Recovery from MAD

[_moksha]

Juliann and Pahoran are simply an unfathomable mystery to me.

They are off the scale on the gas chromatograph, laser spectography, Kirilian aura analysis, and biomimetic gel tests as well. Best to consult Tobin's spirit guide.

[_Who Knows]

If they're tired of defending it from the same criticisms, maybe they could stop worrying about Bible vs. Book of Mormon threads and defend, say, the Book of Abraham. There's a knockout punch that they pretend never happened!

What I see from most members, is a lack of interest in the Book of Abraham. Well, at least, that's what they say. How convenient.

Perhaps the apologists are doing a good job at convincing them they need to be an expert in egyptology to understand the issues. And since some (one?) egyptologist doesn't have a problem with the Book of Abraham, well, then they shouldn't either.

[_Trevor]

Many moons ago I was banned from MA&D. No explanation. I just tried logging in from my home computer and found that my browser was denied access to the site. I guess my IP address got blocked. It was strange, since I received absolutely no indication of any kind, no warning, that I was in danger of such a drastic action.

It was really a blessing in disguise. My banning from MA&D, as well as getting rid of the satellite tv, greatly facilitated getting my dissertation done. It is soooo nice to be done with my education at last. So, thanks MAADies for helping me out (albeit unintentionally)!

As for the success of apologetic arguments--the point that Runtu and why me were batting around: I really don't know that apologists can do any better than say, "well, you can't absolutely prove it didn't happen!" I say, "so what?!?!" As an ancient historian, I would want better evidence for something having happened in the past than a 19th century book in English and affidavits from non-scholars. What expertise did these Book of Mormon witnesses possess that validates their opinions? According to the professional standards of the fields of archaeology and history, what they have given us simply does not qualify as reliable evidence for the book's antiquity.

A believer starts by saying "prove it isn't so," while a non-believing scholar says, "demonstrate to me why I should consider its antiquity."

Sure, one can do what many FARMS-associated scholars have done and conduct research based on the assumption or belief that the Book of Mormon is ancient, but the preliminary work to prove its antiquity has never been properly undertaken, probably because there is not enough evidence to begin to consider it as an ancient document.

[_why me]

Many moons ago I was banned from MA&D. No explanation. I just tried logging in from my home computer and found that my browser was denied access to the site. I guess my IP address got blocked. It was strange, since I received absolutely no indication of any kind, no warning, that I was in danger of such a drastic action.

It was really a blessing in disguise. My banning from MA&D, as well as getting rid of the satellite tv, greatly facilitated getting my dissertation done. It is soooo nice to be done with my education at last. So, thanks MAADies for helping me out (albeit unintentionally)!

As for the success of apologetic arguments--the point that Runtu and why me were batting around: I really don't know that apologists can do any better than say, "well, you can't absolutely prove it didn't happen!" I say, "so what?!?!" As an ancient historian, I would want better evidence for something having happened in the past than a 19th century book in English and affidavits from non-scholars. What expertise did these Book of Mormon witnesses possess that validates their opinions? According to the professional standards of the fields of archaeology and history, what they have given us simply does not qualify as reliable evidence for the book's antiquity.

A believer starts by saying "prove it isn't so," while a non-believing scholar says, "demonstrate to me why I should consider its antiquity."

Sure, one can do what many FARMS-associated scholars have done and conduct research based on the assumption or belief that the Book of Mormon is ancient, but the preliminary work to prove its antiquity has never been properly undertaken, probably because there is not enough evidence to begin to consider it as an ancient document.

And yet, here the real butt kicker...the Bible and the Book of Mormon will never be proven true. And when they are proven true, the second coming will be occuring.

The Bible can be verified archeology but the story of Christ and his miracles cannot be verified. A person needs faith to believe in Christ's divinity. I have seen no sworn testimonies of the events as described in the Bible by those who witnessed it. I do not include the gospels since the gospels were written long after the event.

The Book of Mormon has not be verified conclusively by archeology. But it does have 11 witnesses to verify the plates.

In both cases, faith is needed. And it will remain so...until Christ comes again. And yes, critics can both rip the Bible and the Book of Mormon but...it is like pissing into the wind. It feels good but...

[_why me]

I believe that MAD will return to the action but it may take a while. As I have said: how many times can one defend Mormonism from the same criticisms?

If they're tired of defending it from the same criticisms, maybe they could stop worrying about Bible vs. Book of Mormon threads and defend, say, the Book of Abraham. There's a knockout punch that they pretend never happened!

Take the show on the road and see what happens. I think that the church would survive. If the church is a fraud, I look forward to its downfall. It would be rough for the current generation but the future would be brighter for the next generation. No one should live a fraud, regardless of the wisdom that the LDS church teaches.

[_Runtu]

And yet, here the real butt kicker...the Bible and the Book of Mormon will never be proven true. And when they are proven true, the second coming will be occuring.

The Bible can be verified archeology but the story of Christ and his miracles cannot be verified. A person needs faith to believe in Christ's divinity. I have seen no sworn testimonies of the events as described in the Bible by those who witnessed it. I do not include the gospels since the gospels were written long after the event.

The Book of Mormon has not be verified conclusively by archeology. But it does have 11 witnesses to verify the plates.

In both cases, faith is needed. And it will remain so...until Christ comes again. And yes, critics can both rip the Bible and the Book of Mormon but...it is like pissing into the wind. It feels good but...

Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that you think can be tested other than by the spirit? I'm not ripping the Book of Mormon, but you seem to believe that it is beyond reason to discuss its validity. I find that a strange position.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I'm wondering what the basis is for the idea that false religions don't survive. Isn't there ample evidence against this assumption, no matter what your religious perspective is?

[_Sethbag]

I'm wondering what the basis is for the idea that false religions don't survive. Isn't there ample evidence against this assumption, no matter what your religious perspective is?

Absolutely. According to the LDS, every other church out there is not true, yet they still exist, and absolutely, positively dwarf the LDS in combined size. Apparently it's very, very easy to be convinced in the truthfulness of one's religious beliefs, and yet to be wrong about them. I wonder why LDS don't take that thought more soberly, and seriously question on what basis they exempt themselves so peremptorily as they do?

"Well yes, of course at least 99 out of every 100 religious believers in the world is wrongly convinced of their beliefs' truthfulness, but I'm the exception; I'm the 1 in 100 whose beliefs really are true. And I know this because I have, uh, faith, that it's so. I know that the other 99 also have faith that their beliefs are true, and many of them also claim to have received confirmation from the Holy Ghost, but they're all wrong, and I'm right."

Why is it so hard for people to read something like this and see the obvious absurdity in exempting themselves from the same tending toward wrong conviction and belief from which almost everyone else in the world suffers?

[_asbestosman]

I'm wondering what the basis is for the idea that false religions don't survive. Isn't there ample evidence against this assumption, no matter what your religious perspective is?

Maybe because of this scripture in Acts 5

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Yet I doubt that's the whole reason. I used that same scripture in a thread at MAD asking how it might apply to making certain activities illegal (like maybe drinking alcohol, or coffee and tea). In that thread I was more or less told that Gamliel wasn't a Christian or a prophet and therefore not authorized to give doctrine. I pointed out that Gamaliel taught Saul/Paul, but I guess it didn't matter, even given that Gamaliel's words spared the apostles' lives.

[_barrelomonkeys]

It went down hill after Tarski left.

Arg! Tarski's gone? He was one of my favorite posters there. He as a laser-like way of focusing in on problems with LDS beliefs and science topics. His insights were, IMHO, some of the most important on the board.

Agreed.