There are certain issues that will never be resolved. In spite of that truth, I can't help digging into those issues. Take Mormon apologetics, for example. The attempt to convince others that Mormonism is plausible or not by use of academic tools really bothers me. Still, I find myself hanging out at FAIR. Will someone come to my rescue, please?
It dawned on me, way too late to claim I am really an intelligent guy when all is said and done, that Mormon apologists are not interested in discovering the truth. "They are not committed to the truth?", you disingenuously ask. Certainly they are committed to the truth they believe they already know. They are committed to proctecting the LDS Church from challenges to its truth claims, which they take very personally as their own. What they are not interested in is discovering any truth that might contradict the truth as the LDS Church presents it. Since the LDS Church ideally defines their worldview and perception of the truth, one might say that it is almost impossible for them to entertain the idea that there might be another way of looking at things. So deep is their conviction.
If you go over to FAIR, you will see quite of bit of cheering for any rhetorical maneuvre or 'discovery' that bolsters people's belief in what they already accept as true. I can recall a handful of occasions when I brought up facts that were not consistent with some people's visions of Mormonism. I was pounced upon as though I were the mythical 'underhanded, deceitful and nasty' anti-Mormon. On one occasion, I brought up the fact that early presidents of the LDS Church from Joseph Smith to John Taylor were made kings. Immediately someone asked me from which anti-Mormon book I had gotten that information. Sigh.
Familiarity and comfort are the new standards of truth at FAIR. Bring up anything that is unfamiliar and that makes the faithful uncomfortable, and wham! you are accused of being an anti-Mormon or asked to write the equivalent of an academic article with complete bibliography to back up your pesky contentions. Raise any goofy theory that tickles the ears of the faithful, and you have a real hit.
Once an apologist claimed that in the Zeezrom trial Amulek was citing a scripture from Nephi when he spoke about no unclean thing entering the kingdom of God. I argued that Alma, as the author of the book, was likely the one who either taught Amulek this or put it into Amulek's mouth. You see, as a priest Alma had his own reasons to be concerned with the issue of clean and unclean, and he mentioned how unclean things cannot enter heaven four times in his own book. The apologist's response? Silence. When I asked him directly if he would address the issues I had raised, silence again.
Yes, I am bragging. But hey, I am rarely so clever that I even feel like I can brag.
