what motivates Mormon apologists? - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 09-10-2005, 11:04 PM

it's somebody who believes in a cause or principle and tries to reconcile all other facts around that principle.

creekster · 09-11-2005, 12:34 AM

Those two different definitions would chart the distinction I was trying to draw.

Btw, I re-read my last post and realized it was only marginally comprehensible. Sorry; very little sleep the last two nights.

non sequitur · 09-11-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

it's somebody who believes in a cause or principle and tries to reconcile all other facts around that principle.

I don't have a problem with that definition, unless the person is also masquerading as a legitimate historian or an academician.

SoCalCoug · 09-11-2005, 05:45 AM

If I'm interpreting what you guys are saying about apologists, it seems it's impossible for a believing Mormon to accurately study archaeological history related to the Book of Mormon.

In studying science, don't you first form a hypothesis and then test it until you either prove it or disprove it? Is there anything wrong with starting with the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true?

I do fully agree about massaging or forcing the facts around one's beliefs. Perhaps the danger is clinging too closely to a tenuous conclusion out of a hope it's true. Not only does it affect your credibility, but it may keep you from discovering other potential conclusions that you have not considered.

Archaea · 09-11-2005, 12:22 PM

LDS apologists, hold on to tenuous hypotheses because they have some cherished biases.

Jeff Lebowski · 09-12-2005, 02:36 PM

An apology for the apologists:

I think we are being a little harsh on the apologists. Much of what I would throw into the apologist category (FARMS, FAIR, etc.) it written in response to specific issues raised in clearly anti-mormon literature and websites. When writing in response to material so clearly biased on the "anti-" side, it is not unreasonable to lean so heavily to the "pro-" side to address the issue at hand, i.e., to illustrate that other reasonable conclusions exist.

Obviously, there is a big variety in the quality of apologist work. I recall as a child asking about how dinosaurs fit into the creation story. My grandmother told me that the earth was made out of the remains of other worlds and the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils actually came from those other worlds and they didn't actually live on this world. Even as a young child, my B.S. meter was ringing on that one. On the other hand, I have read some apologist articles that I felt were quite reasonable and well-written.

As for LDS history in general, I tend to agree that there is a need for more open and honest writing.

09-10-2005, 11:04 PM	#11
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	that's not my definition it's somebody who believes in a cause or principle and tries to reconcile all other facts around that principle. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

09-11-2005, 05:45 AM	#14
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	If I'm interpreting what you guys are saying about apologists, it seems it's impossible for a believing Mormon to accurately study archaeological history related to the Book of Mormon. In studying science, don't you first form a hypothesis and then test it until you either prove it or disprove it? Is there anything wrong with starting with the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true? I do fully agree about massaging or forcing the facts around one's beliefs. Perhaps the danger is clinging too closely to a tenuous conclusion out of a hope it's true. Not only does it affect your credibility, but it may keep you from discovering other potential conclusions that you have not considered. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

09-11-2005, 12:22 PM	#15
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	that's good science, but a lot of scientists, not just LDS apologists, hold on to tenuous hypotheses because they have some cherished biases. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

09-11-2005, 12:34 AM	#12
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Those two different definitions would chart the distinction I was trying to draw. Btw, I re-read my last post and realized it was only marginally comprehensible. Sorry; very little sleep the last two nights.

09-12-2005, 02:36 PM	#16
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	An apology for the apologists: I think we are being a little harsh on the apologists. Much of what I would throw into the apologist category (FARMS, FAIR, etc.) it written in response to specific issues raised in clearly anti-mormon literature and websites. When writing in response to material so clearly biased on the "anti-" side, it is not unreasonable to lean so heavily to the "pro-" side to address the issue at hand, i.e., to illustrate that other reasonable conclusions exist. Obviously, there is a big variety in the quality of apologist work. I recall as a child asking about how dinosaurs fit into the creation story. My grandmother told me that the earth was made out of the remains of other worlds and the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils actually came from those other worlds and they didn't actually live on this world. Even as a young child, my B.S. meter was ringing on that one. On the other hand, I have read some apologist articles that I felt were quite reasonable and well-written. As for LDS history in general, I tend to agree that there is a need for more open and honest writing.