2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_harmony]

I suspect many don't really buy into what they peddle.

They will never admit this, even if it were the case. There is simply too much riding on it.

[_TAK]

Has Brother Hall discussed anywhere the facts and circumstances as to why Sister Ogden sent him this fax?

[_harmony]

Has Brother Hall discussed anywhere the facts and circumstances as to why Sister Ogden sent him this fax?

Brother Hall no longer works for MI/FARMS. The circumstances of his job change have not been shared.

[_ToGo]

Did OJ's lawyers really believe him to be innocent? The role of mopologist is to be defense attorney for the validity of Mormon claims. The standard seems to be to keep the door open on plausibility - however that needs to be accomplished - whether by shifting goal posts, diverting attention from real issues, ad hominem attacks, making mountains out of molehills, shifting the burden, etc. Defending a position does not necessitate personally holding that opinion. Success is in the ultimate convincing of others that the position is defensible, not in the quality and honesty of the methods employed to achieve that goal.

Their's is a battle - not an objective search for objective truth. I suspect many don't really buy into what they peddle.

The suspension of disbelief. By darn, apologists are movie makers. They are skilled in stagecraft.

[_TAK]

Has Brother Hall discussed anywhere the facts and circumstances as to why Sister Ogden sent him this fax?

Brother Hall no longer works for MI/FARMS. The circumstances of his job change have not been shared.

Regardless .. It would seem like a simple thing to find out the background - reason for the fax. Curious this has not been flushed out by DCP as it would be far more relevant than emailing Hamblin as to what he remembers..

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes, they are on the payroll (at least some of them are). However, whether or not they are paid for their apologetics is a hotly contested issue that is far from resolution. They're paid for their research, their teaching load, their administrative duties, but the jury is still out as to whether or not they're paid to post on message boards, engage in apologetics, or generally make asses of themselves. Many think they do the latter (especially the latter latter) as a hobby.

Hello Madame,

I do believe Dr. Peterson listed his apologetic material on his curriculum vitae.

Very Respectfully,

Doctro CamNC4Me

[_Doctor Scratch]

Beastie,

I realize that you're just trying to be nice & civil and what have you, but I think that another critical aspect of this *is* the deception. I think that you could potentially chalk up some of the "lapses" to memory, but it seems to me that DCP and the other key parties involved have been suppressing information for a long time. The Z post that Brent cited is a complete and total contradiction of the story that Prof. P. was telling us here, about Hamblin supposedly writing a letter to Watson. I think that we really need to underscore just how badly the truth has been warped by the apologists. Sure: I guess you can ascribe it to shoddy member, but to me that's kind of beside the point. The real point is the apologists' zeal and rabid belief will twist and distort the truth. We can argue whether this is a function of their lack of moral integrity, or that it is the result of shoddy memory; either way, I think we can all agree that it is most definitely a quality of Mopologetics itself---that the nature of the enterprise is to spin and obscure the truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yes, they are on the payroll (at least some of them are). However, whether or not they are paid for their apologetics is a hotly contested issue that is far from resolution. They're paid for their research, their teaching load, their administrative duties, but the jury is still out as to whether or not they're paid to post on message boards, engage in apologetics, or generally make asses of themselves. Many think they do the latter (especially the latter latter) as a hobby.

Hello Madame,

I do believe Dr. Peterson listed his apologetic material on his curriculum vitae.

Very Respectfully,

Doctro CamNC4Me

Yes, and he has been dead silent about getting paid for apologetics ever since the CV was posted online. Gee, I wonder why?

[_beastie]

I realize that you're just trying to be nice & civil and what have you, but I think that another critical aspect of this *is* the deception. I think that you could potentially chalk up some of the "lapses" to memory, but it seems to me that DCP and the other key parties involved have been suppressing information for a long time. The Z post that Brent cited is a complete and total contradiction of the story that Prof. P. was telling us here, about Hamblin supposedly writing a letter to Watson. I think that we really need to underscore just how badly the truth has been warped by the apologists. Sure: I guess you can ascribe it to shoddy member, but to me that's kind of beside the point. The real point is the apologists' zeal and rabid belief will twist and distort the truth. We can argue whether this is a function of their lack of moral integrity, or that it is the result of shoddy memory; either way, I think we can all agree that it is most definitely a quality of Mopologetics itself---that the nature of the enterprise is to spin and obscure the truth.

No, I’m not trying to be nice and civil. All the readings I’ve done about the human brain over the past couple of years has absolutely convinced me of one thing – our brains are a mess, and often incompetent. There is no need to postulate an extra step – deliberate dishonesty – when the very function of our brain alone is sufficient explanation.

I shared one of my former posts on the fallibility of human memory. Here’s another one of my recent posts about our incompetent brains:

I’ve read several books written by neuroscientists about the workings of the brain, and it really is a mess. It’s no wonder human beings didn’t get out of the dark ages until formal processes like the scientific method was developed. We need something external and formalized to discipline our thinking, because we’re hopelessly unreliable when left to our own devices. I’m in the middle of yet another one of my “our brains are messes” books, this one called “The Accidental Mind- How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God”, by David Linden. In the chapter about how even our basic senses lead us astray, he says this:

What I hope to convey in this chapter is that this feeling that we have about our senses, that they are trustworthy and independent reporters, while overwhelmingly and pervasive, is simply not true. Our senses are not built to give us an “accurate” picture of the external world at all. Rather, through millions of years of evolutionary tinkering, they have been designed to detect and even exaggerate certain features and aspects of the sensory world and to ignore others. Our brains then blend this whole sensory stew together with emotion to create a seamless ongoing story of experience that makes sense. Our senses are cherry-picking and processing certain aspects of the external world for us to consider. Furthermore, we cannot experience the world in a purely sensory fashion because, in many cases, by the time we are aware of sensory information, it’s already been deeply intertwined with emotions and plans for action. Simply put: In the sensory world, our brains are messing with the data.

And, of course, this “messing with the data” is even more of an effect with something with high emotional content, like religion.

Another one of my favorite quotes from a brain book went something like this: our brain’s main job is to convince ourselves we are right. Yet, the process by which we arrived at our thoughts is largely invisible to us, and the rightness has less to do with rightness than to do with our brain’s wiring to BE right, even if we’re wrong. From “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not” by Robert Burton:

Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of “knowing what we know” arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of reason.

Our brain’s main job seems to be to function as our defense lawyer. Decisions and beliefs are made in a largely subconscious fashion, although it doesn’t feel that way. It feels like we are rationally weighing our alternatives and choosing the option that makes the most sense – and I’m sure sometimes we are. Sometimes. But feeling like that’s what we’ve done isn’t sufficient to prove that’s what we’ve actually done. They’ve done studies on this that show that the neuron firing required to make something happen – like our hand move to an object – occurs before we are aware that we have consciously decided to move that hand. Other studies show that human beings are great confabulators – we’re great at making up post-hoc stories to explain our behavior, when that behavior may have really had nothing to do with those post-hoc explanations. This isn’t conscious lying. It’s our brains playing defense attorney.

What I hope to show here is that at every level of brain organization, from regions and circuits to cells and molecules, the brain is an inelegant and inefficient agglomeration of stuff, which nonetheless works surprisingly well. The brain is not the ultimate general-purpose supercomputer. It was not designed at once, by a genius, on a blank piece of paper. Rather it is a very peculiar edifice that reflects millions of years of evolutionary history. In many cases, the brain has adopted solutions to particular problems in the distant past that have persisted over time and have been recycled for other uses or have severely constrained the possibilities for further change. In the words of the pioneering molecular biologist Francois Jacob, “Evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer.”

What’s important about this point as applied to the brain is not merely that it challenges the notion of optimized design. Rather, appreciation of the quirky engineering of the brain can provide insights into some of the deepest and most particularly human aspects of experience, both in day-to-day behavior and in cases of injury and disease.

It’s a strange feeling to gradually realize that we aren’t really the logical, rational beings who sort things out carefully and come to reasoned conclusions, even as much as it feels that way. Our brains are messing with us. Our brains are running this show, and we don’t even know it.

How does this information apply to the current situation? It means that the brains of DCP and other apologists are helping them out by playing defense attorney by highlighting certain information, editing memories, and heavily biasing what they can even consciously digest. There is no need to postulate deliberate deception. Their brains are doing the dirty work for them, below the conscious level of awareness. When DCP says that he saw a real letter signed by Watson, I think chances are good he really believes it. I may be wrong, and maybe he is being deliberately deceptive about it, but I don’t see how that would benefit him. This fax is still considered to be coming from Watson’s office. I don’t take seriously the suggestions that it could have been completely fabricated, particularly since the same language is in the EoM. What would he have to gain by deliberately lying about it?

And yes, I agree that the nature of Mormon apologetics is to spin- but usually not deliberately distort. I do agree that some times there does appear to be a deliberate decision to mislead or distort, but I think that most of the times it’s just the result of the brains of apologists functioning primarily as defense attorney, and NOT “truth finder”. And reality is that all of our brains function this way, we just notice it in others while we’re blind to its effect in our own selves. Think of all the times apologists insist that critics have been deliberately deceptive. I usually see no evidence whatsoever to support that accusation – yet it obviously feels real to them.

[Guest]

* The FARMSian/FAIRsian mopologists do not believe in the plausibility of a Great Lakes setting for the Book of Mormon. If they were stuck with that, they are concerned they would lose their case.

* Of necessity, then, is an alternative setting for the Book of Mormon - hence the LGT, which is - when you alter a few perceptions, historical statements and a fair bit of logic - more plausible and defensible.

* Words of current prophets are interpreted by the general active Mormon population as supreme - even superior to the minds of the great mopos.

* Accordingly, a statement perceived to be coming from the current leadership stating that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah of Book of Mormon fame is in NY would necessarily undermine the more plausible position adopted by the top mopos.

* When such a statement appears on the scene and becomes public, something is needed to discredit or invalidate it.

* FARMS seeks such something - and publicizes it as intended to correct an unintended attribution of the NY view to the FP.

* FARMS ultimate goal is to discredit/invalidate Watson 1 - I conjecture that they took some liberties in the descriptions of the method used to do so, as the methods employed are largely unimportant to the main goal.