Indefensible, Incoherent, Inconsistent. Who is Desperate?

[_charity]

This bit of dialgoue occurred on the "This is What Archeologists Do" thread.

Trevor: "Does it even matter? Most of us who do not accept that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document also understand that those who do have no defensible and coherent overarching vision of the book.

Beastie replied: "It doesn't matter in any meaningful sense of the word "matter". But, to be fair, there are varying degrees of incoherence among believers, and at times I find it interesting to probe whether or not a specific believer has even a modicum of coherence and consistency."

There are often comments such as this. The LDS faithful are accused of trying desperately to hold on to their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Defending the indefensible.

This message board puts the lie to that argument. For these reasons.

1. This message board exists to calm the fears of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, non-Mormon that the Book of Mormon just might be what it says it is.

Look at who comes here and their reasons.

Faithful LDS come here, maybe for several reasons. I am here to see what and how you guys think. I don't have a hope of converting or re-converting anyone. I moved into apologetics about 2 years ago. This is a training ground for me. If I were trying desperately to hold on to my faith, I wouldn't even be here. I'd be at one of the friendly boards where they pat each other on the back, and don't ask questions.

And why are you all here? This board does not say it is for the purpose of bringing truth to the poor blinded Mormons as concerned Christians says its purpose is. So you all are here, in an anti-Mormon friendly environment for what reason? To pat each other on the back, and try to hold on to your non-faith. You are so scared that the Book of Mormon might be what it says it is, that Joseph Smith might really be a prophet, that you have to try to beat the book and the prophet down as hard as you can.

2. You can see by the tactics used. Name calling. Rude put downs. Misrepresentation. These are defensive tactics.
Defending the non-faith is a pretty disgusting game at times.

[_dartagnan]

ROFL!!!

Yea, you nailed it. We're all here because we're "afraid" that the Book of Mormon might just be what you think it is. I think that is straaight from an Ensign article. Dissidents are always afraid of the gospel. Especially the Book of Mormon!! I mean with such overwhelming historic and archealogical evidences in its favor, that's just got to be it.

Thus saith the Mrs. Straw.

[_beastie]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I can't believe you are still wallowing in your hypocrisy.

Charity's insults - or, in her own words, "exposing the flaws in my reasoning", from this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=126

Charity's insults bolded.

beastie:
I have to remember this is the lady who thinks that telling me I need "words of one syllable" and I need "dumb down posts" and am one of "satan's minions" is a way to demonstrate "flaws in my argument".



charity replied:
This is a good example, old girl. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting on purpose. So, what is it? Dense or deceptive?


beastie:
Hmm, I vote for door three, in which Charity seems to be oblivious to her own words.

I painstakingly cited your insults, and asked you if these insults meant you had lost the argument and was frustrated. Your reply was that you were “just revealing the flaws in my argument”.
My earlier post:

beastie:
by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument


Charity replied:

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.


beastie:
Now charity can’t claim she didn’t know which insults I was referring to, because I had listed them in response to her demand that I “tone down” the arrogance. My earlier post:

Quote:
Charity’s earlier statements on this thread:
charity:
Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

charity:
You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

charity:
Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(


charity:
You must need words of shorter syllables.

charity:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

beastie:
Seriously, are you having memory problems, Charity? It’s bizarre, it’s as if the only thing that registers with you is the post in front of you – you seem to completely forget all the other posts that went before, even right on the same thread.

Charity, a word of advice. Complaining about how insulting critics are while obviously ignoring your own insults and the many other insults launched by believers only works at MAD, where the moderators collude with this hypocrisy. It doesn't work here.

[_Zoidberg]

Charity, a word of advice. Complaining about how insulting critics are while obviously ignoring your own insults and the many other insults launched by believers only works at MAD, where the moderators collude with this hypocrisy. It doesn't work here.

But beastie, it's not an insult if it's true. You don't get the privilege of not being criticized when the criticism is true; it's only reserved for the Lord's annointed. Do you seriously think you have not been led astray by Satan's minions, or that your refusal to believe is not based on your irrational and dumb ways? Charity, on the other hand, has evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the Church is true and even then she remains open-minded. After all, all criticisms of the Book of Mormon are going to be overturned in the future.

Calling her an idiot or a hypocrite is completely and utterly unwarranted.

;)

[_Jersey Girl]

I disagree.

charity

This message board puts the lie to that argument. For these reasons.

1. This message board exists to calm the fears of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, non-Mormon that the Book of Mormon just might be what it says it is.

This message board exists simply for the purpose of discussing Mormon related topics. As a non-Mormon participant, I'd like to know what in my posts leads you to believe that I have fears to calm?

Look at who comes here and their reasons.

Faithful LDS come here, maybe for several reasons. I am here to see what and how you guys think. I don't have a hope of converting or re-converting anyone. I moved into apologetics about 2 years ago. This is a training ground for me. If I were trying desperately to hold on to my faith, I wouldn't even be here. I'd be at one of the friendly boards where they pat each other on the back, and don't ask questions.

I think your idea of using this board (or any other board) as a type of training ground is admirable. I don't agree with much of what you say however, I do respect your endeavor and your reasons for it.

And why are you all here? This board does not say it is for the purpose of bringing truth to the poor blinded Mormons as concerned Christians says its purpose is. So you all are here, in an anti-Mormon friendly environment for what reason? To pat each other on the back, and try to hold on to your non-faith. You are so scared that the Book of Mormon might be what it says it is, that Joseph Smith might really be a prophet, that you have to try to beat the book and the prophet down as hard as you can.

You are right. This board does not say it is for the purpose of bringing truth to the poor blinded Mormons. Do you think it should? This board is rather free wheeling. It allows for serious and non-serious discussion to take place without much interference from admin. Speaking only for myself, I am not "so scared" that the Book of Mormon might be what it says it is or that Joseph Smith might really be a prophet. I already know that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet and that he knew that the Book of Mormon wasn't what he claimed when he brought it to the public, nor were the remainder of his scriptures and doctrines. The only aspect that remotely "scares" me is that Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and "company" got together and knowingly facilitated a serious fraud on the members of their respective communities and that millions of people over the years and even today, are living it.

2. You can see by the tactics used. Name calling. Rude put downs. Misrepresentation. These are defensive tactics.
Defending the non-faith is a pretty disgusting game at times.

I think the above can be seen in the postings of both believers and non-believers .

[Tator]

You also draw an erroneous conclusion here:

There are often comments such as this. The LDS faithful are accused of trying desperately to hold on to their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Defending the indefensible.

While it is true that some LDS seem to be desperately trying to hold on to their faith, this is a separate issue than from what Trevor and I were talking about. Look again at our comments:

Trevor: "Does it even matter? Most of us who do not accept that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document also understand that those who do have no defensible and coherent overarching vision of the book.

Beastie replied: "It doesn't matter in any meaningful sense of the word "matter". But, to be fair, there are varying degrees of incoherence among believers, and at times I find it interesting to probe whether or not a specific believer has even a modicum of coherence and consistency."

What we were addressing was one idea in particular: whether or not Book of Mormon apologia is coherent and defensible. This is a different question than whether or not particular believers are desperate.

In fact, human history abounds with examples of people who embrace incoherent and indefensible paradigms with utter, impenetrable certainty.

Certainty and confidence in one's belief is not correlated to how sound those beliefs may or may not be.

Once again, I'll share a quote from Eric Hoffer's True Believer:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

Let's take this outside the LDS realm to further demonstrate. Most people would agree that that the followers of Heaven's Gate were not coherent and defensible in their defense of their faith. Yet is there any doubt that these people were absolutely convinced of their own rightness? Not only did they kill themselves out of certainty, but also sometimes castrated themselves as well. They were utterly convinced of their own rightness.

So being utterly convinced of one's own rightness and possessing a coherent, defensible rationale for those beliefs are two entirely different things.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

1. This message board exists to calm the fears of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, non-Mormon that the Book of Mormon just might be what it says it is.

you make it sound like we're the ones defending the indefensible from a mountain of evidence, insecure in our flimsy belief. Really ANY website that is NOT run by TBMs will calm our fears too. Just as ANY book that is not written by a TBM calms our fears. Book of Mormon believers are a very, very tiny niche group. We don't have far to go to find someone to "calm our fears." LOL.

[_the road to hana]

1. This message board exists to calm the fears of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, non-Mormon that the Book of Mormon just might be what it says it is.

That might be news to Dr. Shades.

My understanding is that this message board exists so that people who are on all sides of the discussion can come together in the same place without heavy handed moderation. There are boards that exist that are LDS-friendly, boards that are hostile to LDS, boards that are exmo friendly, and boards that are hostile to exmos.

This board, if I'm not mistaken, was created so all could participate without fear of being banished to the netherquarters for not toeing the party line.

Maybe you missed that memo.

[_beastie]

But beastie, it's not an insult if it's true. You don't get the privilege of not being criticized when the criticism is true; it's only reserved for the Lord's annointed. Do you seriously think you have not been led astray by Satan's minions, or that your refusal to believe is not based on your irrational and dumb ways? Charity, on the other hand, has evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the Church is true and even then she remains open-minded. After all, all criticisms of the Book of Mormon are going to be overturned in the future.

Calling her an idiot or a hypocrite is completely and utterly unwarranted.

DING DING DING!!!

This is exactly how Charity rationalizes her behavior. It's ok for her to insult - she's just pointing out reality.

The fact that everyone who insults thinks they are pointing out reality escapes her, apparently, which is odd, given her background in psychology.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity,

Faithful LDS come here, maybe for several reasons. I am here to see what and how you guys think. I don't have a hope of converting or re-converting anyone. I moved into apologetics about 2 years ago. This is a training ground for me.

So, it sounds like you are here to help with your training to become an apologist?

Let me give you a few tips that may be helpful.

1. Listen to what non-believers state. Rather than come up with your own guesses, take some time to be clear on what it is non-believers are thinking. Listen. Clarify if you need to. Try to understand before you go after folks.

2. Learn the current apologetic position. You do not seem clear on what is going on in the world of apologetics, and it may help to update your information.

3. Let go of your false assumptions. You seem to hold onto various false assumptions regardless of what anyone tells you. You can't seem to move on to actually address various positions no matter how hard folks try to help you understand.

4. Hang out with folks like Kevin Barney.... In other words, apologists who are honest, careful in their research, and comfortable in addressing non-faith promoting material. Kevin can admit mistakes, converse with respect, and openly express his opinions even if they are not what some believing members want to here.

5. Address the arguments NOT some pretend argument. This pattern of coming up with stuff to argue against gets tiresome. Do you understand the meaning of strawman?

Best wishes,

~dancer~