The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2011

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks Ray! That thread reminded me why I'm glad we ran that Trevor guy off.

I couldn't agree more. He was a pain in the butt!

Boy, did that guy have a lot of skeletons in his closet. Rat.

[_Some Schmo]

Sure, Schmo, the perception of fairness varies according to perspective. One consideration I try to observe on occasion is the perception of the person with whom I disagree. If that person believes I have been unfair, I think it reasonable to consider how I might behave more diplomatically such that I do not trample all over their feelings and point of view. Obviously, if you are convinced that Mormonism is a scam, then you feel fair calling it for what it is. But this discussion is about how our LDS interlocutors might feel about our fairness. I am sure the majority of us believe ourselves to be the fairest folk on earth, no matter which side of the issue we occupy.

Well, I agree with this for the most part (although I didn't really think the discussion was about how "about how our LDS interlocutors might feel about our fairness..." Perhaps it is about how Ray regards our fairness).

My comments were in direct response to you saying, "Now, are the individuals who generally stick around here fair to Mormonism? No."

I probably wouldn't have said anything if you'd said something like, "Now, are the individuals who generally stick around here fair to Mormonism? Obviously, not to you, Ray."

It's a little difficult to be concerned with Ray perception of fairness, however, given the lunacy he's puking all over this thread. It's like being concerned with Simon's opinion of our ability to take responsibility, or stem's opinion of how much we whine, or stak's opinion of our hostility, or hoops' opinion of our logic, or a pot's opinion of a kettle's blackness. So what?

[_Darth J]

I agree some may find social benefits from religious participation, but I fit those under the umbrella of the emotional need for paternalistic protection (my #(d) above).

The discussion we had, which I cannot locate at the moment, centered on the meaning of evidence. Some have the tendency to think of evidence as that which convincingly proves the Church true. Really evidence is that information which lends credence to one's argument. I think there are tantalizing bits of evidence in favor of the Mormon position. Perhaps the most famous by now in Book of Mormon discussions is NHM. I am also aware of its limitations as evidence. Still, I am, on the whole, inclined to call it evidence in favor of, rather than against, the Mormon argument regarding the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.

I don't view all of the evidence as being merely warm fuzzies.

Now, I could also go through all of the reasons I find the evidence of NHM not to be particularly strong. That, however, is another question.

Which NHM, Reverend?

Which of the "this is the place" articles about NHM that were printed in the Ensign is evidence that Lehi was there?

You know another fascinating thing about this issue of the Liahona? It proves that the Book of Mormon is plausible because a couple of researchers have found what is probably Lehi's trail, including where Nahom likely was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

And a year later, the Ensign published an article telling us where Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

And it's in a different place than where the Ensign would later say Nahom almost certainly was!

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

It's not just stabbing in the dark and finding random coincidences! It's official church publications finding evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by finding the same place in two different places!

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

Wait, I know! In the mouths of two or three witnesses shall all things be established. Maybe there were TWO Nahoms. Or maybe three! You know, to follow the law of witnesses!

[_Kishkumen]

Which NHM, Reverend?

Which of the "this is the place" articles about NHM that were printed in the Ensign is evidence that Lehi was there?

Thanks for resurrecting the old discussion, Darth. I was not offering this as a topic I was eager to argue about. As I said, I do not think this is particularly strong evidence. But the question, again, is the perception of what qualifies as evidence. Everyone is not in agreement on that point.

[_Darth J]

Which NHM, Reverend?

Which of the "this is the place" articles about NHM that were printed in the Ensign is evidence that Lehi was there?

Thanks for resurrecting the old discussion, Darth. I was not offering this as a topic I was eager to argue about. As I said, I do not think this is particularly strong evidence. But the question, again, is the perception of what qualifies as evidence. Everyone is not in agreement on that point.

I am pretty sure you will agree with me that determining whether something is causally related or mere coincidence is a preliminary question before something is admitted as evidence---whether in law, history, science, etc.

[_Kishkumen]

My comments were in direct response to you saying, "Now, are the individuals who generally stick around here fair to Mormonism? No."

I probably wouldn't have said anything if you'd said something like, "Now, are the individuals who generally stick around here fair to Mormonism? Obviously, not to you, Ray."

Oh, I agree with Ray that we can be pretty brutal and unfair toward Mormonism. I understand why, but I actually agree that we can be unfair. Of course, I speak for myself for the most part.

It's a little difficult to be concerned with Ray perception of fairness, however, given the lunacy he's puking all over this thread. It's like being concerned with Simon's opinion of our ability to take responsibility, or stem's opinion of how much we whine, or stak's opinion of our hostility, or hoops' opinion of our logic, or a pot's opinion of a kettle's blackness. So what?

I don't understand what occasioned Ray's recent reemergence here to take us to task for how we treat Mormonism. I would not, however, characterize it as mere lunacy. Over time I think I have formed a fairly decent grasp of where you are coming from, so I am not surprised by what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree. And, speaking of myself alone, Ray is too important a person to me to dismiss out of hand. Rather, he is the kind of person I value enough to stick with even when he takes swipes at me. I am partial to people in that way. I like most of you people personally far more than I care for your opinions.

[_Kishkumen]

I am pretty sure you will agree with me that determining whether something is causally related or mere coincidence is a preliminary question before something is admitted as evidence---whether in law, history, science, etc.

I tend to speak in terms of evidences of varying quality. I see NHM as a weak evidence. We could be arguing semantics here. There are a number of interesting coincidences in Mormon Studies that I think add up at least to weak evidence.

Mind you, I don't think that this is saying a whole lot, but I don't think that any disagreement we might have over this consigns me to the ghetto of the irrational people. I simply think it is enough to speak in terms of suggestive or weak evidence. One rarely, if ever, speaks of proof in history anyway.

I am comfortable saying that evidence exists, but not sufficient evidence to persuade me as a historian.

[_Darth J]

I am pretty sure you will agree with me that determining whether something is causally related or mere coincidence is a preliminary question before something is admitted as evidence---whether in law, history, science, etc.

I tend to speak in terms of evidences of varying quality. I see NHM as a weak evidence. We could be arguing semantics here. There are a number of interesting coincidences in Mormon Studies that I think add up at least to weak evidence.

Mind you, I don't think that this is saying a whole lot, but I don't think that any disagreement we might have over this consigns me to the ghetto of the irrational people. I simply think it is enough to speak in terms of suggestive or weak evidence. One rarely, if ever, speaks of proof in history anyway.

I am comfortable saying that evidence exists, but not sufficient evidence to persuade me as a historian.

Just more of your agenda-driven, fundamentalist bigotry.

[_Kishkumen]

Just more of your agenda-driven, fundamentalist bigotry.

You got me pegged man. I can lie to my minister, but nothing gets by Darth J.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't understand what occasioned Ray's recent reemergence here to take us to task for how we treat Mormonism. I would not, however, characterize it as mere lunacy. Over time I think I have formed a fairly decent grasp of where you are coming from, so I am not surprised by what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree. And, speaking of myself alone, Ray is too important a person to me to dismiss out of hand. Rather, he is the kind of person I value enough to stick with even when he takes swipes at me. I am partial to people in that way. I like most of you people personally far more than I care for your opinions.

Based on how I perceive you, I don't think we're all the different (although I have little doubt that people regard you as far more reasonable than I appear to be... they should, if they've been paying attention).

So it leads me to say I'm not writing off Ray either, just his opinion of this board (which, to me, screams temporary insanity). Like you said, I'm not that concerned about his opinion as I am with, "WTF is going on with that guy?" I just don't imagine I'm important enough to him that he'd actually consider my perception of him (and let's face it; I just don't feel like arguing with him about it either).

But this does explain better where you're coming from, so... ok. I get it.