Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9682
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
User avatar
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

Post by Sledge »

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9682
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Sledge wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 12:15 am
“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
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.
User avatar
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

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Sledge wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 12:15 am
“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
"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
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Kishkumen »

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?
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9682
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 1:58 am
Sledge wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 12:15 am
“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"
"These Egyptian scrolls must mean something."

"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.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 1:58 am
Sledge wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 12:15 am
“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”
"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"
:lol: :lol: :lol: You guys are killin me!
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Philo Sofee »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:28 am
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?
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.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 4716
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Gadianton »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:28 am
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?
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.

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
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9682
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

“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
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
Post Reply