Apologists in a Feeding Frenzy

[consiglieri]

You should really go to Bill Reel's Facebook page if you want some entertainment.

Bill has posted a promo of the next Radio Free Mormon podcast going up Sunday.

It deals with Daniel Peterson's recent attempt to defend the First Vision accounts as published in the Deseret News.

The apologists are coming out of the woodwork, fighting with each other like a bunch of rabid alligators to be the first to chew Bill's balls off.

But when Bill offers to have them come on his podcast, they go all crickets on him.

I don't know how to put a link to it here, but it is worth reading.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Maybe this link will work.

https://www.facebook.com/bill.reel.7

[Arcturus]

My hat goes off to Bill for all he does. I don’t think I could take on the task of publicly tackling the issues as he’s done, and someone needed to do it and he stood up.

And like you, Consiglieri, I think the apologists’ response is predictably comical every time.

[didyoumythme]

Stephen Smoot showed up to accuse Bill of priestcraft then disappeared like the 1832 account of the first vision! I’m excited for your analysis consig. Should we still expect a conference review episode as well? I’ve been looking forward to it...

[moksha]

The apologists are coming out of the woodwork, fighting with each other like a bunch of rabid alligators to be the first to chew Bill's balls off.

But when Bill offers to have them come on his podcast, they go all crickets on him.

It is hard to make exclamation points in crayon on an audio recording. None of them want to end up sounding like crackpots.

[consiglieri]

When I went to bed last night, there were 194 comments on the thread.

When I woke up this morning, there were 55.

Stephen Smoot went back and deleted an entire long sub-thread in which he showed himself to disadvantage.

Fortunately, somebody saved the entire exchange.

[consiglieri]

Stephen Smoot pulled a classic Peterson last night by saying he had to leave the thread because he had to drive six-hours "tomorrow" to an "academic conference" where people do "actual scholarship" and "engage in critical thinking."

But it was his "bukake" comment that took the cake.

[IT_Veteran]

Stephen Smoot pulled a classic Peterson last night by saying he had to leave the thread because he had to drive six-hours "tomorrow" to an "academic conference" where people do "actual scholarship" and "engage in critical thinking."

But it was his "bukake" comment that took the cake.

Sure, it's not enough to just say "I have to retire tonight, I have a long day tomorrow and this discussion isn't productive." Instead, he has to try and show how he's superior to everyone else, refuse to accept defeat (or even detente) and move on with his life. I don't know anything about the guy (I have little use for apologetics) but I doubt he's done much in the way of critical thinking or actual scholarship when it comes to the church.

Actual scholarship requires that you start with a testable hypothesis and do unbiased research (or at least recognize and call attention to your biases) and then report the results of that research. You can even argue vigorously for why your research matters or how it supports the hypothesis. What you cannot do, in actual scholarship, is start by writing the conclusion, develop hypotheses that support the conclusion, and then redefine all of the answers your research provides to support those hypotheses. And then point at the body of work and say "See! I told you it was true!"

[oliblish]

When I went to bed last night, there were 194 comments on the thread.

When I woke up this morning, there were 55.

Stephen Smoot went back and deleted an entire long sub-thread in which he showed himself to disadvantage.

Fortunately, somebody saved the entire exchange.

Where can we find this archived exchange of comments? I missed the whole thing and would like to read it. (Yes, I guess I am a masochist).

[Craig Paxton]

Interesting that that thread has disappeared. I participated in it and was chiding the apologists for their bull shit claims that they wouldn't go on Bill's podcast for fear of being misrepresented. As each of their excuses was offered I called them on it, exposing the flaws in their excuses.
They were left bare naked with no logical or plausible excuses but with the real reason's...their fear of their standing in the church being somehow diminished should they be interviewed. They didn't want to go on the record and be put in a situation where they would be held accountilbe by someone smart and who knows where all the bodies are buried.

They eventually all went silent...and now I guess in typical apologist M.O. have deleted the thread. Perfect cover up...what a bunch of sissies.

[Red Ryder]

Feel free to post it here at NOM Consig!

I'm off to an academic scholarship luncheon 5 hours away and will chat with you all later!

[Red Ryder]

Stephen Smoot showed up to accuse Bill of priestcraft then disappeared like the 1832 account of the first vision!

Ha ha ha! I'm borrowing this one!

[græy]

When I went to bed last night, there were 194 comments on the thread.
When I woke up this morning, there were 55.

I just spent 20 minutes reading every comment looking for the apologists before I saw this post. I wish I had been there last night.

[Corsair]

Are there any sites where apologists sill engage with unbelievers? It's like they appear and then scurry away in singular events like Bill's Facebook page.

[consiglieri]

The only thing that made it more interesting was a friend of Stephen Smoot sort of "outing" him as bisexual after he left.

[deacon blues]

Consig, I really enjoy your podcasts. I try to drop a few $$ every time I listen to them. Keep up the awesome work.

[w2mz]

When I went to bed last night, there were 194 comments on the thread.

When I woke up this morning, there were 55.

Stephen Smoot went back and deleted an entire long sub-thread in which he showed himself to disadvantage.

Fortunately, somebody saved the entire exchange.

Where can we find this archived exchange of comments? I missed the whole thing and would like to read it. (Yes, I guess I am a masochist).

Does anyone have a link to the whole conversation? I’d love to read it.

[moksha]

Does anyone have a link to the whole conversation? I’d love to read it.

There are some saved screenshots here. Be aware there are some unusual items being discussed in that thread.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &start=21

[Hagoth]

Does anyone have a link to the whole conversation? I’d love to read it.

There are some saved screenshots here. Be aware there are some unusual items being discussed in that thread.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &start=21

[Archimedes]

The dude has Big Boy stuff to do.

Let him get to it, I say.