Recovery from MAD

[_Runtu]

**applause**

I wish I could take credit for inventing common sense and the scientific method, but thanks for applauding my attempts to apply them at any rate.

Thank you for reminding me why the witnesses are irrelevant. Dr. Peterson tells me I *must* deal with them. Why?

[_beastie]

Thank you for reminding me why the witnesses are irrelevant. Dr. Peterson tells me I *must* deal with them. Why?

Because it's all they have.

For heaven's sake, Joseph Smith himself certainly didn't view the opinions of these same men with any respect whatsoever, once they left the fold. (too mean to mention ring a bell?)

[_Trevor]

Thank you for reminding me why the witnesses are irrelevant. Dr. Peterson tells me I *must* deal with them. Why?

Well, the only reason I can imagine that you would have to deal with the witnesses is if you insisted that Joseph never showed these guys some material object that he claimed were ancient gold plates written by Israelites living in the New World. For all I know he did produce something he claimed to be such plates. The fact that he produced such an object for the examination of people who had no possible means of verifying their antiquity does not help prove that they were ancient, though.

There is also the small matter of a complete lack of anything like the plates ever having been found in the New World. If we had other examples of stacks of gold plates with an obviously Egyptian-derived writing system, that would be one thing. The fact that these missing artifacts match absolutely nothing else that has been found and can be examined is also a hurdle for those who would say Smith's plates were ancient.

So no, you carry no obligation to explain how 11 men lacking meaningful expertise in American antiquities could be convinced by a man experienced in treasure-digging schemes that he had a stack of ancient gold plates. It would seem to me that he had a pretty ideal audience in his fellow seers (Hiram Page), treasure dupes (Martin Harris), family members, and other such lights of the American cultural and intellectual scene (hardy-har) to pull this kind of hoax on. Here you have a collection of men who were begging to believe in this stuff. They weren't exactly world-class archaeologists.

It is when one becomes obsessed with proving it false that the problems begin. Sure, it may seem possible to some that little fairies bearing gold coins could make a guy rich, and you may not be able to prove that it never happened, but why would you even begin to embark on such a pointless exercise? Leave the endless debates about Book of Mormon witnesses to people who believe in angels, and be glad you don't have to argue nonsense with people who should frankly know better by now.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Bond,

I don't have anything particularly negative to share about MAD. It is what it is. As you know, I got banned in the November 5th bannings (purge?) having ceased posting for a month. I returned this April (?) and while I don't participate much, I do like the contrast to this board. There are some issues I'd like to debate with folks who are LDS, where on this board, the result would likely be so much head nodding in agreement. I like disagreement! (Not that it shows ;-)

I do like some of the posters on MAD whom I encountered on ZLMB and still want to knock stuff around with them. I also like responding to what I think are misinterpretations of EV belief or at least impressions that I think could use clarification.

[_moksha]

I have a feeling I have worn out my welcome at MAD. Especially after the latest run in: There was a thread about the Landover Baptist Church which is a parody site. The participants were talking about it, but it became clear to me they were mostly unfamiliar with it after reading the posts. I found a self description of the Landover Church from the Wikipedia and so I posted it, hoping to add that highly desired substance to the discussion.

Here is what I got back:

URLs deleted. You are wearing out your welcome with your in-our-face postings Severian. ~ Mods

So I responded:

I have to admit I am stumped. I post an explanation about the topic at hand called About The
Landover Baptist Church, straight from the website and I am accused of posting URLs. Look, the
Landover Baptist Church is a parody. It is not in competition with the MAD board. It was the topic of
discussion, and the explanation of what it was about from the website was meant to be informative.
Sometimes the websites, contains links to other items that are listed in their database. These are to
provide further reference for those who wish a more in depth look at the subject. To claim that these
research links were a violation of my part, seem so unfair. They are an inherent part of article.

I realize this is less about the post and more about animosity toward Severian. Still, I do not feel right about this exchange.

Here was the in your face information.

About Us Landover (God's Favorite Church):

We are a Bible believing, Fundamentalist, Independent Baptist Church. We are 157,286 members strong. Our Church Campus is located in Freehold, Iowa and rests on 35 acres of some of the most beautiful country you'd ever care to set your eyes upon. Our church holds 28 paid pastors, 131 paid deacons, 412 full time staff members, LCA (Landover Christian Academy), LCU (Landover Christian University), 11 fully equipped chapels, Four 2,000 seat sanctuaries, Three 5,000 seat main sanctuaries, the world's largest Christian Mall, a Christian Amusement Park (Landover Bible Theme Park and Red Sea World), A PGA 18 Hole Golf Course, 3 Fitness Centers, 4 Olympic sized swimming pools, Landover Village, Landover Towers, Landover Retirement Community, Center For 2 Churches On Every City Block Foundation, Leviticus Landing (An Exclusive Gated Executive Christian Community for Platinum Tithers™), Exodus Acres (Gold Tithers' Gated Community), *27 Developments, Landover All Purpose Multi-Temple, Spa and Resort Center, Fire Department, 100,000 seat amphitheater, 12 Television studios, 2 radio stations, A Christian Circus Camp, Retreat Center for Republican Candidates, 3 Corporate Christian Office Parks, hot springs, 8 cemeteries, and 243 fully certified Christian police officers.

The linking code is not carried over here. I could find no way to disable it at MAD. However, that is really not the issue. I am having a hard time clearly defining the issue. Can you help out?



by the way, I went back and tried to make a nicer post. Maybe cooler heads there can see that the coded research links embedded in the quoted material were not of Severian's making and be more reasonable.

[_why me]

And yet, here the real butt kicker...the Bible and the Book of Mormon will never be proven true. And when they are proven true, the second coming will be occuring.

No, the real butt kicker is that I don't give a tinker's damn whether they are true or not in the sense you talk about. Their 'truth' has little to do with the issue of antiquity. Your belief in the Book of Mormon's truth may require it to be ancient. But to a person like myself, who is primarily interested in the Book of Mormon as a historian, its claims to antiquity matter, not its claims to divine truth. The claim to antiquity can't begin to be made without prior conviction of its divine truth, as possessed by its learned apologists and LDS scholars.

The Bible can be verified archeology but the story of Christ and his miracles cannot be verified. A person needs faith to believe in Christ's divinity. I have seen no sworn testimonies of the events as described in the Bible by those who witnessed it. I do not include the gospels since the gospels were written long after the event.

Please don't confuse me with some evangelical who might give a crap about this. I do not believe in Christ's divinity, or that the Bible is the word of God. I believe both of these things to be ancient myths, while the Book of Mormon is a 19th century addendum to this ancient myth.

The Book of Mormon has not be verified conclusively by archeology. But it does have 11 witnesses to verify the plates.

Yes, 11 witnesses who had no expertise in American antiquities and who could not submit the plates to any meaningful kind of scientific testing. How long did it take to test the Kinderhook plates? Get my drift?

In both cases, faith is needed. And it will remain so...until Christ comes again. And yes, critics can both rip the Bible and the Book of Mormon but...it is like pissing into the wind. It feels good but...

Yes, for believers faith is needed. For scientists and historians, facts and tests are needed. I have no interest in 'ripping' the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I am interested in them as historical artifacts of their respective contexts. The Book of Mormon, to the non-believer, must remain a 19th century document until compelling evidence is provided that demonstrates something different.

I tried to demonstrate that trying to prove the Book of Mormon wrong is fruitless. The same for the Bible. Of course, I take the position that there is a god in doing so. God will not allow faith to take a back seat to certainty.

Mormon apologetics come from the viewpoint of truth based in faith since the Book of Mormon cannot be proven true. The Bible also cannot be proven true. And I believe that there is a reason for this. However, neither book cannot be proven false either. How can one argue against faith? And this is the problem with the MAD board. How does one defend a truth that cannot be proven false?

[_Scottie]

Hello Bond,

I don't have anything particularly negative to share about MAD. It is what it is. As you know, I got banned in the November 5th bannings (purge?) having ceased posting for a month. I returned this April (?) and while I don't participate much, I do like the contrast to this board. There are some issues I'd like to debate with folks who are LDS, where on this board, the result would likely be so much head nodding in agreement. I like disagreement! (Not that it shows ;-)

I do like some of the posters on MAD whom I encountered on ZLMB and still want to knock stuff around with them. I also like responding to what I think are misinterpretations of EV belief or at least impressions that I think could use clarification.

I have to agree. I'm glad there are some apologists on here to bat ideas around. I wish there were more. I don't want another RfM.

I think it was Runtu that said that before he would hit Submit on his posts on MAD that he would read, re-read and then re-read again just to make sure something couldn't be misconstrued as offensive and get him a suspension or banning. I do the same thing.

[_Yoda]

by the way, I went back and tried to make a nicer post. Maybe cooler heads there can see that the coded research links embedded in the quoted material were not of Severian's making and be more reasonable.

Unfortunately, Mok, I doubt it's going to make a difference.

What they're doing with you reminds me of what a lot of fast food places do to folks they can't really fire on any kind of legal grounds, so they cut their hours considerably to force them out.

That's what they're doing with you. They're trying to make your life a living hell there so you'll leave of your own accord.

I know you enjoy some of the people over there, but frankly, I don't think it's worth putting up with their BS.

The current Mods there are unreasonable and, I think, for the most part, mean.

I have never read anything that you have posted that has been overtly critical of the Church. You're a member! You provide some thought-provoking questions mixed with humor. For whatever reason, they can't seem to appreciate that.

Unfortunately, the main reason, at this point, that you are being "punished" by them is due to your association here.

Frankly, I don't think MAD is worth your time. You're better than that. I would give you the same advice I gave Runtu. Stay here where you're appreciated. You also have a nice association with the folks at Beliefnet.

You're not the one being unreasonable. They are.

[_Trevor]

I tried to demonstrate that trying to prove the Book of Mormon wrong is fruitless. The same for the Bible. Of course, I take the position that there is a god in doing so. God will not allow faith to take a back seat to certainty.

Mormon apologetics come from the viewpoint of truth based in faith since the Book of Mormon cannot be proven true. The Bible also cannot be proven true. And I believe that there is a reason for this. However, neither book cannot be proven false either. How can one argue against faith? And this is the problem with the MAD board. How does one defend a truth that cannot be proven false?

I suppose we probably agree in some ways. Trying to prove the Book of Mormon 'wrong' is fruitless, because it is completely unclear what that would mean. One religious belief set against another to try to demonstrate their relative rightness is certainly a dead end. And, it is a pursuit I have no interest in.

It would seem that our views on God are quite different. I have no notion that there is a God who is concerned that people have too much evidence that he exists to impede their ability to trust in the unprovable and unlikely.

You are right about our lack of ability to prove these books true or false, largely because the idea that there is a true or false about them is entirely predicated on relative ideas of religious faith. I know I don't feel like wasting my time on such arguments.

Anyway, the claim that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is a non-starter because we have insufficient evidence to determine it. I would say that the lack of evidence stands against the likeliness that the claim is true. Still, this is not a question of its 'trueness' as a myth, in whatever sense its believers use the word 'true.' It is simply a matter of treating the book as a 19th century document, or a 5th century document, and, given the state of the evidence, I would contend that only a believer would feel obliged to treat it as a 5th century document.

[_why me]

Anyway, the claim that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is a non-starter because we have insufficient evidence to determine it. I would say that the lack of evidence stands against the likeliness that the claim is true. Still, this is not a question of its 'trueness' as a myth, in whatever sense its believers use the word 'true.' It is simply a matter of treating the book as a 19th century document, or a 5th century document, and, given the state of the evidence, I would contend that only a believer would feel obliged to treat it as a 5th century document.

Maybe so. But it is here that we have the 'problem' with MAD. An apologist can only bat around the same ideas for a certain period of time before numbness of the brain cells begins to occur. At this moment, the MAD board is in a state of self-imposed calm. The past year has been a ping pong game with no winners or losers. A breather on the board is necessary.