Recovery from MAD

[_beastie]

There you go again with that "all the discovery has been done" nonsense. Two-day suspension!

Whoops!

You know what's funny about that - the same people that emphasize that we know NEXT TO NOTHING about ancient mesoamerica (which is patently untrue) leap at even the smallest possible parallel with great enthusiasm. So I guess that what we know about ancient mesoamerica should only be accorded respect if it helps the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people making wild guesses.

[_Runtu]

Whoops!

You know what's funny about that - the same people that emphasize that we know NEXT TO NOTHING about ancient mesoamerica (which is patently untrue) leap at even the smallest possible parallel with great enthusiasm. So I guess that what we know about ancient mesoamerica should only be accorded respect if it helps the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people making wild guesses.

Yep. I find it interesting that with each discovery, we learn a little bit more about Mesoamerica, and it seems that much less like the land described in the Book of Mormon. But, hey, not all the discovery's been done.

[_Trevor]

Maybe I'm at an intellectual disadvantage because my degrees are from BYU, but the Book of Mormon is hard, concrete, documentary evidence only that it exists as a book. It is not hard evidence of its own antiquity. It is not hard evidence of its divine origin. Its antiquity and divinity are indeed disputed propositions that call for evidence. It seems odd to criticize others for smugness and pseudo-intellectual posturing and preening just before making such a laughable statement. Not one of your better moments, Pah.

I admit it. I have completely and comprehensively failed to prove that the Book of Mormon does not exist. Now would you care to talk about whether it really is what it says it is? You've had 177 years to make your case.

[/quote]

Well done, Runtu! You hit the nail on the head. The Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon exists. It is no more evidence that there were Israelites in Ancient America who produced the book than Urantia is evidence that an angel named Melchezidek revealed that book to its authors.

All evidence is not of equal weight. The existence of a 19th-century book written in English that claims to be a history written by ancient Israelites in America does not count for very much. If there were plates to match with the translation, and the plates were both independently translated and matched Smith's translation, that would be strong evidence. If there were another set of metal plates, written in a similar language and script, that attested to the existence of the same civilization, and those plates could be dated to the time of Book of Mormon events, that would be excellent evidence too.

Can we disprove that Joseph Smith published a book in English that he dictated to several scribes? Why would we want to? What does that evidence prove other than his ability to produce an English text of decent heft in a certain period of time? Is it an accomplishment? Yes. Is it a miracle? I have no idea, but I am not rushing to believe Smith's unlikely version of the story of its production.

When it comes to the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, there is a reason why the non-LDS scholarly community is not all that interested: there is no compelling reason to believe that it is ancient aside from one's spiritual conviction that it is. One thing that remains for scholars to prove about the Book of Mormon is how Joseph (either alone or with associates) did compose it. That is an interesting puzzle and I think we will gain new insights into that process in the relatively near future. While the existence of angels has not been proven, we do know that people are capable of writing books. You tell me which explanation you think is more likely.

[_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.

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.

I wish there were more apologists on this board too, and even more on MAD. There are alot of posters on MAD but not all are what I'd considered apologists. I essentially unbanned myself and I'm still there. I don't agonize over my posts, I simply have adopted a new policy of ignoring certain posters entirely on that board and this board. That seems to work for me.

The Asherah thread I was on (mostly lurking) with Kevin G. and Kerry Shirts was the best experience I've had on a forum in such a long, long time. That's what I'd like to see happening more often.

My 2 cents.

[_harmony]

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.

I wish there were more apologists on this board too, and even more on MAD.

All any poster needs to do is call Infymus on his nonsense, and Voila! You're an apologist!

[_Sethbag]

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.

Actually, I think it's the "convincing believers" part that is mostly fruitless. I think that a lot of things in the Bible can actually be proven false, however. Examples include the Flood and the creation story, and it may well turn out that the Egyptian captivity ends up being disproven as well.

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.

There is indeed a reason for this. It's that they're not true. The whole thing about "faith taking a back seat to certainty" is just the excuse, the rationalization, that believers come up with because they can't actually achieve certainty. And the reason they can't achieve certainty is because it's not actually true.

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?

By creative thought, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. The exact same way the Jehovah's Witnesses keep themselves convinced that they're true and the LDS aren't, and the exact same way that the born-again Christians keep themselves convinced that they're true, the JWs and the LDS aren't, etc. LDS apologists aren't some new species here. They're just the LDS version of something which exists all over the world, for probably any religion.

[_asbestosman]

By creative thought, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. The exact same way the Jehovah's Witnesses keep themselves convinced that they're true and the LDS aren't, and the exact same way that the born-again Christians keep themselves convinced that they're true, the JWs and the LDS aren't, etc. LDS apologists aren't some new species here. They're just the LDS version of something which exists all over the world, for probably any religion.

But what of "sciegion"?

[_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.

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.

I wish there were more apologists on this board too, and even more on MAD.

All any poster needs to do is call Infymus on his nonsense, and Voila! You're an apologist!

harm,

I don't understand the meaning of your comment above. Can you explain further?

[_harmony]

I wish there were more apologists on this board too, and even more on MAD.

All any poster needs to do is call Infymus on his nonsense, and Voila! You're an apologist!

harm,

I don't understand the meaning of your comment above. Can you explain further?

You must have missed the thread where Infymus accused me of being an apologist.

[_Jersey Girl]

I wish there were more apologists on this board too, and even more on MAD.

All any poster needs to do is call Infymus on his nonsense, and Voila! You're an apologist!

harm,

I don't understand the meaning of your comment above. Can you explain further?

You must have missed the thread where Infymus accused me of being an apologist.

I guess I did! I wouldn't worry too much about what someone accuses you of on a board like this. I've been accused of being a Mormon sympathizer and vicious anti-Mormon all in the same day!