I finally struck gold by accident in a reply to Moksha, if I may say so, modestly of course, myself.
The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark. Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.
The role of critics at MAD
The role of critics at MAD
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_Sam Harris
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2261
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am
Re: The role of critics at MAD
beastie wrote:I finally struck gold by accident in a reply to Moksha, if I may say so, modestly of course, myself.
The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark. Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.
In other words, "due to my poor aim, I'm gonna need you to take my arrow and put it through the apple on your head".
Lovely. :-)
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
-
_Bond...James Bond
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
The critics at MAD have to fit one of two forms:
1) Very educated people who are very moderate and polite in their speech and are willing to control the passion level of their responses in order to stay on the board.
2) Mainstream Christians who can always have Biblical inaccuracies thrown at them.
It should also be noted that no one is allowed to say anything bad about the Mormon Church, its Prophets, or its secret/sacred temple stuff. Any common sense critical questions are rejected with canned answers, and anyone (or any critic anyway) who shows any passion is rejected as a bigot.
1) Very educated people who are very moderate and polite in their speech and are willing to control the passion level of their responses in order to stay on the board.
2) Mainstream Christians who can always have Biblical inaccuracies thrown at them.
It should also be noted that no one is allowed to say anything bad about the Mormon Church, its Prophets, or its secret/sacred temple stuff. Any common sense critical questions are rejected with canned answers, and anyone (or any critic anyway) who shows any passion is rejected as a bigot.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
What do you guys think of this thread?
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22256
I thought it was a pretty good thread. And I thought that the TBMs looked pretty desparate by the end of it, or else completely brainlocked like that Tandy guy who said Joseph Smith just wanted to provide tabernacles so some spirits could go down into a good Mormon home instead of somewhere else.
Do you guys think this thread was powder puff? Do you think I mindless kept my speech polite and tossed softballs for the TBMs to hit out of the park?
I do think it's telling that the thread was eventually locked, and without anyone having Godwined it or anything like that.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22256
I thought it was a pretty good thread. And I thought that the TBMs looked pretty desparate by the end of it, or else completely brainlocked like that Tandy guy who said Joseph Smith just wanted to provide tabernacles so some spirits could go down into a good Mormon home instead of somewhere else.
Do you guys think this thread was powder puff? Do you think I mindless kept my speech polite and tossed softballs for the TBMs to hit out of the park?
I do think it's telling that the thread was eventually locked, and without anyone having Godwined it or anything like that.
The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark.
I take it to be the main role of LDS critics everywhere. You are playing your part in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13)
Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.
It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'.
I did read that particular thread and enjoyed it, Sethbag, and was not surprised it was closed, particularly when a believer actually admitted sex might not just be involved, but be the entire purpose.
I'm not saying that critics agree to play the role of foil - most don't. Foils are fictional characters, because real human beings won't stay within two dimensional boundaries.
What I mean is that this is the role the TBMs who run MAD envision, and it is why they are in a state of discontent and frustration. I think they have more or less admitted this by reiterating that the board is for believers, to provide the more experienced apologists an opportunity to refute critics, thereby helping the less experienced. Reality is not accommodating, however - I think for obvious reasons.
So, no, critics aren't obliging and throwing softball questions to the believers. But that is precisely what is so irritating to them, and why critics will continue to be banned at a fast clip. I still think your days are numbered.
I'm not saying that critics agree to play the role of foil - most don't. Foils are fictional characters, because real human beings won't stay within two dimensional boundaries.
What I mean is that this is the role the TBMs who run MAD envision, and it is why they are in a state of discontent and frustration. I think they have more or less admitted this by reiterating that the board is for believers, to provide the more experienced apologists an opportunity to refute critics, thereby helping the less experienced. Reality is not accommodating, however - I think for obvious reasons.
So, no, critics aren't obliging and throwing softball questions to the believers. But that is precisely what is so irritating to them, and why critics will continue to be banned at a fast clip. I still think your days are numbered.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Quote:
Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.
It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'
You misunderstand what I mean by "uppity". "Uppity" means refusing to stay within the imaginary role by bringing up topics that are very difficult to successfully refute.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'You misunderstand what I mean by "uppity". "Uppity" means refusing to stay within the imaginary role by bringing up topics that are very difficult to successfully refute.
It's exactly what I am referring to. We do ourselves a great diservice by not taking the hardest questions head on. Given past experience, just because a question gets left unanswered for a while does not mean the LDS Church is suffering in any way.