Simon Belmont wrote:Darth J wrote:So, now that we have come full circle, are you able to quantify the amount of violence against Mormons that Daniel Peterson has prevented and/or contested?
It isn't quantifiable, no. Why is it relevant?
It is relevant because you claim that apologetics is a response to violence.
For example, in what way did Dr. Peterson's article suggesting that the Book of Mormon implicitly refers to Heavenly Mother help "contest" against mob violence against Mormons?
I don't consider that an apologetic piece.
The premise of the article is showing the plausibility that 1 Nephi is an ancient Hebrew text.
For our viewers at home: Simon Belmont is begging the question here, since by referring to me as "you and your kind," he is equating my disputing the faith-promoting narrative on an internet message board (that nobody is forced to come to and read) with mobs in the 19th century who committed acts of violence against Mormons. He is further begging the question with the implicit premise that such anti-Mormon violence was solely because of Mormons' religious beliefs, as opposed to socioeconomic reasons.
Yes, yes, it's someone else doing it. You aren't contributing at all to the hate, are you DJ?
Of course I am contributing to the hate. Why, just this morning I tarred and feathered the missionaries as I saw them out walking around.
The reason it is not off-topic is because your underlying premise is that criticism of Mormonism is ultimately based on Satan and his minions fighting against the One True Church, as opposed to criticism of Mormonism being based on its making fantastical claims grounded in Bible fanfic and Joseph Smith's magical tall tales. It is the inherent implausibility of Mormonism that leads to criticism, and Mormonism is not the only magical thinking-based ideology that is subject to rational criticism.
To our viewers at home, DJ is telling me what my premise is, when that is actually not my premise at all. I never said "minions of Satan" or "One True Church." I disagree, and fight against 180+ years of scum and villainy. Now, respectful criticism is healthy, but you guys get all bent when we try to defend ourselves.
I don't care how you defend yourselves, but what you are defending is not LDS doctrine, but bastardized pseudo-Mormonism.
I don't know who "you guys" refers to. What is laughable is that Mormon apologetics has become its own religion of bastardized pseudo-Mormonism.
I can tell you really want to talk about something else. But try to stay on topic and don't change the subject.
Your ongoing, unproven premise is that Mormon apologetics is equivalent to what the LDS Church itself teaches and does.
For our viewers at home: Simon Belmont is begging the question again by referring to "over 180 years" of "anti-Mormons."
How many years of violence, murder, tarring and feathering, extermination orders, profanity yelling at Conference and pageant, endless verbal and written attacks would make it wrong, DJ? 181? 179? 150? How many years make it wrong in your view?
However many it is, I would need some evidence that the persecution Joseph Smith claims to have experienced as a teenager really happened before I was ready to say it was over 180 years.
The LDS Church also makes claims of fact that ARE falsifiable.
No, we don't.
Is the Book of Mormon a historical record of an ancient Semitic people? [ ] Yes [ ] No