Mormon Discussions Disrupts Mormon Apologetics

[_moksha]

The 17th-century grammar in the Book of Mormon is one that really hasn't been grappled with by critics for instance.

Clark makes an excellent point, Mormon critics would be totally unprepared to cope with the Nephites being present in the 1600s and potentially interacting with the Jamestown colonists or even being present to greet the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. 17th Century grammar bodeth ill for Mormon critics.

[_Kishkumen]

The 17th-century grammar in the Book of Mormon is one that really hasn't been grappled with by critics for instance.

Moksha said it best, but I can’t resist chiming in. The new apologetic strategy is to make a claim so ridiculous that the critics are stupefied, wondering why anyone would bother, or incapacitated by the power of their own laughter.

[_Kishkumen]

Here's where the personal attack rule seems to have devolved rather than evolved. A moderator deleted Schryver's use of the word "cunt," back then, but now, calling a woman a "cunt" is apparently allowed, even in Terrestrial. The most recent use of the term to denigrate a female poster was less than a week ago.

(The comments on august 3, 2018, calling a female poster "a venomous bitch" and "a total cunt" are still in the Sam Young thread in Terrestrial. But mods have explained that if you call a person "a little troll" in Terrestrial, the term will get deleted or the post moved to Telestial because that's a personal attack. Sometimes I can't figure out the rules.)

Yes, it has devolved. I feel partly responsible, inasmuch as I do not bridle my vulgarity sufficiently. That said, I don’t know that I have ever used such terms to refer to another person. I was not aware that they were used here so recently, as I have not followed that thread.

[_Philo Sofee]

The 17th-century grammar in the Book of Mormon is one that really hasn't been grappled with by critics for instance.

Moksha said it best, but I can’t resist chiming in. The new apologetic strategy is to make a claim so ridiculous that the critics are stupefied, wondering why anyone would bother, or incapacitated by the power of their own laughter.

Apologists are just loony at times ain't they?! It's like they be like, "Nuh uh! The moon ain't made of Bleu Cheese, it's Mozzarella! Checkmate doubters!!! You haven't bothered showing Mozzarella is wrong, therefore my testimony is intact.

[_Kishkumen]

:lol: Apologists are just loony at times ain't they?! It's like they be like, "Nuh uh! The moon ain't made of Bleu Cheese, it's Mozzarella! Checkmate doubters!!! You haven't bothered showing Mozzarella is wrong, therefore my testimony is intact.

That's the way it looks, indeed!

But, I am waiting for them to own up to the fact that what they are really up to is validating my theory about Dee and Kelley being the real founders of Mormonism. Because, if you look at how the chain of influence descends, it is all very simple:

John Dee--->Rosicrucians--->Freemasons--->Mormons

Now, obviously things are quite a bit more complicated than that. But the historical links are solid. John Dee inspired the Rosicrucians. Prominent early Freemasons were also students of the Rosicrucians, and Mormonism is "Celestial Masonry." The Book of Mormon imitates King Jamesian English not simply because its first readers were familiar with the KJV but also as a signal to people "in the know." If you understood the significance of the first three links in the chain above, you would immediately recognize the message of Mormonism.

[_Dr. Shades]

Here's where the personal attack rule seems to have devolved rather than evolved. A moderator deleted Schryver's use of the word "____," back then, but now, calling a woman a "____" is apparently allowed, even in Terrestrial. The most recent use of the term to denigrate a female poster was less than a week ago.

That's because the "C" word wasn't programmed into the word-censor back in the day, but it is now. So if you saw it, that's because you have the word-censor turned off.

[_Stem]

Yes folks, last year wife and I got home from Church one day, after many years of struggling and for some reason trying to make it work, realizing it simply wasn't working for us, said, "we're done". It felt pretty natural for us.

It's hard to definitively say I'm out, even though I largely don't believe any of it. I still show up from item to time out of curiosity and as a means to say hi to people I otherwise don't run into. I'm weird like that. Feel some weird remaining affinity for it all. Wife hasn't as much as touched her feet on the property, though. Kids are happy as clams we stopped going.

[_Lemmie]

Here's where the personal attack rule seems to have devolved rather than evolved. A moderator deleted Schryver's use of the word "____," back then, but now, calling a woman a "____" is apparently allowed, even in Terrestrial. The most recent use of the term to denigrate a female poster was less than a week ago.

That's because the "C" word wasn't programmed into the word-censor back in the day, but it is now. So if you saw it, that's because you have the word-censor turned off.

Thank you for the information about the censor, that makes sense.

My comment was about the personal attack aspect of the word, however, as the second paragraph of my post indicated:

The comments on august 3, 2018, calling a female poster "a venomous bitch" and "a total cunt" are still in the Sam Young thread in Terrestrial. But mods have explained that if you call a person "a little troll" in Terrestrial, the term will get deleted or the post moved to Telestial because that's a personal attack. Sometimes I can't figure out the rules.)

Whether the word censor is on or off seems irrelevant to deciding whether calling a female poster a cunt is a personal attack or not.

Or is use of the word censor considered sufficient to eliminate a personal attack? It would be ironic that the worst attacks, which are completely inferable from context, are considered not attacks by a technicality of covering some letters.

Maybe I just don't understand the rule, so i appreciate any clarification you might be willing to offer.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes folks, last year wife and I got home from Church one day, after many years of struggling and for some reason trying to make it work, realizing it simply wasn't working for us, said, "we're done". It felt pretty natural for us.

It's hard to definitively say I'm out, even though I largely don't believe any of it. I still show up from item to time out of curiosity and as a means to say hi to people I otherwise don't run into. I'm weird like that. Feel some weird remaining affinity for it all. Wife hasn't as much as touched her feet on the property, though. Kids are happy as clams we stopped going.

Hey, Stem. This brings back a lot of memories. My wife and I left in 2006 and it happened in quite a similar day. At the end of one Sunday meeting, my wife handed me her temple recommend and asked me to hand it to the bishop. There was a single meeting with the bishop and one of his counselors after that, but once they found out that I was attending the Community of Christ on occasion they pretty much left us alone.

After we moved, I started to attend occasionally the local LDS ward with the kids or on my own, but my wife has not attended. I quit going altogether when they instituted the policy of not baptizing the children of cohabiting or married gay folk. That was the final straw for me.

It was not like I had fully believed in Mormonism since about 1999/2000, but the process of exiting was not a quick one for me. It was much faster for my wife, who suddenly binged on Mormon history reading and then decided she was done with it. To this day I do not feel like an ex-Mormon. I do feel like an ex-LDS person. It is mostly the LDS Church that I have a beef with. Yes, I do not believe in the traditional sense, but that is not the deal-breaker that the Church's participation in the Culture Wars is.

[_Kishkumen]

Whether the word censor is on or off seems irrelevant to deciding whether calling a female poster a cunt is a personal attack or not.

Or is use of the word censor considered sufficient to eliminate a personal attack? It would be ironic that the worst attacks, which are completely inferable from context, are considered not attacks by a technicality of covering some letters.

Maybe I just don't understand the rule, so i appreciate any clarification you might be willing to offer.

I am not Shades, and I am not a mod, but my opinion is that since both things are against the rules, the word censor does not cover the personal attack. Of course, we have a spotty record here at the trailer park when it comes to enforcing the rule on personal attacks, and I would be lying if I were to say that I have never personally attacked others.