:Buffalo,

Palmer's character is completely irrelevant to his arguments.

Regarding most of them you would be correct. But, regarding the issue of his credibility based on his career with the church that he raised to bolster his credibility you would not be correct. That is what Mr. Midgley focused on narrowly. I don't think anyone believes that argument addresses all of Mr. Palmers arguments. Credibility is an important issue to consider particularly when judgment in interpreting limited historical documents is the necessary skill for constructing the historical hypothesis and the issues Mr. Midgley raised regarding Mr. Palmer. The argument Mr. Midgley makes isn't decisive universally for all of Mr. Palmers arguments.

my regards, mikwut