Apologists don't present evidence that the church is true. Stuff like tapirs instead of horses or the Limited Geography Theory aren't attempts at evidence to show the church is true.
A mormon apologist attempts to find loopholes around evidence against the church being true, to show that despite the evidence it's possible that the church could be true. Stuff like tapirs instead of horses or the Limited Geography Theory are attempts to show it is POSSIBLE for the church to be true despite the historical inaccuracies.
It's quite a significant difference.
Don't be so concerned about what apologists say anyway. Nothing to get worried about. The evidence shows that their work intact drives far more people away from the church than it keeps in, so I say let them carry on with what they're doing! TBMs will more readily read FAIR than they will read RfM, so let them read FAIR Wiki, it's basically the same as what's in the CES Letter.
"Apologists don't present evidence that the church is true. Stuff like tapirs instead of horses or the Limited Geography Theory aren't attempts at evidence to show the church is true.
"A mormon apologist attempts to find loopholes around evidence against the church being true, to show that despite the evidence it's possible that the church could be true."
Yep. The way I've put it over the years is: apologists don't present any positive evidence; rather, they present excuses for LACK of evidence.
Anyway sex takes place in any context as defecating does but the context makes it satisfactory or not. Beliefs are very important in actions you do, this is the spiritual side of your actions. Your actions could end up in a frustration if you are not spiritually motivated to do that action. This fact is true as when you intend to jamp an obstacle and you are not spiritually motivated to do it you will probably fail. What moves the world to have sex ? 1. A spiritual desire of having a family. 2. A physical and emotional satisfaction of sharing with a partner the act itself. Frustration is experienced by the partner that is spiritually sick.
"My challenge to apologists of any kind. Come to me with peer reviewed work. I'd honestly like to see what evidence of yours remains after that."
COMMENT: What is "peer-reviewed work?" By definition it encompasses academic writing that is reviewed and approved by one's academic peers prior to acceptance for publication in some "peer-reviewed" journal. Who one's "peers" are in such a context depends upon the academic discipline of the journal to which such work is submitted. Moreover, the peer-review process of journals vary considerably and significantly, as does the objectivity of the journal itself. Many academic journals have an agenda, stated or unstated, and peer-review bias within such journals are common. Thus, the academic and scientific quality of the journal is paramount; as is the peer-review standards applied by that journal.
Given the above, it is evident that "peer-review" means very little of itself. (Consider, for example, the peer-reviewed social psychology articles recently referenced on the Board, all of which are problematic.) More importantly, there is no logical connection between the validity of a peer-reviewed article and that of a non-peer-reviewed article. Validity depends solely upon the facts and arguments in the article itself. To suggest otherwise is a form of the fallacy from authority.
Apologetics occurs when a person is committed to confirming a favored conclusion without any interest in falsification of that conclusion. It proceeds by (1) Cherry-picking positive evidence in support of the favored conclusion; and (2) Attempting to refute or dismiss evidence that tends to falsify that conclusion. The only difference between an apologist's approach and a scientific approach is the extent to which the writer or researcher is receptive to falsification. Both the scientist and the apologist start with a hypothesis (assumption), and both proceed to garner and address facts that either support or disconfirm that hypothesis. Scientists are themselves often deeply committed to their pet hypothesis, and are sometimes extremely reticent to abandon their hypothesis in the face of disconfirming evidence. Thus, the distinction between a scientist and an apologist is the degree to which they adhere to their prior commitments. In general, scientists are open to changing their thinking with respect to their preconceived hypothesis while apologists are not.
Note also that a good apologist is aware of disconfirming evidence and is often clever (and disingenuous) about refuting or dismissing it. Moreover, they know how to exploit confirming evidence to the extent possible. Their modus operandi is to inflate the value of positive evidence while diminishing the value of disconfirming evidence. The value of apologetics is that it focuses attention on just how difficult a continued commitment to a false conclusion can be; to the point of being ridiculous. This is precisely why Mormon apologetics has arguably been more harmful to Mormonism than helpful. It draws people away from pure faith and into the realm of logic and reason where Mormonism does not fair well.
In short, apologetics lies in the attitude of the person engaging in academic research and writing, and the nature and commitments of the journal that publishes such work. Peer-review is a nebulous term that has little value in sorting out truth from falsity.