MAD has a mix of Chapel/Internet Mormons on it now from what I remember. But you are right, that there is a large degree of failure. In particular, the FIRM foundation will be making it even harder for the apologists to sell their heretical ideas.
I think part of the problem may be that even the LGT in Mesoamerica requires some “creative thinking”, shall we say, so it may be difficult for traditional believers to see the end benefit. Apologists who are a bit more schooled may understand the importance of some subtleties, such as population density, that the run-of-mill believer may not appreciate. So yeah, in the end, it’s probably hard for a traditional believer to see the end benefit of switching to a theory that seems to contradict the teachings of past prophets.
Their heavy-handed moderation policies seems to have promoted an environment where more "traditional" believers are out and about. I also think what the Dude said is right. All manner of apologists come up with defenses for narrow topics that don't necessarily jive with other theories they also are supposed to be holding on other topics. Naturally, some inconsistency is expected in what people think, but I think we are all familiar with the arguments of convenience here. With more - shall we say - less gifted posters, you're more likely to see people all over the map. Apparently this is true both literally and figuratively.
As far as the LGT divide goes, I think you are looking at an issue that parallels the old earth/young earth divide among fundamentalist evangelicals so well it is instructive.
Yes, I think that’s probably an accurate observation, although I do wonder what happened to some of the more vocal defenders of the faith of yore. It is an interesting divide, and kind of fun to watch. I like seeing “internet Mormons” shudder when a chapel Mormon comes right out and says something that critics have asserted all along, like this statement from the thread (by sevenbak):
In response to this comment of mine:
I argue from the basis of LGT within Mesoamerica because it's the only theory even worth debating.
Sevenbak said this:
That's pretty smug, considering there are definitely 2 camps of thought on this. Academia vs. The Brethren, in most cases.
I'll stick with the latter, thanks.
To which the more experienced defender of the faith, gtaggart, replied:
Geeze, please don't go there. The Brethren and the Church take no position on the location of Book of Mormon lands. There have been individuals among the Brethren who have, but there is no official position, and the positions vary among those Brethren who have taken one. So which one are you going to "stick" to? It's simplistic in the extreme to say that it's "Academia vs. The Brethren."
You gotta love it. I could just imagine gtaggart grimacing over the fact that sevenbak was affirming what critics have said all along.
There has been an influx of fairly strident believers over there recently. If you've spent much time there you know which posters I mean.
They are not very pleasant to deal with because they have little to offer other than strongly held traditional opinions with little foundation, coupled with a willingness to insult. Tarski has been a favorite target of theirs lately.
LOL. Then I’m in good company. I’ve already been told that I’m “upset”, and “biased”, and “flippant” and making “ridiculous” assertions. Yet I’m making simple statements that are Mesoamerican history 101.