MAD Poster: DCP Delivers Talk that is not "Relevant"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Truly, DCP's material is only one small part of a much larger project. A project, that apparently has been the focus of much scheming

"Scheming"?

It's been really difficult for me to decide whether Gadianton's Scratchisms are serious, or whether they're some sort of hyper-subtle satire.

"Scheming"???

But as Mister Scratch observes,

The obligatory Scratchite compliment to another Scratch.

there isn't really a skeptics front against the church, not like there is with the "EVs". So what's the point of spending all this time, and eventually money [?????????], for material focused against skeptics?

I'm interested in the subject. I decided to write on it. On my own time. Because I'm interested.

Scheming?

Money?

Enter Phase 1.
Consider this new apologetic undertaking the apologists version of supporting prop 8. Prop 8, recall, is the church's way of trying to appear "Christian" to the political conservatives it seeks acceptence from.

Maybe, rightly or wrongly, the leaders of the Church actually feel that the definition of marriage ought to be restricted to a relationship between a man and a woman.

Not!

We're talking Scratchism here. Tin-foil helmet conspiracy thinking.

Thus, to the Scratchist mind, my personal project, undertaken entirely on my own, at nobody's behest, with nobody's cooperation, supported by nobody else, must necessarily represent a "scheme," a well-funded project with disingenuous motivations.

Just as all good Christians (including Mormons, nudge nudge) must band together to fight gay people

??????

they must also band together to fight "secularism".

Who's the they?

If the apologists can be on the forefront of the battle to prove Jesus was resurrected, they may very well gain a greater acceptance.

Good grief.

Phase 2
While phase 1 is interesting, the real genius, the deviousness, comes in phase 2.

"Deviousness"????

I gave a fireside, for heaven's sake.

Oh, this is good. It's pure visionary madness, and if they can pull it off, I will be forever in awe of the wicked resourcefulness of the apologists.

"Wickedness"????

"Madness"????

This is so clever that I'm almost as excited as the apologists are about it and I'm not even a part of it!

Where is the evidence that "the apologists" are "excited" about this?

Where is the evidence that anybody is involved in this alleged "wicked," "mad," "devious" "scheme" (to give a fireside and write up an argument) except me?

Vintage crackpottery from Bizarro Scratchworld.

Once the apologists have built the bridge with their Christian neighbors, once they have these Christians eating resurrection proofs out their hands,

Non-LDS Christians have been writing on evidence for the resurrection for decades, at a minimum.

the apologists will turn the tables. See, it won't just take "years" to make the eyewitness resurrection arguments they seek to make, but it will take years to carefully craft them along with the underlying evidential framework such that --- are you ready for this? Such that, once one accepts without reservation, the eyewitness resurrection argument, one has no choice but to accept the force of the Three Witnesses argument!

Gadianton Scratch, though either a cunningly deliberate buffoon-satirist or a genuinely committed devotee of wacked-out Scratchism, is not stupid. Most satirists and many madmen aren't.

It is true that a very small part of William Lane Craig's argument for the resurrection of Christ could be turned (and I intend to turn it) to a defense of the Book of Mormon witnesses. But only a very small part. (That argument, for instance, played absolutely no role in my remarks on Friday, and will never be more than a line or two in anything I write on the subject.) And -- I can confidently speak for all of the wicked, scheming, devious conspirators on this matter -- it forms no part, not even a tiny one, of Our Evil Secret Motivation for this fiendish plot.

Before the resurrection argument is published in its fully fleshed-out form, it will be scrutinized carefully to ensure that all the reasons which justify the resurrection from eyewitness accounts hold for justifying the account of those who claimed to have seen the plates!

Hardly.

The EVs will then be left in a situation where they have no choice but to either deny the resurrection argument and be ravaged by the atheist wolves, or convert to Mormonism.

LOL. Having debated William Lane Craig face to face, I find it difficult to imagine him in a state of such abject and powerless surrender.

Along with my fellow wicked, scheming, devious conspirators, I would have to be crazy to picture such a scenario as a realistic outcome. But then, in Scratchite demonology, maybe I am crazy. Perhaps we need a fatwa on that from Mister Scratch hisself. (He should arrive shortly, in order to praise Gadianton Scratch for the brilliance of this latest bit of nutcake theorizing.)

No, this ultimately is not a campaign to take on secularism, this project is a carefully planned chess game where once and for all, the apologists hope to checkmate the EVs.

Truly, if they are successful, that day will be a watershed moment in apologetics.

It has occurred to me, to be candid, that at least one or two here may be accessing this board from a lunatic asylum.

[_harmony]

Truly, if they are successful, that day will be a watershed moment in apologetics.

We've had so damned many watershed moments, it's surprising that the whole damn state of Utah isn't underwater.

[_The Nehor]

Truly, if they are successful, that day will be a watershed moment in apologetics.

We've had so damned many watershed moments, it's surprising that the whole damn state of Utah isn't underwater.

At least we can dream of another localized flood there......

[_Nightingale]

I took Gad's post as very tongue-in-cheek.

It was, wasn't it?

Surely?
x
x
x
x
x

[_Daniel Peterson]

I took Gad's post as very tongue-in-cheek.

It was, wasn't it?

Surely?

I'm assuming that it was, because I would prefer not to assume that he's a paranoid lunatic conspiracy-fantasist.

But if it was tongue-in-cheek, that raises real questions about the sincerity of his repeated hymns to the "brilliant insights" of Mister Scratch, the unparalleled Christlikeness of Mister Scratch, the peerless prose of Mister Scratch, and so on and so forth. It would seem that he's pulling our legs, yes . . . but also that the real victim, the prime target, of his spoofing is the grimly humorless, malevolently obsessive Mister Scratch himself.

[_Gadianton]

The EVs will then be left in a situation where they have no choice but to either deny the resurrection argument and be ravaged by the atheist wolves, or convert to Mormonism.

LOL

It scares me a little that you might not be joking with this. Do you also think the Illuminati got Obama into office at the request of the Beta Centaurians...there's roughly the same amount of evidence to support this theory.

I want you to come back in a year or two and report on how well our campaign of mass-conversion is going......

Idiot.

Idiot?... Are you taking interfaith dialogue lessons from Bill Hamblin?

This will probably not result in any kind of mass conversions. I doubt it will result in too many conversions at all. And, if your reading comprehension skills were a little better, you'd see nowhere did I say it would lead to conversions.

The apologists will be happy enough putting their critics into a situation where they have scored a rhetorical victory.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It seems that I'm going to have to change my name to the apologists, at least on this board.

[_The Nehor]

Idiot?... Are you taking interfaith dialogue lessons from Bill Hamblin?

This will probably not result in any kind of mass conversions. I doubt it will result in too many conversions at all. And, if your reading comprehension skills were a little better, you'd see nowhere did I say it would lead to conversions.

The apologists will be happy enough putting their critics into a situation where they have scored a rhetorical victory.

So this vast conspiracy conceived at the highest levels of the Church with multi-stage objectives is concerned solely with making EV's look bad in rhetorical contests? I'm ashamed of you DCP. With the resources behind you I assumed you'd be working on some way to brainwash the entire world or create an army of robot slaves or something like that. You instead use the entire apologetic community to win a few rhetorical points?

Sad, Sad, Sad. If you're not careful we're going to have to ask the Twelve to let the Danites step in and run your organization.

[_Gadianton]

Who's the they?

The Christian apologists and Mormon apologists putting away their differences in order to confront secularism. David Waltz, for instance, has called for such action in the past many times.

Where is the evidence that anybody is involved in this alleged "wicked," "mad," "devious" "scheme" (to give a fireside and write up an argument) except me?

You are the leader of the apologists. If this project takes you several years and countless hours to complete, others will be involved.

Non-LDS Christians have been writing on evidence for the resurrection for decades, at a minimum.

Then why do you need to write something on it? Why don't you just use their material, why will it take you several years to complete an original project on the subject? You must feel you have something to add, and because the demand is already demonstrated, this only increases your chances.

It is true that a very small part of William Lane Craig's argument for the resurrection of Christ could be turned (and I intend to turn it) to a defense of the Book of Mormon witnesses. But only a very small part.

...oh, do go on!

That argument, for instance, played absolutely no role in my remarks on Friday,

I agree. Your remarks on Friday, as I said, were part of phase 1.

and will never be more than a line or two in anything I write on the subject.)

As we both know, two simple lines of text, if they are just the right lines, can fuel debates for hundreds, even thousands of years. If you set up your material just right, that's all you'll ever need to do.

Certainly, once you've made the suggestion, and the other apologists catch on, there will be plenty of material to come on the subject.

And -- I can confidently speak for all of the wicked, scheming, devious conspirators on this matter -- it forms no part, not even a tiny one, of Our Evil Secret Motivation for this fiendish plot.

What then, does form the greater part of your "Evil Secret Motivation"?

Before the resurrection argument is published in its fully fleshed-out form, it will be scrutinized carefully to ensure that all the reasons which justify the resurrection from eyewitness accounts hold for justifying the account of those who claimed to have seen the plates!

Hardly.

Are you saying that the two arguments will be inconsistent, and contradict each other? Why would you want that?

]Having debated William Lane Craig face to face, I find it difficult to imagine him in a state of such abject and powerless surrender.

Maybe you don't have enough faith in yourself?

(p.s. didn't you say your "neighbor" was wicked and irreverant?)

[_Gadianton]

I took Gad's post as very tongue-in-cheek.

It was, wasn't it?

Surely?
x
x
x
x
x

Let me ask you this. What do you think makes more sense.

A) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written and marketed to an atheistic audience when there are probably years of data showing that atheists are not avid purchasers of McDowell and Craig books?

B) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written (as if) to athiests but marketed to Christians, where there is clearly already a demand for the material?