Seeing what you want to see . . .

[Dr Moore]

A small thought.

We often find Church leaders and apologists pull out some version of, “critics see what they want to see.” The phrase serves a dual meaning for believers: that (1) critics of the brethren are shallow and cynical, and (2) it is a choice not to see the inspiration, or miracle, in the brethren’s words and deeds.

Critics often say the same of believers, to be sure.

The difference is all in the framing.

Believers, following the brethren’s counsel, begin by choosing to believe. Ironically, choice means, primarily (in Mormonism), choosing to privilege the brethren.

In this way, “they see what they want to see” becomes itself a privileged phrase.

But, if someone has already made the choice to believe, then shouldn’t believing Mormons - Mopologists especially - proudly proclaim that what they see is what they want to see? That they are choosing to see what they claim to see, because of a singular choice they’ve already made? (Muhlstein said as much about his Egyptology research, but how often do he and his fellows preface their work explicitly within that framework?)

Turning the phrase around to belittle critics actually serves no purpose except to silence or belittle critics. (And perhaps to inspire fear in fellow believers, fear of questioning)

Critics choose to privilege no person over another. They privilege ideas, evidence and logic. Not people. Critics don’t see what they want to see - we see what the evidence, laid bare without privilege to a person or dogma - shows.

[DaveIsHere]

Just me.

[drumdude]

Daniel hates when Gemli uses the phrase “null hypothesis.” I’ve actually seen Dan assert that Gemli is wrong when he says the null hypothesis is that Joseph was wrong, or Mormon God doesn’t exist, or the events of the Book of Mormon weren’t real.

I think a lot of the problem with DCP style apologetics is this gaslighting that tries to put the Mormon hypothesis on equal starting plausibility with the critical hypothesis. The burden of proof is on Mormon apologists, and it is incredibly high. Because the claims of Mormonism are so incredibly fantastic and implausible.

Imagine someone saying the events of the Lord of the Rings were real, and that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe it. That’s the position LDS apologists are in.

[DaveIsHere]

Bro, you're just tasking a perceived slight and running with it. Other dude wants you angry and off Ballance.

[Gadianton]

Yeah, if a bunch of scientists somewhere were unable to eradicate bias completely when they came to a conclusion, then that sliver of subjectivity is license for a believer to believe anything they want, double down, triple down, and never let up.

[DaveIsHere]

Yeah, if a bunch of scientists somewhere were unable to eradicate bias completely when they came to a conclusion, then that sliver of subjectivity is license for a believer to believe anything they want, double down, triple down, and never let up.

I have no bias. At least outside of your CLDS talks. It's kinda fascinating to watch that outside of the Nicean Creed claim the things y'all do.wow...

[Salvete]

I have no bias. At least outside of your CLDS talks. It's kinda fascinating to watch that outside of the Nicean Creed claim the things y'all do.wow...

This is so easy to counter. The creeds aren’t in the Bible. They have no basis in anything except a bunch of (basically) politicians voting on what they think the nature of Christ is.

Oh, but hey, another DCP focused thread! +1 (That’s for you, malkie.)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I have no bias. At least outside of your CLDS talks. It's kinda fascinating to watch that outside of the Nicean Creed claim the things y'all do.wow...

This is so easy to counter. The creeds aren’t in the Bible. They have no basis in anything except a bunch of (basically) politicians voting on what they think the nature of Christ is.

Oh, but hey, another DCP focused thread! +1 (That’s for you, malkie.)

Instead of kvetching, be the change you want to see, and start some threads that you think can be interesting.

- Doc

[DaveIsHere]

I have no bias. At least outside of your CLDS talks. It's kinda fascinating to watch that outside of the Nicean Creed claim the things y'all do.wow...

This is so easy to counter. The creeds aren’t in the Bible. They have no basis in anything except a bunch of (basically) politicians voting on what they think the nature of Christ is.

Oh, but hey, another DCP focused thread! +1 (That’s for you, malkie.)

Okie dokie.

[DaveIsHere]

This is so easy to counter. The creeds aren’t in the Bible. They have no basis in anything except a bunch of (basically) politicians voting on what they think the nature of Christ is.

Oh, but hey, another DCP focused thread! +1 (That’s for you, malkie.)

Instead of kvetching, be the change you want to see, and start some threads that you think can be interesting.

- Doc

Was that to him or me, sir?