maklelan wrote: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.)
One regular poster? Me. [/quote]
Well done, Mak. Good to see you wear that label proudly. By the way: have you published an article in FROB?
Also, please document your claim that anyone is embarrassed, or call it what it is: an assumption.
It is self-evident in DCP's common downplaying of the "apologetics" that makes up the lion's share of his posts, and the material in FROB.
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.
The problem, of course, is that they agree on a rubber-stamped, standardized set of issues which are more controversial that FROB allows.
Your problem with reviewers is rather uninformed.
Ah, no.
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.
Only if the publication is concerned with producing a totally orthodox, in-lockstep-with-the-Brethren journal.
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.
???? I don't see what you're point is here, Mak. There is a lengthy thread on this very board dealing with topic of FROB and peer review. Perhaps you should read it and get caught up to speed? In any case, nothing you've said undoes my central criticism of LDS apologetics, which is, ironically enough, that it is in many ways
decentralized. It exists to help Mormonism, and yet the LDS Church practically disavows it. People with scholarly credentials such as Hamblin and Peterson engage in apologetics, but are reluctant to adapt the label of "LDS Apologist." Go ahead and ask them on MAD if you don't believe me. Ask DCP if he considers himself an "apologist."