DiscussMormonism.com

Joseph Antley wrote:Most of what I've read through the FARMS Review seems fairly scholarly and professional, and the men I've met who work at the Maxwell Institute seems fairly intelligent. I've never heard or read about any of them using such an argument.

Stick around. You'd be surprised what you can see.

Glad to see you here, Joseph.

Joseph Antley wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:You're right. They work at the Maxwell Institute and they publish in the FARMS Review.

Great to see you around, by the way, Joseph.

Most of what I've read through the FARMS Review seems fairly scholarly and professional, and the men I've met who work at the Maxwell Institute seems fairly intelligent. I've never heard or read about any of them using such an argument.

Try---just for example---DCP's piece on Loftes Tryk. A good deal of the FARMS Review is essentially just a series of mocking attacks. Really, the majority of the Review's articles have little or nothing to do with advancing arguments in favor of the Church. They are more about simply attacking the author or dodging the issue entirely. Another example would be Prof. Midgley's piece on reading the Book of Mormon as if it were a piece of imaginative literature. The "journal" is littered with such things.

Joseph Antley wrote:Is this immature conversation style representative of everyone here?

Not literally "everyone", but....

Joseph Antley wrote:Is this immature conversation style representative of everyone here?

No, it is not. Ignore Porter.

Polygamy-Porter wrote:Keep telling yourself that. Do what you gotta do to keep you ass in a Mormon pew.

Come on Porter. Cut Joseph some slack.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Actually, Dr. Robbers... May I add a 4th option? I believe that an appropriate Mopologetic response might be something along the lines of, "The person asking the question has a long history of making arguments riddled with logical fallacies, and we think he may have a criminal record. Also, he is a known anti-Mormon who has been crusading against the Gospel of Jesus Christ for over a decade."

A splendid suggestion my friend. Though the suggestion carries a lot of merit and accurately describes a favorite tactic of Mopologia, I do have to be true to the original parameters of our contest here. The three options I gave were actual options suggested by real live junior-tier apologists at MAD on the thread regarding the stone box there.

Anyway, I think it's time to announce the winner:

~~~Congratulations Liz!~~~

The angel took back the plates when it was convenient, when falsification could become an issue, why wouldn't he take back the stone box as well, when it "wasn't needed" anymore to get the same protective shielding? FANTASTIC TBM logic!

I think we should also announce a loser. The absolute bottom-feeding worst response came from -- drum roll:

:( Dr. Shades :(

Sorry bro, but when would a Mopologist ever, EVER pick an explanation based on what makes the most sense in the real world?

Gadianton wrote:I think we should also announce a loser. The absolute bottom-feeding worst response came from -- drum roll:

:( Dr. Shades :(

Sorry bro, but when would a Mopologist ever, EVER pick an explanation based on what makes the most sense in the real world?

:-(

This makes me a sad panda.

I thought I could defeat the antis by playing their own game. I suppose I stepped too out of TBM character in the process. Oops.

Thank you, Gad! I am honored! LOL

Mike Reed wrote:Glad to see you here, Joseph.

Thanks Mike.