Kerry/Philo

[_Markk]

Hi Kerry,

I have a question...

When you were TBM, and at the apex of your faith and of being a "apologist," what was the most important "thing" to you in regards of your faith? ( Family does not count for this exercise)

1."the Church,"
2.winning the argument,
3.God
4.status as a apologist,
5.converting a critic...
6. to learn and grow
7.other?

Too me, I would "believe" for a chapel Mormon it would most often be "the church" ( the testimony).

To the LDS apologist I would "guess" a combination of 2 and 4...seeing your past "position in LDS apologentics", and knowing these guys more so that most here...what would you believe?

[Guest]

I actually was so full of zeal without the knowledge (even AFTER reading Nibley's article on it several times in order to show others *their* problem) that I was more interested in convicting the critic, and showing all the others that there was nothing to fear from criticism and supposed refutations. I wasn't out to convert with the Spirit (precious few apologists are, it's not the nature of apologetics, Mormon, Christian, or otherwise), I was out to refute and show that the Mormon intelligence was superior to any other relgious intelligence because we had more scripture, more prophets, more light, and more truth. Our context was greater, deeper, wider, and thus much more full, and hence by default, more correct. All other contexts were minimal compared to Mormonism's "eternal" view, and therefore what was needed was education.

For you see, I already had the greater context, so it was that I wanted to help others to see. It was exasperating after years to see what I perceived as them fighting against greater truth and light and knowledge that God was offering. They were being bull-headed, I was being the light shining showing them the errors of their ways. ldsfaqs is what I used to be to a perfect "T" I do not mean that as a slight against him, although, it is actually. Because I had the greater light, the more correct truth, I could *show* others the errors of their ways, I didn't have any. I mean sincerely, there is no better exemplar than ldsfaqs here on these boards. It is pure pride of already having the truth. It occurred to me a few years back what an arrogant ass I was, and I couldn't see it when I was "defending God." That is so flipping odd I can't comprehend ever thinking that way, but apologists do so. Imagine......God can't do it, not even with the Holy Ghost. He needs apologists who somehow know how to do it better. Once you "know" you have the truth, you automatically become a self-righteous judge, and man do they ever lord it over on all others. I sure did. I'm embarrassed about it now. Wow. So, anyway, whether they ever admit it or not, I personally don't care, that is the apologist mind set. It was mine then. You don't look for light and truth, you already possess it.

That is the apologetic mindset. I know, I had it, and everyone else did as well. Once on a FAIR email list I belonged to, I began asking some pretty darn tough questions because I just didn't see things as the others did. I asked some very tough questions about the prophets and some of their interpretations of the scriptures. I was told in no uncertain terms "we are here to DEFEND the church, NOT question it, or doubt the leaders. Apolgosits DEFEND. We are not here attempting to learn more than the leaders, we sustain them, agree with them, and write that agreement to the world. We do not contradict them, and if we do, we don't say so. What they say is our words. PERIOD." I was just honestly trying to figure things out and I was called directly onto the carpet and flattened. If I could not just agree with the truth the leaders taught, I was not welcomed on the email list. Another very good and well known apologist (semi-scholar) and popular radio talk show host was actually ousted off the list because he could not agree with the lock step thinking concerning the Book of Mormon. I was astounded and many others were also. In fact, I believe that was the beginning of the end for Kevin Graham on that list as well as he spoke up vehemently also. So, anyway, there you have it. The Spirit gives the apologist extra mental muscle to handle the world's doubts.

An apologist *always* will win because we have superior knowledge. That was the mind set. Kevin Barney (a VERY cool guy whom I deeply respect STILL, Ben McGuire is pretty cool too) so completely humbled us all so many times with his vast knowledge of ancient Hebrew convinced me I was not nearly as knowledgable as I could be, so I doubled down and tripled down on learning everything I could. It was my extending into the biblical scholarship that spelled the doom of my ultimate involvement with apologetics. Anyway, sorry to bore you with all the details. Let me just say one last thing if I may please. We (apologists) already had the answers. It was just a matter of amassing ALL the evidence from anywhere in the world that supported the answers, and putting it into our research and that was the proof we were correct. I finally figured out that this is the perfect recipe for one very powerful.... overwhelmingly powerful thing....Confirmation Bias.

It never leads to truth, it leads to confirmation bias. I can honest to goodness do no better than point to the singular most powerful proof that God has given us all in presenting ldsfaqs to the group. He is the epitome of all that is wrong with apologetics. Were he Catholic, I would say that's the decfect of it. He is Mormon, and his confirmation bias is openly easy to witness and observe. It is true of all religious apologetics of every stripe as I have learned and observed with all the other religions as well. And it is all backed up and supported by faith. Faith is literally the flawed methodology that turns Christianity into Christianities, tens of thousands of them all using the same method, and all ending up contradicting each other at every turn, on every subject. And they CAN'T SEE IT. So go easy on em.........

[_Fence Sitter]

Kerry,

Thanks for that interesting perspective.
There is no comparison between you, even in apologetic mode, and LDSFAQS, none.

[_Markk]

I actually was so full of zeal without the knowledge (even AFTER reading Nibley's article on it several times in order to show others *their* problem) that I was more interested in convicting the critic, and showing all the others that there was nothing to fear from criticism and supposed refutations. I wasn't out to convert with the Spirit (precious few apologists are, it's not the nature of apologetics, Mormon, Christian, or otherwise), I was out to refute and show that the Mormon intelligence was superior to any other relgious intelligence because we had more scripture, more prophets, more light, and more truth. Our context was greater, deeper, wider, and thus much more full, and hence by default, more correct. All other contexts were minimal compared to Mormonism's "eternal" view, and therefore what was needed was education.

For you see, I already had the greater context, so it was that I wanted to help others to see. It was exasperating after years to see what I perceived as them fighting against greater truth and light and knowledge that God was offering. They were being bull-headed, I was being the light shining showing them the errors of their ways. ldsfaqs is what I used to be to a perfect "T" I do not mean that as a slight against him, although, it is actually. Because I had the greater light, the more correct truth, I could *show* others the errors of their ways, I didn't have any. I mean sincerely, there is no better exwmplar than ldsfaqs here on these boards. It is pure pride of already having the truth. It occurred to me a few years back what an arrogant ass I was, and I couldn't see it when I was "defending God." That is so flipping odd I can't comprehend ever thinking that way, but apologists do so. Imagine......God can't do it, not even with the Holy Ghost. He needs apologists who somehow know how to do it better. Once you "know" you have the truth, you automatically become a self-righteous judge, and man do they ever lord it over on all others. I sure did. I'm embarrassed about it now. Wow. So, anyway, whether they ever admit it or not, I personally don't care, that is the apologist mind set. It was mine then. You don't look for light and truth, you already possess it.

That is the apologetic mindset. I know, I had it, and everyone else did as well. Once on a FAIR email list I belonged to, I began asking some pretty darn tough questions because I just didn't see things as the others did. I asked some very tough questions about the prophets and some of their interpretations of the scriptures. I was told in no uncertain terms "we are here to DEFEND the church, NOT question it, or doubt the leaders. Apolgosits DEFEND. We are not here attempting to learn more than the leaders, we sustain them, agree with them, and write that agreement to the world. We do not contradict them, and if we do, we don't say so. What they say is our words. PERIOD." I was just honestly trying to figure things out and I was called directly onto the carpet and flattened. If I could not just agree with the truth the leaders taught, I was not welcomed on the email list. Another very good and well known apologist (semi-scholar) and popular radio talk show host was actually ousted off the list because he could not agree with the lock step thinking concerning the Book of Mormon. I was astounded and many others were also. In fact, I believe that was the beginning of the end for Kevin Graham on that list as well as he spoke up vehemently also. So, anyway, there you have it. The Spirit gives the apologist extra mental muscle to handle the world's doubts.

An apologist *always* will win because we have superior knowledge. That was the mind set. Kevin Barney (a VERY cool guy whom I deeply respect STILL, Ben McGuire is pretty cool too) so completely humbled us all so many times with his vast knowledge of ancient Hebrew convinced me I was not nearly as knowledgable as I could be, so I doubled down and tripled down on learning everything I could. It was my extending into the biblical scholarship that spelled the doom of my ultimate involvement with apologetics. Anyway, sorry to bore you with all the details. Let me just say one last thing if I may please. We (apologists) already had the answers. It was just a matter of amassing ALL the evidence from anywhere in the world that supported the answers, and putting it into our research and that was the proof we were correct. I finally figured out that this is the perfect recipe for one very powerful.... overwhelmingly powerful thing....Confirmation Bias.

It never leads to truth, it leads to confirmation bias. I can honest to goodness do no better than point to the singular most powerful proof that God has given us all in presenting ldsfaqs to the group. He is the epitome of all that is wrong with apologetics. Were he Catholic, I would say that's the decfect of it. He is Mormon, and his confirmation bias is openly easy to witness and observe. It is true of all religious apologetics of every stripe as I have learned and observed with all the other religions as well. And it is all backed up and supported by faith. Faith is literally the flawed methodology that turns Christianity into Christianities, tens of thousands of them all using the same method, and all ending up contradicting each other at every turn, on every subject. And they CAN'T SEE IT. So go easy on em.........

Thanks, have to digest it...

What jumped out too me was the e-mail list? Were you given talking points so to speak? Or, strategies when discussing topics on the boards?

If certain apologist was losing a debate or discussion...would a stronger apologists step in via communication on the e-mail list?

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it almost sound like a propaganda network?

Who was the primary author of the e-mail list?

Thanks

MG

[_Philo Sofee]

Kerry,

Thanks for that interesting perspective.
There is no comparison between you, even in apologetic mode, and LDSFAQS, none.

That is very kind of you to say. I actually understand it though. ldsfaqs, I think, genuinely *means well.* No, I am serious, he DOES. He just can't *be* well, because his mind is blind to the supposition that he already possesses ***the truth*** and therefore it's an automatic given, all others are wrong. It's actually simple. But when you are IN that mindset, you literally CANNOT see it, and CANNOT see how it effects your thinking on all other subjects (science, Bible, economy, martial arts, astronomy, IQ tests, how to make a salad, you name it) and interactions with people. Many former "enemies" of mine have now sent me former conversations I had with them as an apologist and it is downright tear jerking APPALLING how arrogant, idiotic, and illogical and unreasonable I was. I am simply blown away by it. I had NO IDEA I was that way at the time. Looking at it now is just.......utterly horrifying.

[_Philo Sofee]

Mark:

Thanks, have to digest it...

What jumped out too me was the e-mail list? Were you given talking points so to speak? Or, strategies when discussing topics on the boards?

If certain apologist was losing a debate or discussion...would a stronger apologists step in via communication on the e-mail list?

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it almost sound like a propaganda network?

Who was the primary author of the e-mail list?

Thanks

MG

Oh it was the apologetics email list that we gathered all apologists together (at one point there were hundreds of us), pooling our resources, working through objections and attacks against the church, combining our research and forming the original FAIR website where we wanted to produce THE internet's ENCYCLOPEDIC resources for ALL answers to ALL objections. They still exist, but I got booted quite a time ago. All apologetics is propaganda, just like all the Gospels in the New Testament are........so yeah. But ya gotta remember, from the perspective of an apologist there is no propaganda in their research. It is sharing the truth, sharing the real knowledge and reality of truth and truth of reality. To them their way is the only way it *CAN* be, because God is on your side, you have His priesthood and the Holy Ghost whisperings. You literally cannot be wrong. Of course they pay lip service to the being wrong, but no one of them actually believes it. (I betchta I get called out on this oe - GRIN!) It's how one is raised as a Mormon. It's magnified when one becomes an apologist. I mean you have all these other apologetic brains all working together with you and man you end up feeling invincible! Get destroyed on a message board? No problem, go the email list, show em your problem and they all have suggestions for you, and you go back out and samck the apostates and enemies around with more truth. It is group cofirmation bias. My suspicion? Many of the apologists do't really buy it however. There is a group comradare to it, and so I suspect many don't really discuss what they are really thinking and believing. I made the mistake of being openly honest. I shoulda been more careful I suppose.......... ah well, what's done is done...... I continue to seek and learn. Only this time, it's about learning the truth, not teaching it.

[_SteelHead]

It is a new world. The apologist are learning that information and ideas are the coin of the realm, and that their coffers are empty. As Mormonism is a fairly recent thing, its history is available, not lost to the fog of age. Today's people are increasingly unwilling to accept the unsupported in any physical way story of a people that archeology and genetics fail to find, as translated via a magical rock in a hat, by a guy who is best described as looking to get a leg over on every female he could. Against the Christian apologist, the Mormons can engage in their "my god can beat up your god" contest, and as Prof. Jenkins demonstrated, fall apart on the subject of empirical truth. But against the increasingly secular world, the skeptic, they have no recourse.

[_Philo Sofee]

It is a new world. The apologist are learning that information and ideas are the coin of the realm, and that their coffers are empty. As Mormonism is a fairly recent thing, its history is available, not lost to the fog of age. Today's people are increasingly unwilling to accept the unsupported in any physical way story of a people that archeology and genetics fail to find, as translated via a magical rock in a hat, by a guy who is best described as looking to get a leg over on every female he could. Against the Christian apologist, the Mormons can engage in their "my god can beat up your god" contest, and as Prof. Jenkins demonstrated, fall apart on the subject of empirical truth. But against the increasingly secular world, the skeptic, they have no recourse.

Your last sentence particular strikes a bell in me. It is precisely the secular that decimates all the religious arguments because, as it dawned on me as I read the secular, they don't have the *same* assumptions the religious do. In fact, they go at the *assumptions* and test those, to heck with the evidences. Evidences can be used out of context, but assumptions? No, *THOSE* have to be demonstrated with realistic evidence. I see the secular as having the advantage. Not the final word, of course not, but most definitely at this point, the utterly clear and strong advantage. Jenkins absolutely demonstrated that time and again in his discussion with Hamblin.

[_Markk]

Oh it was the apologetics email list that we gathered all apologists together (at one point there were hundreds of us), pooling our resources, working through objections and attacks against the church, combining our research and forming the original FAIR website where we wanted to produce THE internet's ENCYCLOPEDIC resources for ALL answers to ALL objections. They still exist, but I got booted quite a time ago. All apologetics is propaganda, just like all the Gospels in the New Testament are........so yeah. But ya gotta remember, from the perspective of an apologist there is no propaganda in their research. It is sharing the truth, sharing the real knowledge and reality of truth and truth of reality. To them their way is the only way it *CAN* be, because God is on your side, you have His priesthood and the Holy Ghost whisperings. You literally cannot be wrong. Of course they pay lip service to the being wrong, but no one of them actually believes it. (I betchta I get called out on this oe - GRIN!) It's how one is raised as a Mormon. It's magnified when one becomes an apologist. I mean you have all these other apologetic brains all working together with you and man you end up feeling invincible! Get destroyed on a message board? No problem, go the email list, show em your problem and they all have suggestions for you, and you go back out and samck the apostates and enemies around with more truth. It is group cofirmation bias. My suspicion? Many of the apologists do't really buy it however. There is a group comradare to it, and so I suspect many don't really discuss what they are really thinking and believing. I made the mistake of being openly honest. I shoulda been more careful I suppose.......... ah well, what's done is done...... I continue to seek and learn. Only this time, it's about learning the truth, not teaching it.

Would you get in trouble in naming the leader of the mailing list, ,I understand if you do not want to name names.

I know from my days at FAIR boards, as a ex-Mormon/evangelical...There were LDS apologists that I could talk too, and too others it was just impossible. Brokovoy and Ben McGuire were always patient and fun to discuss things with, while others were fun for other reasons.

In the e-mail list...were critics targeted for "special treatment" so to speak. Or "the big dogs" called in?

Also, how do you think the essays are effecting Mopology? I wonder what the email list said about that. I didn't see any apologies to the Tanners, Palmer, or Quinn, after the church basically copped to what they wrote about for years?

Sorry for so many questions, but I find this fascinating?

[_Philo Sofee]

Oh it was the apologetics email list that we gathered all apologists together (at one point there were hundreds of us), pooling our resources, working through objections and attacks against the church, combining our research and forming the original FAIR website where we wanted to produce THE internet's ENCYCLOPEDIC resources for ALL answers to ALL objections. They still exist, but I got booted quite a time ago. All apologetics is propaganda, just like all the Gospels in the New Testament are........so yeah. But ya gotta remember, from the perspective of an apologist there is no propaganda in their research. It is sharing the truth, sharing the real knowledge and reality of truth and truth of reality. To them their way is the only way it *CAN* be, because God is on your side, you have His priesthood and the Holy Ghost whisperings. You literally cannot be wrong. Of course they pay lip service to the being wrong, but no one of them actually believes it. (I betchta I get called out on this oe - GRIN!) It's how one is raised as a Mormon. It's magnified when one becomes an apologist. I mean you have all these other apologetic brains all working together with you and man you end up feeling invincible! Get destroyed on a message board? No problem, go the email list, show em your problem and they all have suggestions for you, and you go back out and samck the apostates and enemies around with more truth. It is group cofirmation bias. My suspicion? Many of the apologists do't really buy it however. There is a group comradare to it, and so I suspect many don't really discuss what they are really thinking and believing. I made the mistake of being openly honest. I shoulda been more careful I suppose.......... ah well, what's done is done...... I continue to seek and learn. Only this time, it's about learning the truth, not teaching it.

Would you get in trouble in naming the leader of the mailing list, ,I understand if you do not want to name names.

I know from my days at FAIR boards, as a ex-Mormon/evangelical...There were LDS apologists that I could talk too, and too others it was just impossible. Brokovoy and Ben McGuire were always patient and fun to discuss things with, while others were fun for other reasons.

In the e-mail list...were critics targeted for "special treatment" so to speak. Or "the big dogs" called in?

Also, how do you think the essays are effecting Mopology? I wonder what the email list said about that. I didn't see any apologies to the Tanners, Palmer, or Quinn, after the church basically copped to what they wrote about for years?

Sorry for so many questions, but I find this fascinating?

I honestly don't know what the players are now. It's been a while since I was involved with the list. And yes the big dogs were called in. It's why FAIR got so close to FARMS, and most of the FARMS folk joined the email list. How do you think Daniel C. Peterson gets the honor annually of summing up the FAIR conference? The essays affecting them? They don't. What they say now is we knew it all along and you (the membership) should have. Hey an apologist can make a virtue out of necessity and turn a direct refutation of their view into a virtue by twisting the words and logic. Much like J. P Holding does all the time. One of the most amazing, amusing fascinating rebuttals of Holding was Richard Carrier's book "Not the Impossible Faith." He demonstrated in hundreds of places how Holding's apologetic was truly pathetic. The thing that caught my eye is Holding used the exact same methods as LDS apologists do in so many areas and on the exact same subjects! Christians and Mormons are not so very far apart after all, no matter how much they each protest they actually are, just for different reasons. Carrier's materials are the best cure I have found for apologetics and the type of logic and methods they utilize without even being aware of how flawed they actually are.