Comments about ‘Defending the Faith: Mormon Apologetics Conference has grown from humble roots’

Rather than focus on facts as it relates to scholarship, a conference on Mormon apologetics is nothing more than an exercise in making clever use of rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical reasoning.

Attendees can expect to learn the art of forgetting any fact that becomes inconvenient, then how to draw it back for use when it becomes suitably convenient. Conference participants will also be taught how to create assumed associations regardless of any existing contradictory evidence that might exist to the contrary.

Al this in an effort to advance an allusion of probability in order to pacify any resulting cognitive dissonance that sincere LDS members might have regarding questionable issues that rationally just dont add up.

I often follow these scholars and those who attack them can't lay a glove on them. Those who claim they forget logic, etc. having NOTHING to back up their claims. It's always easy to make these attacks, but they can't back them up with real evidence. I feel sorry for those people.

Cats - Right...... there is no evidence of church doctrine changing, of lds leaders not telling the truth, of contradictory statements made by prophets, of Joseph Smith being the town magician... Of course I am being sarcastic. There is clear evidence, in my view, of both sides of the church both for and against it. My problem is, the more I research the more I find against the claims of Joseph Smith than for them.

FAIR should make these conferences available online. Many folks, like me, would pay for that service.

Also, angry and bitter people make comments that belittle others. True seekers of truth and enlightenment are easger to learn of the discoveries of other honest seekers. Even among error there can be a kernal of truth or some new inspiration. But for me, I don't go near those who hate or at least I try to.

Some of the crankier anti-Mormon types are fond of bringing up Joseph Smith's wives however we never have heard what Joseph had to say about it. If he was such a philanderer as these folks claim why there are not more people claiming to be blood relatives through these other women? I hope someday we will have an answer to those questions. Maybe the FAIR folks will do a definitive study on that subject someday. These little researched questions make FAIR presentations so interesting, especially when researchers compare and contrast ancient writings and beliefs to B of M studies.

Some folks think that because no one has researched a subject sufficiently to have a seriously considered answer that the Church must be doing something nefarious. In every other endeavor in which human beings engage saying I don't know is usually OK. So why is the Church held to a higher standard? No clear answer is given when I ask that question of them.

The FAIR Conference is made available online from their bookstore for $15. And the talks are generally sold after the conference. Please join us!

I can appreciate the approach the FAIR conference takes. I admire Dr. Petersen and the other presenters for their faithfulness and earnest work in defending their beliefs.

That said, I think it would be really interesting and would lighten the atmosphere tremendously if they invited Josh Anderson, who wrote the "Book of Zelph" (a satire of the Book of Mormon) to the FAIR conference, just once.

The Book of Zelph is not a serious work, at all, nobody could confuse it with a serious attack on the Church or the Book of Mormon. But it is very, very funny, and Josh Anderson has a gift for humor.

@JLFuller. Recently, the DNews published an article showing that, in every instance so far where a person has been rumored to be descended from Joseph Smith through an alleged plural wife, DNA tests have proven that they weren't. So, there has been some work done on that.

I have attended several FAIR conferences and can affirm that the presenters are first rate scholars in their fields, from literature to ancient languages to astrophysics to genetics, who confront all of the challenging questions avout the LDS Church head on. It is worth attending just for Daniel Peterson's concluding remarks at each program. It is also an opportunity to ask questions of the speakers, both in the main program and during the breaks.

FAIR also has an outstanding bookstore that is run during the seminar, with great discounts on all sorts of books on LDS doctrine and history and thoughtful books exploring other religious traditions, such as books by Protestant theologians on various Christian theories about salvation for those who never heard the Gospel in mortality.

The FAIRLDS.ORG web page has transcripts and in some cases videos of past presentations. It is fascinating stuff. If you have any question about the Church, it is a great place to get an in-depth answer from an expert scholar.

Anti-Mormons try to keep people away from venues like this, because they thrive on ignorance.

Perego's presentation will discuss the DNA research he did on alleged descendants of Joseph Smith's plural wives. My understanding is that so far none have been positive, but there may be others out there. A reason to go and listen and ask him your questions.

Attending the mental gymnastics conference, er, I mean the FAIR conference could be an enlightening experience to understand better just how hard it is becoming to defend the claims of the LDS church.

When you have an opinion against the LDS Church, it doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-LDS. In fact, I expect some of these LDS scholars will offer many views that are contrary to the teachings and doctrines of the LDS church that were taught over the pulpit just a few years ago. Very likely they will espouse views that Brigham, John Taylor, Heber Grant and even Kimball and possibly Benson would call apostate views.

Disclosure: I am LDS, I'm not anti-LDS and do follow many of the principles taught by the LDS church. I am perplexed at the ever changing doctrine and the selective application of certain quotes by dead prophets when it suits the current day leadership and LDS intelligentsia and apologists of FAIR, on this DNews comment board and others who seek to defend the faith at the expense of rational open dialogue and rational analysis. Myself and legions like me are often discredited because we disagree with some doctrines and teachings.

Mr.Petersen Soloman Spaulding as you put it was not a " long deceased clergyman. He died in 1817. Several people signed affaidavits that parts of the Book of Mormon were contained in the Spaulding Manuscript. On the other hand the witnesses to the Book of Mormon signed all together something prepared for them by Joseph Smith.
I'm interested that Ethan Smiths View of The Hebrews was not included and that BH Roberts remarks were not included. I took Elder Hollands challenge to look at View of the Hebrews and It's very troubling.
Also, I'll give somewhat of a pass to the church on the B of M but have not heard anything remotely believable about the Book of Abraham (The pearl of Great Price) Anyone want to tackle this one?

Became so tired of apologizing for all the Mormon beliefs, that after study and thought, I did not believe them anymore either.

no fit in SG | 3:46 p.m. July 28, 2011

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

The Solomon Spaulding arguments are among the worst, and occassionally it goes both ways. The frank reality is that the NSC wordprint analyses were not at all up to snuff. It is complicated even more by the fact that "translated" english allegedly used by it's alleged authors, would not have been the normal english used by any person of 19th century authorship. Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon went to great pains to immitate KJV 1611 language, wildly grabbing at whole verses or short snippets. This is widely apparent to anyone who reads the book and holds any familiarity with the bible. Therefore comparing BoM text to letters and other personal communications from any hypothesised 19th century writer, is subject to suspicion. The wordprint analyses prove litte if anything unfortunately.

Still, despite the general Fair position, the spaulding theory (dropping the Rigdon implications) is far from disputed. The only thing that has been proven is that Manuscript found was not a rough draft of the Book of Mormon. Still, even in that manuscript exists the most compelling evidence that Spaulding could have been the author. The story of finding the plates is identical, even in words, to JS's story!

No it's not.

And no serious scholar, Mormon or not, takes the Spalding theory seriously. For very excellent reasons.

The Mormon Church has many scholars and even Apostles and Prophets. Why dont Mormons have a modern translation(s) like Christians do?

#8 As translated correctly
Maybe they need help from, the NIV translators who had over 200 Greek and Hebrew scholars from around 20 denominations.
One example why,And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home Day. (Jude 1:6 NIV)See KJV, nothing to do with pre-mortal but fallen angels (devils).

We now have accurate well- preserved Copies of the original text. There are some 5,700 early N.T. MS, and they contain all or nearly all of the copies original text . The original text can be reconstructed 99% accuracy. There is a distinction between the text and the truth of the text. While we have 99% of the original text, 100 % of the truth comes through. Earlier and better MS. Lower criticism refutes JS.

Say the original drawing of a triangle was burned in a museum, we have enough copes to reproduce it.

The Spaulding manuscript is in Oberlin College's library and is nothing like the B of M. No person who ever saw the two could ever confuse them. There is no similarity at all. However, Oberlin College says it is not the one claimed by "others" to have been the one Sidney Rigdon used when he wrote the B of M. No other such manuscript has even been found according to Oberlin which casts doubt about there ever being one. Oberlin makes no claims to the contrary. No serious researcher makes any claim that the two manuscripts are related. This is an urban myth that has been explored over and over again and proved to be gobbeldygook.

@Brahmabull

"My problem is, the more I research the more I find against the claims of Joseph Smith than for them."
------------------

Interesting. I have done a lot of research too and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

@Weber State Graduate

"Rather than focus on facts as it relates to scholarship, a conference on Mormon apologetics is nothing more than an exercise in making clever use of rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical reasoning."

-------------------
And yet you don't use a single fact to offer the slightest convincing argument that FAIR scholars lack credibility. Disagree with them if you like, but I find their knowledge of Mormon issues far more detailed, thorough, and ultimately, trustworthy than the critics who respond frequently with "ad hominem" attacks against Mormon scholars.

Personally, I am looking forward to the FAIR conference.

re: Sharrona you seem very knowledgeable. What is your opinion of the Gospel of Phillip?