TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Gadianton wrote:Crazy as it sounds, some apologists, one called Juliann for instance, not only believes exactly as Z. Smith does, but then goes on to nag critics about the definition of a prophet, having something in mind similar to what you've paraphrased. Graduate school had given her privilaged access to this definition, one critics couldn't comprehend.


It isn't crazy to me at all. I think it is a legitimate way of looking at things. My only issue with her, as I understand her method, is that she tries to hold Smith and other things as beyond criticism because she takes this view. I should think that one could be more open to criticism of Mormonism from an outsider perspective while holding such a view, but it does not really exempt Mormonism from other kinds of discussion.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Mormon apologists for the most part, will never believe a killer blow can exist. Pacman over at FAIR said this exact thing when someone asked the TBMs what kind of evidence could there be to dissuade them from the Church's truth claims. He said point blank, "no amount of evidence." He was later compelled to go back and remove it because it was so telling. It pretty much proved the apologetic position was not grounded in reason. It was grounded in feelings. Nothing concrete that we know we know can get in the way of what a TBM feels he knows.

DCP knew this would appear intellectually bankrupt so he offered some unlikely scenario. He said if an affidavit were uncovered signed by Joseph Smith, which said the LDS Church was just a prank the whole time, then that would be enough to convince him. But I don't believe an authenticated statement like this would really do the trick. He would probably rationalize how Satan had temporarily been able to take hold of the "Prophet" in order to test the future saints. He would dedicate a dozen FARMS reviewers to tackle the subject for at least a decade while waiting to "find out all the facts" before drawing the obvious conclusion.


DCP, and myself, have a testimony; a direct spiritual witness, though the power of the Holy Spirit,of the truth of these matters. You do not. Hence, you are not qualified, in any manner, intellectually or otherwise, to pontificate on what apologists think or understand regarding the Gospel. Do you get it Dartagnon, you are not qualified to make the distinctions and conceive the central points. You have painted yourself into a little box in which you have only your very limited, fragile, and biased intellect to help you make sense of it all. This, of course, will fail, as intellect alone is a poor, poor substitute for revelation and direct perception.


You're fired Dartagnon, you are not qualified. Burger king is hiring...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:
I was thinking of the EXACT same thread, Kevin. I remember it well. I had long been saying to the apologists that their current defense of the Book of Mormon effectively rendered it unfalsifiable. Of course they deny this is so, because to admit that their defenses were tantamount to rendering the book, as an historically ancient text, unfalsifiable would be as good as admitting they were engaging in pseudo-science. And yet, this was all DCP could come up with.


Your reliance on science and yet your denial of one of the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry boggles my mind. You cannot prove a negative. Shall I repeat that? Just in case you missed it the first time?

beastie wrote:This is what amazes me - you have a text that is supposedly a document originating from ancient Mesoamerica, and NOTHING - no amount of information about ancient Mesoamerica - could falsify the text???? Amazing.


We have a 500 page document which covers a lot more than 1,000 years of history. (1,000 years of Nephite history, plus the Jaredites.) And most of that document is religious doctrine. It also states it deliberately is not a political or social history. It is also a TRANSLATED document, not the document in the original language. It is also about a discontinuous history. In a humid area. Not exaclty an archeolgoists' dream.
beastie wrote:And the utter hubris of believers who insist that they KNOW - not just have faith but KNOW - that God told them it's "true", and therefore, NOTHING can falsify it except further information from GOD - never fails to take my breath away.


Sour grapes. You don't have it and you are envious of those who do. Or the blind man saying there is no such thing as vision.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

Coggins7 wrote:DCP, and myself, have a testimony; a direct spiritual witness, though the power of the Holy Spirit,of the truth of these matters. You do not. Hence, you are not qualified, in any manner, intellectually or otherwise, to pontificate on what apologists think or understand regarding the Gospel. Do you get it Dartagnon, you are not qualified to make the distinctions and conceive the central points. You have painted yourself into a little box in which you have only your very limited, fragile, and biased intellect to help you make sense of it all. This, of course, will fail, as intellect alone is a poor, poor substitute for revelation and direct perception.


You're fired Dartagnon, you are not qualified. Burger king is hiring...


I was told the same thing at MAD. That, being the atheist that I am, I was unqualified to comment on how Mormons act.

Forget the fact that I WAS ONE for 30+ years!!

** by the way, I HATE the way "theist" completely breaks the whole i before e rule.....I misspell that stupid word every freaking time I type it!!!
Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

charity wrote:We have a 500 page document which covers a lot more than 1,000 years of history. (1,000 years of Nephite history, plus the Jaredites.) And most of that document is religious doctrine. It also states it deliberately is not a political or social history. It is also a TRANSLATED document, not the document in the original language. It is also about a discontinuous history. In a humid area. Not exaclty an archeolgoists' dream.


Well, Heinrich Schliemann did OK, and I doubt anyone would call the Iliad a scholarly history.

If all we had were German translations of Latin texts, do you think we'd fail to find the Roman Empire?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Sour grapes. You don't have it and you are envious of those who do. Or the blind man saying there is no such thing as vision.



Exactly, sour grapes and that latter day pride the Book of Mormon is so clear about regarding the Gentiles; the pride Beastie is happily free of but which afflicts apologists who simply claim they know something to be the case and it makes them happy and gives their lives meaning.

I think a very long and interesting book could be written analyzing the hostility this kind of claim creates in certain types of people.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

charity
You cannot prove a negative.


Why do you keep saying that?
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Jersey Girl wrote:charity
You cannot prove a negative.


Why do you keep saying that?


Because that is the critics' #1 problem. They keep saying that there is no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon. And what is their evidence? We haven't found any proof yet that there is one. Can't you see the flaw in that?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

charity wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:charity
You cannot prove a negative.


Why do you keep saying that?


Because that is the critics' #1 problem. They keep saying that there is no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon. And what is their evidence? We haven't found any proof yet that there is one. Can't you see the flaw in that?


Stop right there, charity. I asked you why you keep saying that you can't prove a negative. Who is schooling you in burden of proof? Whoever it is, they're wrong and you are parroting them.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

charity wrote:Because that is the critics' #1 problem. They keep saying that there is no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon. And what is their evidence? We haven't found any proof yet that there is one. Can't you see the flaw in that?


Why should anyone who is not Mormon believe that the Book of Mormon is historical? We haven't even gotten to the proving a positive part.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Post Reply