Absolutely no room for doubt!

[_beastie]

Only a level playing field. Same rules for faithful LDS as for critics.

Tell that to the MAD moderators.

[_Runtu]

Sorry to leave you for so long whistling in the dark. The following are just a few posts from the paradigm thread.

Runtu: For me, Mormonism makes complete sense as a hoax in a way it never did as a true restoration of the gospel.

Yes, it does make more sense to me as a hoax, a whole lot more. But where are you getting the idea that I leave absolutely no possibility that I'm wrong? Of course I could be wrong, though at this point the odds seem rather slim.

[_Dr. Shades]

Seriously, Charity, what the heck is it that you want?

Only a level playing field. Same rules for faithful LDS as for critics.

And that's exactly what you have right here on MormonDiscussions. You bring your evidence, and the critics will bring theirs.

Neither side will be censored or told what they can and cannot say.

Your move.

[_Jason Bourne]

On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

My question is this: How is the "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church is NOT true seen by a critic as a completely permissable attitude, when "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church IS true is labeled close minded, naïve, wrong, blind, brainwashed, etc.?

Why is "absolutely no room for doubt" a reasonable attitude one way, but not the other?

I did not see that on that thread from anyone but you. To say a spiritual witness is not a paradigm is really saying there is no room for doubt. To insist one shifts everything around that leaves no room for doubt.

[_Trevor]

Yes, it does make more sense to me as a hoax, a whole lot more. But where are you getting the idea that I leave absolutely no possibility that I'm wrong? Of course I could be wrong, though at this point the odds seem rather slim.

I guess I am not so sure that it is a hoax, per se, if by hoax you mean a kind of extended gag that took on a life of its own. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith is the primary force in the creation of Mormonism, but I think there is evidence that he was hoping to become the spearhead of a kind of Christian renewal through Book of Mormon. I think the evidence points toward Joseph having a kind of entrepeneurial approach to religion. If he could elevate himself and his family, all the while helping others in some way, what would be the problem, eh?

I think this shows a certain callousness and duplicity, sure, but in an environment like that of treasure-diggers, and camp-meeting revivalists, i.e. one filled with charlatans, his model may have actually seemed to him much better by comparison. I think there is also little doubt that Joseph achieved many positive things, and in the final analysis, these aspects might be justly called the triumphs of Mormonism.