Believing in Mormonism requires believing in....

[_beastie]

There is metallurgy from 800 AD onward, and this must have developed at some previous time, not simply out of whole cloth. But in any case, the best you can still say is there is no evidence. What you actually mean is, of course, that, at present, there is no evidence, which is not at all the same thing and is all you can actually say with any degree of intellectual honesty.

With sophisticated civilizations going back well before the time of Christ, and indeed, in some cases, thousands of years before that time, in point of fact, anything is possible, especially given the fact that the vast majority of such civilizations have not been as yet investigated. Its also the case that over a long period of time, many sites have been destroyed by looting, neglect, and geological upheavals. Any number of pieces of evidence could be irretrievably buried, which is bad for the BofrM only from the purely intellectual point of view. Whether the evidence is there or not, the absence of evidence will always count against it as long as the "arm of flesh" is the only criteria, even when there is nothing implausible, logically or conceptually, about the Book of Mormon's claims as they are stated.

Well, given your dating, it appears you can google after all.

All you have is your hope that future evidence will be uncovered. You've made that clear in your posts. That is quite a bit of backpedaling from your original hubris.

So the point I made in the OP stands. You've said nothing to refute it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Watching this whole back-and-forth reminds me of the time I conducted an informal poll in order to try and determine why Coggins hadn't ever found "acceptance" amongst Mopologists. A few people voted that it was his lack of bona fides that did him in, but the bulk of those polled simply felt that he was too much of an embarrassment, and that even those quite low down on the MAD totem pole knew better than to associate with him. (This hypothesis was borne out during the whole "Book of Abraham issues have been addressed!" debacle, wherein Coggs was mightily embarrassed by Dartagnan. He went looking for help over at MAD, but was almost totally denied.)

Anyways, as I recall, the sad reality that was revealed by the poll made Coggins, in his own words, "very near profanity." Quite telling, in my opinion.

Would you like to apprise me of just in what manner I have not been "accepted" amongst the apologetic community?

Sure. You've never published in FARMS Review, despite that journal's low publication standards and rigged peer review process. You've never, so far as I can tell, attended one of the many conferences on apologetic-related issues. Your questions on MAD are frequently met with the messageboard equivalent of chirping crickets.

To refresh the memory, here was my OP:

I'm actually genuinely curious about this. I know that he often points to some "massive" audience that is (at least in his mind) applauding and nodding about his every move, but why doesn't this seem to be more of a cyber-reality? Why doesn't he show up to every FAIR conference? (Or does he?) Why does Coggins/Loran seem to be such a "fringe" Mopologist? Why, considering his vastly self-described erudition, has he not been welcomed into the larger Mopologetic circle? Why hasn't he been courted by DCP, juliann, Pahoran, Bill Hamblin, et. al.?

And Coggins's apoplectic reply:

I'm very near profanity here, and I don't think I've let that slip here more than a cpuple of times since I've been in this forum.

Scratch's claim that I often "point" to some "massive audience" that is applauding and nodding about my every move is a deep steaming crock. I've never made such a claim for my writing here, or anywhere else. I write to defend the Church for my own intellectual sharpening (further resolving my own arguments and beliefs and, when I don't do as well as I could, analyzing the weaknesses in my arguments or approach and trying to see that it doesn't happen again), not to be a "mopologist".

I haven't shown up at any FAIR conferences in the past because I've neither had the time nor the money. The money situation is better now, but my wife's continuing illnesses and and other general concerns have kept me from personal participation. Why would Bill Hamblin or DCP "court me? Why do degreed scholars surrounded by other degreed scholars and long experienced freelance apologists need another? They can hold there own quite well without me. I met DCP on ZLMB years ago and we hit it off just fine (we both like Monty Python, and share a similar sense of humor as well as perceptions of the anti-Mormon world). I'm sure in a long conversation into the wee hours DCP or Hamblin would find me a stimulating and intellectually well rounded individual, as I would find them. If I ever wish to "court" any of them, I will do so. If I wish to write articles for FAIR, or create an apologetic website of my own, I'll do so.

I have never described myself as possessing vast erudition. It has been Scratch who implies that he is wise and erudite, while those who disagree with him are uneducated hicks, rubes, and rednecks.

Apologetics is, quite frankly, a side intellectual interest for me, which is probably why I'm on the "fringe".

So, by your own admission, you haven't been "accepted" by the Mopologetic community.

I'm on good terms with all of the defenders of the faith at MAD, as far as I'm aware, at least according to the posts I receive in return to my questions and statements.

Such as the ones telling you, in effect, to take a hike?

(The results of the poll, in case anyone's curious:

Why Isn't Loran/Coggins7 Considered a Top Mopologist?

He doesn't have a college degree. 19% ( 4 )
*TWO* church courts?!? Uh uh, I don't think so.... 9% ( 2 )
BY was enough of a racist. Why do we need another? 4% ( 1 )
He hasn't kissed DCP's butt enough. 19% ( 4 )
Too much of an embarrassment, generally speaking. 47% ( 10 )

[_Coggins7]

Now Is see. The reason I haven't been "accepted" by the Mopologetic community is because...I haven't made any attempt to be.


Wow. Scratch's big discovery.


What a perfect ass.

[_Mister Scratch]

Now Is see. The reason I haven't been "accepted" by the academic Mopologetic community is because...I haven't made any attempt to be.


Wow. Scratch's big discovery.


What a perfect ass.

Actually, No. The acceptance, as per the poll, is absent due to embarrassment. And I think this whole "I choose not to be!" is colossally disingenuous. Thousands of posts over the course of several years don't lie. The obvious inferiority complex is another good piece of evidence, too.

[_Coggins7]

So you took a poll here, a board dominated by some of the most vicious and bigoted anti-Mormons on the Net, and this gives you some scientific insight into something about me? You know why I don't get into these kind of venomous, knock down, drag out debates at MAD? Because creeps like you have been banished from there in the name of civility, and you've all come here to the watering hole. The Jackals, the Vultures, the Hyenas, and and Warthogs, all sniffing, scuffling, tuning up mud, and slurping up the torpid liquid.


Vacuity. Yes, but carefully cultivated and nurtured vacuity, which makes it all the more nauseating.

[_Mister Scratch]

So you took a poll here, a board dominated by some of the most vicious and bigoted anti-Mormons on the Net, and this gives you some scientific insight into something about me?

The poll is simply further evidence in addition to other easily observable phenomena.

You know why I don't get into these kind of venomous, knock down, drag out debates at MAD? Because creeps like you have been banished from there in the name of civility, and you've all come here to the watering hole. The Jackals, the Vultures, the Hyenas, and and Warthogs, all sniffing, scuffling, tuning up mud, and slurping up the torpid liquid.

This doesn't make any sense... Unless I'm mistaken, with the pretentious logorrhea cleaned out of here, this sentence would read: "I don't argue with you folks on MAD, since all of you were kicked out!" Well, duh!

[_Coggins7]

Clueless. Amazing. I do get into debates there, with critics, but they aren't like those that go on here, and the reason is because people like you aren't allowed to play in the hall during class.


Get it?

[_Mister Scratch]

I do get into debates there, with critics,

I've never seen any evidence for this, and moreover, most of the toughest critics were booted off of the aptly named MADboard long ago. That's why the braver Mopologists always wind up coming here for a stint.

[_ktallamigo]

In scottie's defense, I think it is possible that a believer could get caught up in passion and decide to throw caution and covenants out the window, and then, when confronted with the act of actually taking the garments off in order to have sex, have second thoughts, be filled with guilt and remorse, and stop. I do agree that was likely always one of the purposes of the garments.

I thought that the original purpose of the garments was a secret code to know who was in on the secret (of polygamy) and who wasn't.

[_Sethbag]

I skimmed a lot of the posts in this thread but missed a couple pages in the middle, so forgive me if someone already mentioned this.

Wasn't it Sam Harris who said that Mormonism is Christianity with some extra, stupid ideas?

I like Beastie's choices having to do with the magic rock. It's really tough to get out of that one. I agree that about the only way to "keep the faith", as it were, is to believe that Joseph Smith really did see the buried treasure people were paying him to lead them to.

Really, Bushman's idea that the magic rock and the treasure seeking were God's way of "training" Joseph Smith how to be a Prophet and Seer is just so absurd it's mind boggling. If that's not an apologist's answer, I don't know what is. It's a perfect example of the really dumb things people have to force themselves to accept in order to maintain belief.