apolgetic strawman - the Book of Mormon as copy

[_richardMdBorn]

Sethbag also hits on a point where I think apologetics has become hypocritical. One of their strongest points in the past was that the anti-Mormons always tell their side without providing any apologetic explanations. The Book of Abraham video put out by IRR.org, for example. The best FAIR could come up with was a critique that complained because the video didn’t mention any of the lame apologetic explanations offered by FAIR. When critics fail to tell the apologists’ side they are “deceiving” their readers (I think the video would have been worse for the Church if this video detailed the ridiculous apologetic nonsense offered by Gee and Nibley.)

OK. So why a different standard when apologists and missionaries fail to tell the critical viewpoint? Why are they not obligated to abide by this unspoken rule of disclosure?

This is called integrity in any other context.

Incidentally, I have actually seen some books critical of the LDS faith, provide at least some of the counter-responses by the apologists. I have yet to see an apologetic piece provide any rebuttal arguments from the opposition. Most apologetic books pick a slew of lame anti-Mormon arguments and create other straw men. They then shoot them down and sign off with the author’s testimony.

Kevin has hit on a key point. When arguing, it's important to take on the other side's STRONGEST arguments.

This shows a basic misunderstanding with what apologetics is. We take on a claim or challenge and defend against it. So, why would we wander off on something that hasn't been claimed.

Take the lamest of anti-Mormon arguments for isntance. Someone says, "So, the word adieu is French and that doesn't belong in a book which was supposed to be written a thousand years ago." The apologist answers back about how the word was in common use in the early 1800's and that adieu was used in English as far back as 1500. So, now should the apologist say, "well you know you could have asked about the Book of Abraham." That doesn't make much sense.

I'm not sure what you mean from your comments. Here's an article I wrote which shows what I mean:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/626/1

I spend the first part of my article explaining the other side's arguments and then refute them.

[_Trevor]

First, anyone who converts in order to marry hasn't really converted. He has lied to a bishop to be baptized. So, if she is no prize, neither is he.

Too bad more mission presidents and missionaries don't understand that, I guess. They often seem to go with the theory that these folks will acquire testimonies someday. I wonder what it would do to the numbers if a) people were honest about what they do or do not believe when they agreed to be baptized, and b) on the LDS side they were really strict about requiring conversion before baptism.

[_charity]

No. Life life in obedience to men who tell you they represent God, and you will go to your grave believing that you'll become a God or a Goddess. But you won't. You'll just die and cease to exist, like everyone else. But hey, at least during your life you had the pleasure of imagining how great it would be to be a God or a Goddess, and help create entire new universes to be populated with your very own little spirit babies. Sure would be nice, wouldn't it? It's a pipe dream, Charity. Wishful thinking, fantasy, fiction, mythology, all wrapped into yet one more manmade, untrue church out of the many thousands of them that have arisen on Earth in the last few thousand years.

Okay. Say you are right. This is it. We die. We cease to exist. I have lived a life of service to others, a life of study and contemplation, a life which includes wonderfully uplifting experiences. Was that a loss?

Say I am right. This isn't it. We go on to a greater existence beyond this. You have spent years of doubt and hopelessness and bitterness. To no purpose.

Credible belief or dismissive denial.

[_beastie]

Okay. Say you are right. This is it. We die. We cease to exist. I have lived a life of service to others, a life of study and contemplation, a life which includes wonderfully uplifting experiences. Was that a loss?

Say I am right. This isn't it. We go on to a greater existence beyond this. You have spent years of doubt and hopelessness and bitterness. To no purpose.

Mmmm, if the EVs are right you may burn in hell for eternity! But if Mormons are right, and you pick the EV belief, your punishment will be the terrestrial kingdom and forcible divorce from family members.

Although neither alternative is pleasant, if I were you, I'd try to avoid burning in hell for all eternity.

What's that? You can't force yourself to believe in that sort of God?

Exactly my point.

Pascal's wager is one of the silliest bets going.

[_Blixa]

No. Life life in obedience to men who tell you they represent God, and you will go to your grave believing that you'll become a God or a Goddess. But you won't. You'll just die and cease to exist, like everyone else. But hey, at least during your life you had the pleasure of imagining how great it would be to be a God or a Goddess, and help create entire new universes to be populated with your very own little spirit babies. Sure would be nice, wouldn't it? It's a pipe dream, Charity. Wishful thinking, fantasy, fiction, mythology, all wrapped into yet one more manmade, untrue church out of the many thousands of them that have arisen on Earth in the last few thousand years.

Okay. Say you are right. This is it. We die. We cease to exist. I have lived a life of service to others, a life of study and contemplation, a life which includes wonderfully uplifting experiences. Was that a loss?

Say I am right. This isn't it. We go on to a greater existence beyond this. You have spent years of doubt and hopelessness and bitterness. To no purpose.

Credible belief or dismissive denial.

Honestly, I have held back from addressing some of the amazingly pathetic points you so often fling about.

This utterly foundationless opposition you have constructed: that a life of belief = a satisfying, useful and beautiful existence and a life of nonbelief = "doubt, hopelessness, bitteness and purposelessness" speaks not just of a lack of imagination but a lack of human kindness, understanding, generosity of spirit and charity.

Not only does this statement suggenst a complete inability to put oneself in someone else's shoes, to imagine a different perspective from one's own (for example, could not a lack of belief in an afterlife make someone more devoted to serving their fellow man, more desrious of obtaining knowledge through hard struggle and contemplation and more completely astonished and amazed at the wonderfully uplifting experiences life so often throws one's way?), but its completly insulting to those whose lives are so profoundly different than yours you can't even imagine them.

Was I ever offended by a member? I sure am now.

[_charity]

Okay. Say you are right. This is it. We die. We cease to exist. I have lived a life of service to others, a life of study and contemplation, a life which includes wonderfully uplifting experiences. Was that a loss?

Say I am right. This isn't it. We go on to a greater existence beyond this. You have spent years of doubt and hopelessness and bitterness. To no purpose.

Mmmm, if the EVs are right you may burn in hell for eternity! But if Mormons are right, and you pick the EV belief, your punishment will be the terrestrial kingdom and forcible divorce from family members.

Although neither alternative is pleasant, if I were you, I'd try to avoid burning in hell for all eternity.

What's that? You can't force yourself to believe in that sort of God?

Exactly my point.

Pascal's wager is one of the silliest bets going.

Sethbag's argument wasn't for an EV view of an afterlife. He said that there is nothing. You die. You're dead, you don't rise again. I was responding to that. You should read both the question and the answer before jumping in.

[_charity]

Honestly, I have held back from addressing some of the amazingly pathetic points you so often fling about.

This utterly foundationless opposition you have constructed: that a life of belief = a satisfying, useful and beautiful existence and a life of nonbelief = "doubt, hopelessness, bitteness and purposelessness" speaks not just of a lack of imagination but a lack of human kindness, understanding, generosity of spirit and charity.

Not only does this statement suggenst a complete inability to put oneself in someone else's shoes, to imagine a different perspective from one's own (for example, could not a lack of belief in an afterlife make someone more devoted to serving their fellow man, more desrious of obtaining knowledge through hard struggle and contemplation and more completely astonished and amazed at the wonderfully uplifting experiences life so often throws one's way?), but its completly insulting to those whose lives are so profoundly different than yours you can't even imagine them.

Was I ever offended by a member? I sure am now.

Be offended, then. But your offense is in your own thoughts and projections and purposeful misreading of what I said.

I spend a lot of my time among agnostics and atheists. Family members. I see what they think. My mother, for instance, is a very good person. Does a lot of good things. Enjoys life. Exceot when she doesn't. When she thinks of my dad and her family and that she will never see them again after they die. Then she is heartsick.

Did I say that an atheist or agnostic has no joy in life? Get a grip. But don't you see the bitterness and anger that fills sethbag's posts?

I see this as a tremendous arrogance. What I read in setbag's post is this attitude: "I see life in this way, and how dare you look at life in any other? How dare you not find lies and deceit behind every bush, and still persist in being happy going to a church I despise."

So don't play your little "I am offended" card here. It doesn't play. But RfM seems to really enjoy these kinds of hokum. You could try it out there.

[_Blixa]

Be offended, then. But your offense is in your own thoughts and projections and purposeful misreading of what I said.

You created the meaningful/meaningless opposition. I don't know how else you meant it to be interpreted other than, "Even if you're right, sethbag, I win."

I spend a lot of my time among agnostics and atheists. Family members. I see what they think. My mother, for instance, is a very good person. Does a lot of good things. Enjoys life. Exceot when she doesn't. When she thinks of my dad and her family and that she will never see them again after they die. Then she is heartsick.

I'm sorry your mother has that kind of hurt.

But not every atheist does. Nor do you know them all nor the many ways they intellectually and emotionally deal with the concept of finite existence.

Did I say that an atheist or agnostic has no joy in life?

Not exactly, but your opposition suggested the final tally would be to the athiest's detriment, thus denigrating any penultimate joys.

But don't you see the bitterness and anger that fills sethbag's posts?

Honestly? No. His posts never seem the least bit bitter. Occasionally angry, but so what? Anger can be enormously useful, productive and healthy.

I see this as a tremendous arrogance. What I read ... is this attitude: "I see life in this way, and how dare you look at life in any other?

It's funny but this exactly describes how your post looked to me.

So don't play your little "I am offended" card here.

And don't you condescend to me. I may be royally pissed off, but I'm not stooping to trivialzing you. I only responded because I take what you wrote so seriously---in other words, because I see it as such a seriously hateful position.

But RfM seems to really enjoy these kinds of hokum. You could try it out there.

Who crowned you Queen of MDB? What could be more arrogant than this silly dismissal? I don't know why you think its your job to determine the proper place of posters and their points of view. You don't know me. In fact I think I could usefully borrow someone else's words here and state: "You never knew me. You never knew my heart." Human imagination, empathy and dare I say, charity, could change that, though.

[_harmony]

Full disclosure. This is such a crock.

Oh? So honesty is a crock? When you go in for a surgical procedure and they explain it all to you before you sign the release, is that a crock? When you buy a used car and they give you the full report on the vehicle, is that a crock?

The church is selling something, Charity: salvation. And full disclosure is paramount. The lack of full disclosure is both dishonest and shameful. We should not be ashamed of our history! We should teach it in its fulness from the beginning of the missionary lessons and in Sunday School and Primary and Seminary and anywhere the Saints gather. Anything less is dishonest. We believe in being honest with our fellow men. Teaching less than full disclosure of our past is dishonest!

Anyone who joins the Church and says later they didn't know everything that has ever been claimed about the Church has no excuse. Can't they type "Mormon" in their google box?

The point is, charity: they shouldn't have to! Converts shouldn't have to find out the history for themselves, away from the churchhouse, behind the teacher's back, without the blessing of the bishop. This information should be part of the first missionary lessons, the regular teaching schedule. It should be in the manuals. The history of the church is what sets us apart from other churches. We have a prophet! We have a colorful amazing history; don't just spoon feed the easy parts... give us the straight stuff, complete with warts and melanomas.

It takes a year of study with the priest before anyone can join the Catholic church. They teach their investigators everything, even the warts and the embarrassing stuff. Should it be any easier to join us? NO! No one should join this church without full investigation on the part of the investigator and full disclosure on the part of the church. And you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The burden does not fall on the investigator; the burden falls on the church and they have shirked their responsibilities... again. And it shames me.

[Guest]

Can't they type "Mormon" in their google box? This is too funny for words.

It really is, considering that google and the Internet in general are fairly recent phenomena. Most currently living people who have ever converted to the Church did so prior to google. Your argument is ridiculous.

It is also Americacentric, or at least western English speaker-centric. It might make sense when applied to people with good knowledge of English who have had excessive Internet access within the past few years. But it doesn't for the rest of the population that have had their doors knocked on by clean-cut charismatic young people with name tags.

I'm Russian, so I'll give you an insight to why your argument is ridiculous. You'll thank me later for saving you the embarrassment of continuing to bring it up.

My branch in Russia was not doing too bad, we had at least thirty people showing up on most Sundays (of course, that included the mishies, but we didn't have many). Of those people's households, I'd estimate that about two had Internet access at home. Mine was one of them. Most people in Russia do not have unlimited internet access, they pay by the minute instead. I had the luxury of a membership in an organization that provided a substantial chunk of time online for me for free. The other family had to pay for it themselves, and they weren't rich. In fact, no one in our branch was. Most people in it were borderline impoverished, actually.

Also, of those people, maybe about five, myself included, had a good enough grip on English.

So there you have it. People who can barely afford the luxury of going online at home or at an internet café are not going to waste their pay-per-minute time researching Mormonism. Even if they are, most of the stuff which reflected negatively on the Church or its history online that I saw in Russian was complete tripe, sensationalized and inaccurate. And/or with an obvious agenda from the dominant Russian Orthodox Church, which I utterly despise because they have succeeded at making no sense at all 100% of the time, so I obviously had no reason to even consider their writings. For the record, most of my fellow Russian LDS with exposure to this church held similar opinions of it.

I imagine that the online resources available in other languages are similarly unsatisfactory. Richard Packham's article has been translated into several languages, but let me assure you that it didn't come up anywhere near the top when I typed "Mormons" into a Russian search engine. Besides, all the sources he cites are in English, anyway.

So, like I said, if an investigator can understand English well and has excessive Internet excess, he/she is in luck. Otherwise, they are left with incompetent missionaries vs. completely ridiculous, sensationalized and highly negative articles in the local yellow press that obviously have no credibility. So who to believe - these nice clean-cut Mormon boys that do not quite fit the stereotype of abusive polygamist cult members (not at first glance, anyhow), or the articles that have their facts wrong, which becomes clear upon encountering the missionaries? Quite a dilemma, there.

Edited: This also applies to people in western English-speaking countries prior to the Internet becoming widely available.