Somebody loanshifted my cheese!

[_Pokatator]

Gidday, Danna, and it's a pleasure to welcome you to the board.

How's mum handling all this kind of talk from you?

[_Dr. Shades]

Long ago I predicted that eventually apologists would merge the tight “Smith as reader” and the loose “Smith as active translator” theories into one messy mutation. They did. They had to do this because either theory left them screwed, basically. Apologists who are interested in the Hebraisms would opt for the “Smith as reader” theory, which is the one with the contemporary evidence to support it. (see my website page with tons of references to Smith’s contemporaries who said he simply read the words off the rock) Apologists who are interested in New World evidence ran from the “tight” theory because it left them high and dry with ridiculous anachronisms. But if they insisted on the loose theory, the Hebraists lost most of their arguments (many of which depend on the structure of the text). It was fun to watch, and I knew that eventually they’d resolve it by claiming that the translation was sometimes loose, sometimes tight. It really is funny, because it’s a living demonstration of how apologia transforms and adapts to the one goal – justifying the Book of Mormon. Everything else, including intellectual integrity and coherence of theory – can be thrown under the bus.

That is a very important paragraph, one that I think everyone should read.

[_Scottie]

Welcome to the board, Danna!

You know, FAIR (now MA&D) was one of the most destructive things to my testimony.

I had been taught never to listen to the "anti-Mormon lies", and when I would stumble upon a troublesome aspect of Mormonism, I would ask about it.

Many of the apologetic answers were so ridiculous that I couldn't believe grown men and women would actually believe what they were saying! If these "answers" were the best they could come up with, then Mormonism HAD to be false and it was apparent to me that apologia isn't about answering the question, but rather forming a plausibility so that Mormonism can't be PROVEN false. It is so that the average chapel Mormon can say, "Well, there are lots of smart men that know all these problems, and THEY still believe. Since they are smarter than me, I will trust them."

When you really dig down, and look at the big picture of Joseph Smith, it is so painfully apparent that he was nothing more than a con man that stumbled upon a religion. Look at his life and you can actually see, year by year, how he continually pushes the envelope of what he could get away with. Starting by treasure hunting with a peep stone to finally declaring himself king of the world and building an army!

[_gramps]

Nice line of work, if you can get it, huh?

[_Buckeye]

Welcome to the board, Danna!

You know, FAIR (now MA&D) was one of the most destructive things to my testimony.

I had been taught never to listen to the "anti-Mormon lies", and when I would stumble upon a troublesome aspect of Mormonism, I would ask about it.

Many of the apologetic answers were so ridiculous that I couldn't believe grown men and women would actually believe what they were saying! If these "answers" were the best they could come up with, then Mormonism HAD to be false and it was apparent to me that apologia isn't about answering the question, but rather forming a plausibility so that Mormonism can't be PROVEN false. It is so that the average chapel Mormon can say, "Well, there are lots of smart men that know all these problems, and THEY still believe. Since they are smarter than me, I will trust them."

When you really dig down, and look at the big picture of Joseph Smith, it is so painfully apparent that he was nothing more than a con man that stumbled upon a religion. Look at his life and you can actually see, year by year, how he continually pushes the envelope of what he could get away with. Starting by treasure hunting with a peep stone to finally declaring himself king of the world and building an army!

Scottie,

If lousy answers from members proved destructive to your testimony, I have to question what your testimony was built on to begin with. I'm sure that if I asked my high priest group how planes fly, I'd get some pretty lousy answers, but it wouldn't stop me from getting on the flight to the FAIR conference in August.

Regards,
Buckeye

[_Chap]

Welcome to the board, Danna!

You know, FAIR (now MA&D) was one of the most destructive things to my testimony.

I had been taught never to listen to the "anti-Mormon lies", and when I would stumble upon a troublesome aspect of Mormonism, I would ask about it.

Many of the apologetic answers were so ridiculous that I couldn't believe grown men and women would actually believe what they were saying! If these "answers" were the best they could come up with, then Mormonism HAD to be false and it was apparent to me that apologia isn't about answering the question, but rather forming a plausibility so that Mormonism can't be PROVEN false. It is so that the average chapel Mormon can say, "Well, there are lots of smart men that know all these problems, and THEY still believe. Since they are smarter than me, I will trust them."

When you really dig down, and look at the big picture of Joseph Smith, it is so painfully apparent that he was nothing more than a con man that stumbled upon a religion. Look at his life and you can actually see, year by year, how he continually pushes the envelope of what he could get away with. Starting by treasure hunting with a peep stone to finally declaring himself king of the world and building an army!

Scottie,

(a) If lousy answers from members proved destructive to your testimony, I have to question what your testimony was built on to begin with. (b) I'm sure that if I asked my high priest group how planes fly, I'd get some pretty lousy answers, but it wouldn't stop me from getting on the flight to the FAIR conference in August.

Regards,
Buckeye

[My notation (a), (b) added - Chap]

On your point (a) -
This move seems to be a classic application of the principles taught in How To Deal With People Who Leave The CoJCoLDS And Talk About It Afterwards 101:

Lesson 1 - Any testimony that is said to have been lost for any reason was never a testimony in the first place.

On your point (b) - Surely a better comparison would be if someone sold you a ticket to ride on their airplane, and you found out on closer inspection that it appeared to be made out of cardboard and elastic bands. When you questioned the airline representatives, they proved to know nothing about aeronautical engineering, but simply assured you that they had found the cardboard plane to be an excellent means of travel. In such a case the ignorance of those in charge of the airline would be highly persuasive in a negative sense.

[_Scottie]

Scottie,

If lousy answers from members proved destructive to your testimony, I have to question what your testimony was built on to begin with. I'm sure that if I asked my high priest group how planes fly, I'd get some pretty lousy answers, but it wouldn't stop me from getting on the flight to the FAIR conference in August.

Regards,
Buckeye

That's funny, I heard a JW say the exact same thing. "Sure, anything can be distorted and twisted by the words of men, but that doesn't make our religion any less true."

Scientology uses the same logic. So, if I may ask you, why is Mormonism so much more true than these religions? Why are these so obviously frauds, but not Mormonism?

Ahh...let me guess...you've had a spiritual witness that is more powerful than their spiritual witnesses, right.

Isn't "testimony" another way of saying "blindly following"? So, if by "testimony" you mean "lack of critical thinking", then yes, I agree that my "testimony" wasn't very strong.

[_Buckeye]

Surely a better comparison would be ...

Nope. Our fundamental disagreement is about the nature of the plane. So you can't accept my hypothetical. And I can't accept yours.

That's funny, I heard a JW say the exact same thing. "Sure, anything can be distorted and twisted by the words of men, but that doesn't make our religion any less true."

Scientology uses the same logic. So, if I may ask you, why is Mormonism so much more true than these religions? Why are these so obviously frauds, but not Mormonism?

I agree with the JW and the Scientologist. I'm glad they have testimonies of the truths in their faiths.

Ahh...let me guess...you've had a spiritual witness that is more powerful than their spiritual witnesses, right.

I can't compare the strength of my witness to that of others. But neither can you.

Isn't "testimony" another way of saying "blindly following"? So, if by "testimony" you mean "lack of critical thinking", then yes, I agree that my "testimony" wasn't very strong.

A true witness is never blind. Thank you for admitting to your previous testimony.

[_beastie]

Time for Eric Hoffer:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

[_Chap]

Surely a better comparison would be if someone sold you a ticket to ride on their airplane, and you found out on closer inspection that it appeared to be made out of cardboard and elastic bands. When you questioned the airline representatives, they proved to know nothing about aeronautical engineering, but simply assured you that they had found the cardboard plane to be an excellent means of travel. In such a case the ignorance of those in charge of the airline would be highly persuasive in a negative sense.

Nope. Our fundamental disagreement is about the nature of the plane. So you can't accept my hypothetical. And I can't accept yours.

Uh-huh. So for you, Scottie is saying "Hey! Where's the plane?" and you are saying "Brother, if you will open your spiritual eyes the plane is right there in front of you!"

(Remember you started the plane analogy, not me.)