DiscussMormonism.com

...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

What I am suggesting is an "apologetic turing test" in that we could see if tghe apologists could tell a half baked, "uninspired" apologetic masturbatory endeavor from the real deal.

This would be a great way to illustrate confirmation bias.

Reel in a few good figureheads over there, whip em up into a frenzy and then post saying you are not an apologist but a critic in actuality. State the apologetics you bring up were concocted from whole cloth and then deconstruct your own argument.

It would make them think for once in their lives.

VegasRefugee wrote:...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

I doubt it. Jeff Lindsay has answered that question long ago. No one notices his terrible apologetics ... and they sure as hell don't criticize him.

VegasRefugee wrote:Reel in a few good figureheads over there, whip em up into a frenzy and then post saying you are not an apologist but a critic in actuality. State the apologetics you bring up were concocted from whole cloth and then deconstruct your own argument.

It would make them think for once in their lives.

Why? I don't buy every apologetic argument I hear. I'm perfectly happy to deconstruct arguments I think are lacking even if I agree with the conclusion.

I agree with Mendacity and Asbestos. From a TBM standpoint, the persuasiveness of apologetics is predicated primarily upon faith. So, it does not matter if the apologetics are "made up" so long as they support the faith. Of course, it helps if the apologetics actually use a bit of ratiocination and logic, but that's by no means a prerequisite for "legitimate" LDS apologetics on the MADboard. The day-to-day posts of Charity and Hammer are a prime example of that. Moreover, the very nature of LDS apologetics is "creative." One has to apply a fair amount of imaginative thinking in order to help fill in the gaps created by the apparent need to turn matters of faith into material reality. It would be one thing if the Brethren would just come out and say, "No; the Book of Mormon is not historical." But that isn't what has happened. Thus, in a sense, all apologetics is "made up." After all, it takes a creative mind indeed to concoct such silly theories as the "Two Cumorahs" hypothesis.

VegasRefugee wrote:...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

Yes. It's been done twice. The second time was actually inadvertent. Let me explain both instances:

INSTANCE #1: Someone on RFM typed up a completely fictional local news story about someone cutting down an ancient dead tree and finding a rusted steel sword embedded within it. It claimed that forensic experts had determined, through tree-ring analysis and other dating methods, that the sword must've been left between its branches when it was only a sapling, back around 400 A.D. or so.

The experts went on to state that this throws commonly-held understanding of early American metallurgy on its head, since this sword meant that Native Americans were smelting, refining, and fashioning metal at least that far back, if not further.

The genius of the "article" is that it never mentioned Mormonism or the Book of Mormon at all, leaving the appearance of objectivity. Not only that, but it was written up in HTML style to look exactly like a news article, complete with a picture of the sword and everything (taken from some other site, of course).

This person then forwarded it to all his/her LDS relatives, and it soon wound up on, I believe, the LDS Gems listserv--or was it Meridian Magazine?

Either way, this person revealed to the RFM board that it had all been his/her hoax, which caused everyone to get a good laugh and wonder how much further it would proliferate. Unfortunately, some TBM saw the confession and the "article" was swiftly taken down.

INSTANCE #2: On RFM, our very own Tal Bachman had a running series of installments titled something like "From the Journal of Garloy P. Hendricks." Garloy P. Hendricks was a fictional FARMS apologist who was basically every mopologist on earth rolled into one, x100. Hendricks employed every possible lame apologetic and excuse conceivable to help him conquer his cognitive dissonance.

One day, a person on FAIR was surfing RFM and came across one of these entries. Unfortunately for him, he took it completely seriously, thinking it was indeed a leaked entry from a FARMS apologist named Garloy P. Hendricks. He posted Hendricks's entry on FAIR and asked if it was real, and said he hoped FARMS really didn't think that way. The entry in question went something like this:

I sure hope the government bans The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's causing people to trust their minds, not their feelings, which is leading them away from the true path to God. When are people going to learn that facts are unimportant and it's only feelings which matter in life?

I also hope the government bans Horton Hatches the Egg by Dr. Seuss. This book makes it easy for children to believe that mammals at one point laid eggs, like reptiles, thus causing them to entertain the possibility of evolution, which is a damnable heresy invented by Satan to cause people to disbelieve in Adam and Eve, our first parents.

Of course, Tal's entry was much, much better. But be that as it may, several people at FAIR took it seriously but asserted that it's only a minority point of view. Luckily DCP came to the rescue and let everyone know that Garloy P. Hendricks is only fictional.

So yes, it's been done before.

Both very funny, particularly the second one.

VegasRefugee wrote:...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

What I am suggesting is an "apologetic turing test" in that we could see if tghe apologists could tell a half baked, "uninspired" apologetic masturbatory endeavor from the real deal.

This would be a great way to illustrate confirmation bias.

Reel in a few good figureheads over there, whip em up into a frenzy and then post saying you are not an apologist but a critic in actuality. State the apologetics you bring up were concocted from whole cloth and then deconstruct your own argument.

It would make them think for once in their lives.

As entertaining as it must sound to ridicule others for their faith, most seasoned LDS scholars take their careers a little more seriously than that. You'll find almost as much criticism of each other's arguments within LDS scholarly circles as criticisms of outsiders.

maklelan wrote:

VegasRefugee wrote:...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

What I am suggesting is an "apologetic turing test" in that we could see if tghe apologists could tell a half baked, "uninspired" apologetic masturbatory endeavor from the real deal.

This would be a great way to illustrate confirmation bias.

Reel in a few good figureheads over there, whip em up into a frenzy and then post saying you are not an apologist but a critic in actuality. State the apologetics you bring up were concocted from whole cloth and then deconstruct your own argument.

It would make them think for once in their lives.

As entertaining as it must sound to ridicule others for their faith, most seasoned LDS scholars take their careers a little more seriously than that. You'll find almost as much criticism of each other's arguments within LDS scholarly circles as criticisms of outsiders.

This is utter nonsense. The entire raison d'etre for FARMS Review is to reaffirm the orthodox TBM views, hence DCP's careful cherrypicking of his peer reviewers. While you may be right insofar as most LDS scholars take their secular careers seriously, when it comes to apologetics, most of them try to dodge the label entirely. Your assertion would be a lot easier to consider if one didn't usually see such "high five" posts from scholars such as DCP and Bill Hamblin in which they laugh it up about how they watched a silent anti-Mormon film for FHE.

I guess the bottomline is that while many TBMs want to take the work of the apologists seriously, it is such a preposterous "field" that even the apologists themselves are unwilling to self-apply that label. In fact, I defy you to identify even one regular MAD poster who is willing to fully embrace the title of "LDS Apologist." Good luck with that. The truth is that the professionally trained scholars, while earnest, are embarrassed about the state of apologetics, hence their unwillingness to fully stand beside it. (I'm sure Plutarch would agree with me here.)[/quote]

maklelan wrote:
As entertaining as it must sound to ridicule others for their faith,

As I always say, comedic value is the only way to extract worth from Mormonism.

maklelan wrote:most seasoned LDS scholars take their careers a little more seriously than that.

Too bad for them that noone outside of Mormon apologetics does the same. Matter of fact its the opposite.

maklelan wrote: You'll find almost as much criticism of each other's arguments within LDS scholarly circles as criticisms of outsiders.

Political infighting and attention seeking among the marginalized defenders of a marginalized cult (guess that's redundant).

any internal criticism of apologists can be chalked up to conceding to reality, such as Bushman.

Mister Scratch wrote:

maklelan wrote:

VegasRefugee wrote:...would they notice? I'm talking about articles justifying Mormon doctrines, church policies, etc. Has this been done before? Could they even tell that it was fake?

What I am suggesting is an "apologetic turing test" in that we could see if tghe apologists could tell a half baked, "uninspired" apologetic masturbatory endeavor from the real deal.

This would be a great way to illustrate confirmation bias.

Reel in a few good figureheads over there, whip em up into a frenzy and then post saying you are not an apologist but a critic in actuality. State the apologetics you bring up were concocted from whole cloth and then deconstruct your own argument.

It would make them think for once in their lives.

As entertaining as it must sound to ridicule others for their faith, most seasoned LDS scholars take their careers a little more seriously than that. You'll find almost as much criticism of each other's arguments within LDS scholarly circles as criticisms of outsiders.

This is utter nonsense. The entire raison d'etre for FARMS Review is to reaffirm the orthodox TBM views, hence DCP's careful cherrypicking of his peer reviewers. While you may be right insofar as most LDS scholars take their secular careers seriously, when it comes to apologetics, most of them try to dodge the label entirely. Your assertion would be a lot easier to consider if one didn't usually see such "high five" posts from scholars such as DCP and Bill Hamblin in which they laugh it up about how they watched a silent anti-Mormon film for FHE.

I guess the bottomline is that while many TBMs want to take the work of the apologists seriously, it is such a preposterous "field" that even the apologists themselves are unwilling to self-apply that label. In fact, I defy you to identify even one regular MAD poster who is willing to fully embrace the title of "LDS Apologist." Good luck with that. The truth is that the professionally trained scholars, while earnest, are embarrassed about the state of apologetics, hence their unwillingness to fully stand beside it. (I'm sure Plutarch would agree with me here.)

[/quote]

One regular poster? Me. Also, please document your claim that anyone is embarrassed, or call it what it is: an assumption.

This entire post rests on my use of the word apologist. How about I remove it and your post crumbles to a point about reaffirming others. Since we all believe the same things (basically), it's rather natural to agree, but there are differences. DCP and Hamblin are good friends, and they share a lot of methodologies. Why shouldn't they agree? In addition, it was already pointed out that Dr. Peterson was the one who exposed the deception as such.

Your problem with reviewers is rather uninformed. FARMS usually reviews things in-house because others aren't going to be able to appropriately comment on a publication written by and for LDS folk. When they write elsewhere (which they are required to do) they go through blind reviews, like everyone else. They also ask others to review things. Paulsen wrote an article for Harvard Theological Review, and it went through the normal channels, but he also sent it to various scholars who he knew wouldn't agree with him. Some of them reacted by writing their own articles (Jack Kettler):

In the pages that follow I will show areas of essential agreement between Mormonism and Greek philosophy.
I am advancing this thesis primarily because any impartial research into this subject will confirm that there exists
an essential agreement between Mormon theology and ancient pagan thought in a number of crucial areas.
Secondarily, I have done this because of the astounding false accusations that have come out of Brigham Young
University (B.Y.U.) in recent years about Neo-Platonism and its supposed influence upon Christianity.

One example being an article titled Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as
Reluctant Witnesses by David L. Paulsen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Brigham Young University.
Mr. Paulsen sent me this article that he was preparing for publication. In the letter that accompanied this
manuscript he solicited my "comments criticisms and especially suggestions for improvement."

What good is a review from this guy going to do for a book or journal written by and for Mormons? He's as dogmatic as any Mormon, so why waste the time.

As I always say, comedic value is the only way to extract worth from Mormonism.

That's a remarkably ignorant and rude thing to say. I take it you dish out no respect and expect none in return? IS that your modus operandi?

Too bad for them that noone outside of Mormon apologetics does the same. Matter of fact its the opposite.

Is that a fact? I only have time for one example, but Stubb's ideas about connections between Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages was actually praised by a world authority on linguistics, Roger Williams Westcott:

Roger Williams Westcott wrote:]Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. . . Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.

It appears that your absolute statements are far off the mark.