Aristotle Smith wrote:FARMS Review Volume 6 #1. I read this one right after reading New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. To put it simply that entire issue is a train wreck. Ironically, that issue probably has more big name contributors than any other FARMS review out there. The responses were unhelpful and snide. Many times they didn't even engage the actual issues of the book they were critiquing.
That was a major turning point for me in finally determining that the Book of Mormon is not history. As for your quote that I placed in bold, what struck me too was the emphasis on lecturing about "worthiness", attaining the CK, etc. They were basically saying that critics were "darkened in mind". And to top all that off was Text and Context, about "degenerate moderns".
The very same issue came to my attention when I was at BYU. It was one of the first tastes I had of how nasty Mopologetics could get. I had been a student of Hugh Nibley and looked up to him a great deal. I was relatively clueless about the world of critics and Signature Books. FARMS Review changed all that for me. It was when I compared their "reviews" of books (more like hyperbolic slams) with the actual books themselves that I saw exactly how unfair these "reviewers" could be.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Ray A wrote:Someone ought to make an actual list of those banned, a sort of "MAD Memorial". When I posted there in mid 2009, while going through old threads I was shocked at just how many they have banned. It seemed like nearly every archived page contained comments from a poster who was eventually banned. It was like a list of war dead.
War dead. What great imagery. Soldiers who did not measure up to MAD standards and so were summarily fragged.
Kishkumen wrote:The very same issue came to my attention when I was at BYU. It was one of the first tastes I had of how nasty Mopologetics could get. I had been a student of Hugh Nibley and looked up to him a great deal. I was relatively clueless about the world of critics and Signature Books. FARMS Review changed all that for me. It was when I compared their "reviews" of books (more like hyperbolic slams) with the actual books themselves that I saw exactly how unfair these "reviewers" could be.
For months I had New Approaches and Vol.6:1 at my side, until the latter literally fell apart (the binding was very cheap), and compared claims and counter-claims, meticulously. I gave New Approaches a TKO, based solely on the strength or weakness of evidence. After this journey, I delivered an address to the Australian Mormon Studies Association (now defunct) on why we should abandon the Book of Mormon as history. It was received with "politeness". I shall never forget that momentous night.
moksha wrote: War dead. What great imagery. Soldiers who did not measure up to MAD standards and so were summarily fragged.
I lie not, Mok, when I say I was stunned. Page after page was that ubiquitous word "banned". Including your good self. Your good humour never fails to brighten my days. Yet MAD even considered you an "enemy".
Ray A wrote:For months I had New Approaches and Vol.6:1 at my side, until the latter literally fell apart (the binding was very cheap), and compared claims and counter-claims, meticulously. I gave New Approaches a TKO, based solely on the strength or weakness of evidence. After this journey, I delivered an address to the Australian Mormon Studies Association (now defunct) on why we should abandon the Book of Mormon as history. It was received with "politeness". I shall never forget that momentous night.
The one I recall best was the review (written by Lou Midgley?) that claimed that Book of Mormon theology was essentially the same as contemporary Neo-Orthodox LDS theology. That blew it for me.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
bcspace wrote:Participating on MADB, MD, AOL LDD, etc., flawed as they all are (or were) has done nothing but strengthen my faith.
Runtu wrote:I wouldn't have expected anything else. Would you?
BC wrote:So what's the difference? I have access to and have read all the same materials most others have. It certainly isn't because I blindly believe and I have temptations as much as the next person. Others have grown up in active believing LDS families just as I have.
Why, the difference is as plain as day! Your calling and election has already been made sure! [/sarcasm]
MCB wrote:If I had not been roundly abused at the Mad-board, as well as in real life, once I began to be public about my feelings,
I thank the MAD-board for their continuing work to destroy the LDS church. No-one can do it better than those who forget ethics while practicing religion.
You mean the same way that I was abused by my follow catholics on the catholic apologetic board when I made known my two faiths? And if I remember correctly, you exactly did not show me some good old catholic love.
Here is a fact: people on message boards regardless of faith can allow their worse aspects of humanity come out. And on the catholic board, there were quite a few catholics who could not stomach the antimormonism on that board and they still can't. If catholicism spawns such attitudes and behavior as demonstrated in the antimormonism on the catholic apologetic site, it is a sad church. But...fortunately, most catholics in this world are tolerant of others and their beliefs...but the internet and the taliban nature of some LDS and catholics among others can skew the christian understanding of love.
And lets be honest here: the antimormonism on the catholic site, if mirrored on , MAD about the catholic faith, it would spawn all sorts of posts here and on the catholic board about the intolerance of the Mormons.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
brade wrote: I don't know how widely it's known, but, for what it's worth, I think I'm the most recent casualty of war from the MADB community. I'm hesitant to say that MADB and/or my experience with apologetics had/has anything to do with my belief changes. Maybe it has in the sense that, on the whole, I've not found the apologetic responses to many questions very satisfying. Though, some apologetic arguments and responses are compelling and many provide a nice reasonable balance to criticisms that simply go too far. So, I don't want to be taken as disparaging the whole apologetic project. And, honestly, if that played any part in the way I think now, it did so only peripherally.
Apologetics is about defending the faith, any faith that one possesses. Regardless if it is catholic, Mormon, protestant etc. When one defends, it is never easy. It is the same as playing the black pieces in chess. The critic attacks and the apologist defends.
Catholic apologetics is no easier than LDS apologetics. Nor is protestant apologetics easy.
An atheist critic can run all over religion by highlighting the negative in its history and by highlighting troubled places in the Bible. Being a critic is easy because sowing doubt in today's world is not at all difficult. Apologetics is a tough business.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: An atheist critic can run all over religion by highlighting the negative in its history and by highlighting troubled places in the Bible. Being a critic is easy because sowing doubt in today's world is not at all difficult. Apologetics is a tough business.
It's not negative or about promoting doubt at all, but highlighting the facts, and apologetics is a hard business because it's about defending against the facts. If it wasn't we wouldn't need apologists.
