E=MC2 over at MAAD (the official discussion board that represents the views of FAIR) is enamored by a recent FARMS article by who I think is Bob Bennett of FAIR/MAAD. Bennett is reviewing Anderson's book, "Farewell to Eden". I'll admit after reading the essay Anderson wasn't paying attention to Sunday School in a few places, but I missed the ass kicking.
A couple highlights. Defending God's commands for Israel to kill Canaanites he writes,
"The fact that millions of people have read that identical scripture and still managed to maintain both a belief in a loving God and a belief in the prophetic mission of Moses seems beyond consideration for Anderson. This passage of scripture, of course, is not unique to Mormonism or even to Christianity... Three major faiths, comprising over three billion of the earth's population, regard Moses as a prophet and accept the Old Testament as the word of God."
Bennett's idea of critical thinking begins with a public opinion poll. Good God E=MC2, I can see what you're talking about. Anderson is really getting nailed here.
"That there could be a time, place, and circumstance in which God determined that it was in the best interest of his children to return the Midianite sons to him in the spirit world is simply impossible in Anderson's black-and-white world."
Bennett feels no need to expound on an act utilitarianism that parallels Stalin and Mao. Why should Anderson be open to such a radical idea sans any argument other than a lot of people believe it?
"Anderson then discusses his disillusionment with the Book of Mormon and its defenders. He specifically takes Hugh Nibley to task for "his continual habit of making arguments that are so broad they can be used to justify belief in virtually anything, including UFOs and little green men" (p. xxii). By associating him with "little green men," Anderson attempts to make Nibley look absurd to the reader—without engaging any of his arguments. Of course, the reference to "little green men" is wholly Anderson's invention. Nibley never said any such thing."
The bolded portion makes it clear Bennett has never heard of Daniel Peterson's favorite tool of argumentation, reductio ad absurdum. I can't believe Peterson read this essay and left that passage standing. Bro Bennett, indeed he was trying to make Nibley look absurd to the reader and no, Nibley didn't say anything about aliens. That's the entire point of this kind of argument. There might be a number of reasons not to directly engage an argument, for instance, it might be a matter that's virtually impossible to settle by well established means. So one way to get a handle on it is by analyzing the structure of the argument, and how employing the method of argument under consideration in other relavent contexts would lead to undesireable results.
"It is true that God is a physical being, according to the Latter-day Saint doctrine of God, but it is also true that Latter-day Saints believe that God is a spiritual being and that he has a glory far beyond that comprehensible to mortal man. Indeed the glory of God is such that mortal man cannot survive his presence without a quickening or translation from his current state (see Moses 1:2, 9–11). Anderson never addresses this part of Latter-day Saint theology but instead assumes that God's body consists of nothing more than standard protons, electrons, and neutrons, of which we have a relatively complete understanding."
Interesting coming from a chemist. Jesus flew the tomb, ate fish, and allowed others to feel the nail prints in his hands. Anderson has at least pretty good reason to believe that Jesus is constituted of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It's not beyond logical possibility, I'd think, that there could be magico-physical stuff which interacts in ultra complex ways with protons and neutrons. But the more work that extra stuff does which is essential to God, the more reason we have on the grounds of parsimony to question the viability of anthropomorphism. C.S. Lewis, an honorable mention prophet of the church, makes similar arguments. Why do we need physical bodies for digestion if we don't really need to eat? etc..
Anyhow, Bennett's overall strategy as in the above quote is to merely suggest the incomprehensibility of God, that logically speaking, anything could be true, and that smart people such as himself are able to reconcile belief in just about anything. What he doesn't do, is make a philosophical or scientific case for the reasonability of the Mormon position over and above Anderson's.