Podcast: Download (30.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Tarik D. LaCour is a Ph.D student in philosophy and MA student in neuroscience at Texas A&M. Primary research interests are in
philosophy of neuroscience, philosophy of mind, moral psychology and epistemology. He is a traditional Latter-day Saint and author of the blog Mad Dog Naturalist. He has interest in developing rigorous apologetic arguments rooted in an empirical philosophical approach and plans on continuing his contributions to Latter-day Saint apologetics.
Hanna Seariac is a MA student in Greek and Latin at Brigham Young University. She is writing a book on the history of the priesthood and another one that responds systematically to anti-LDS literature. She works as a research assistant on a biblical commentary and as a producer on a news show. She values Jesus Christ, family, friends, hiking, baking, and really good ice cream.
Okay—I just listened as I made some veggie korma. First, so glad you corrected her with the pronunciation of your name:) You and I will constantly have that problem until we are famous. Second—I’m curious, did she give you those questions beforehand? I laughed when she asked you the one about “what basic truth claims have to be accepted in order for you to stay in the church?” So glad I could help you with that one. I am glad you countered her on the CES letter. Whether or not you like his commentary on the “issues” doesn’t negate the very real problematic nature of the issues. Which academia takes very seriously. I recommend she does as well, rather than flippantly saying “its bad (as in, its poorly written).” I was proud of you on that one. You seem to take the position that the “simplest” definition of how the BOM came (occam’s razor) to be is that it is exactly what it claims to be and how Joseph claimed it to come into origin. I think that is problematic in nature (meaning, I come to a different conclusion) because the “evidences” around both the historicity of the BOM and the translation process are anything but simple (by simple I mean the traditional narrative church history uses to surround the process), and I think that argument starts to crumble as one delves into the complexity. Simply put, I don’t think occam’s razor can apply here. Third—I don’t know how one can take the stand that LDS theology “is not” incompatible with science claims. But we have discussed this before, and I told you I think I need you to write a book on the naturalistic nature of LDS theology before you win me over. Ours can be a debate that goes on through time. Well done but Tarik and Hannah. Hannah, we may come to different conclusions, but I do admire your chutzpah in diving into the LDS apologetic world. I won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole, but of course I lurk in the corners and follow it. Ignore the critics (unless you can learn from them) and don’t let the compliments get to your head. Stay humble, stay hungry!