The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
- Sledge
- Area Authority
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 10:30 pm
- Location: The Athenaeum
- Contact:
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
“Honey, I think we’re lost.”
“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
With your rock you got from digging a well? That makes perfect damned sense. Good job.
- Doc
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
- Doctor Scratch
- B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 7909
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
Isn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
"These Egyptian scrolls must mean something."Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 1:58 am"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"
"Hang on, let me translate them into an epic tale for you."
Mopologists: "Nahom."
- Doc
Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Sat May 08, 2021 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
-
- God
- Posts: 5283
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
You guys are killin me!Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 1:58 am"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"
-
- God
- Posts: 5283
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
My suspicion is because they have the assumption that it must be ancient in order to be authentic. When the Book of Mormon first came out lo those many years ago it was entirely feasible to argue for the vacuum, as I shall put it. There was nothing modern to draw on, therefore, only ancient knowledge could be admitted, which, in their opinions was the only valuable kind. Nibley tried to solidify it with the canard "How could Joseph Smith possibly have known that?" Now with world wide almost instant knowledge, that approach has no validity since we have discovered new evidences (which changes the probability just like Bayes says! - sorry... couldn't resist) showing there is for all the world as many modern evidences where Joseph Smith could have gotten his materials for the Book of Mormon as there ancient ones. That doesn't invalidate the ancient ones, it lowers their probability of influence on our thinking, since that is exactly what evidence does. It has raised the probability on the "other theory" that the Book of Mormon could have been written by Joseph Smith using his surrounding materials. Now the putative ancient evidences don't have nearly the punch. A most perfect prime and exalting example is the NOW modern name Alma, the man. It simply has no power even when found as an ancient name, to verify the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Since Alma was known even in Joseph Smith's home region. So the effect is, even though if yet another entirely separate ancient document is found with a male Alma we all will continue yawning and say Meh. Because we now know it is also a modern and easily obtainable name for Joseph Smith to have used.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 11:28 amIsn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?
- Gadianton
- God
- Posts: 4716
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
Our Interpreter rep hasn't done much of a job selling those Interpreter articles on the Late War. Presumably, s/he is full bore with blinders on the most important point the articles make, the same point getting press by the Mopologists themselves on that thread. The articles, therefore, must totally suck. A much better route to take would be to argue exactly what you suggest here. If the KJV is already accepted as copy / paste source for the Book of Mormon, why not other texts? Just extend the argument they already have for the KJV.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 11:28 amIsn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?
Where I would begin if I were a desperate Mopologist living in fear of my mortality, is with the other pseudo-biblical texts that came up with impressive n-gram hits, just not nearly as many as the Late War. I won't say before the fact what the resulting argument would be, but at issue is, are they all sources, or in what way are any of them sources?
I'm not really into the Late War right now, I just thought it was funny that Chapstick could so easily wipe the floor with those guys; none of them able to come up with a semi-decent response. Among the worst responses were from Peterson himself.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona
“Honey, wasn’t your family’s old landlord was named Lemuel?”
“Wow, what a coincidence one of the antagonists in the Book of Mormon shares that name. Who woulda thunk it?”
Mopologist: “Landlords hAvE nOtHiNg tO Do WiTh bEiNg a MeRcHaNt!”
“Wow, wasn’t Jospeh Smith’s dad a merchant?”
Mopologists: “We never said that.”
“Nibley did.”
Mopologists: “He was a scholar, not an apologist.”
-_-
- Doc
“Wow, what a coincidence one of the antagonists in the Book of Mormon shares that name. Who woulda thunk it?”
Mopologist: “Landlords hAvE nOtHiNg tO Do WiTh bEiNg a MeRcHaNt!”
“Wow, wasn’t Jospeh Smith’s dad a merchant?”
Mopologists: “We never said that.”
“Nibley did.”
Mopologists: “He was a scholar, not an apologist.”
-_-
- Doc
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.