"The discovering has been done"Do Critics Say This

[_jayneedoe]

But, I'm perfectly willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, even if in a manifestly non-reciprocal manner.

Best.

CKS

I'm sorry, but Charity is a dolt. My dictionary defines it as "a person who is not very bright: see 'Charity.'" (Okay, I embellished.)

She is so formulaic it is laughable. Her arguments start out totally insipid and devolve so quickly that she is soon cornered. When this happens she strikes out blindly with "This is god's church and god will not be mocked!" Oh! Okay! NOW I'm convinced! You've won Charity! Sheesh!

My favorite is if someone says something negative about Joseph Smith, she posts "It makes me so mad when people say bad things about the prophet! God knows who you are!" I picture a five-year shaking her fist and it's pathetic.

She's an obstuse simpleton in my eyes, and "dolt" is an apt descriptor. Sorry. I'm not as nice as you CK.

Jaynee

[_Mister Scratch]

Good grief.

I'm afraid I'm nearly back to Scratch's sentence construction point about:"Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?"

I took the "new findings" that are "coming in at a rapid pace" and changing "current thinking" to be refering to an alleged deluge of new findings that are changing the evaluation of the Book of Mormon as a historically ancient text.

But since juliann says, "Then there is always the Antis are from Venus and Mormons are from Mars rejoinders from those who aren't even aware that when there are multiple experts who spend their lives looking there tend to be "new findings" [my emphasis], then I guess she was refering to new findings in general that change paradigms in general?

But who would disagree with that?

She does not know how to write. It is amazing that she has achieved the notoriety and respect that she has given this fact.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

But, I'm perfectly willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, even if in a manifestly non-reciprocal manner.

Best.

CKS

I'm sorry, but Charity is a dolt. My dictionary defines it as "a person who is not very bright: see 'Charity.'" (Okay, I embellished.)

She is so formulaic it is laughable. Her arguments start out totally insipid and devolve so quickly that she is soon cornered. When this happens she strikes out blindly with "This is god's church and god will not be mocked!" Oh! Okay! NOW I'm convinced! You've won Charity! Sheesh!

My favorite is if someone says something negative about Joseph Smith, she posts "It makes me so mad when people say bad things about the prophet! God knows who you are!" I picture a five-year shaking her fist and it's pathetic.

She's an obstuse simpleton in my eyes, and "dolt" is an apt descriptor. Sorry. I'm not as nice as you CK.

Jaynee

I must agree with jaynee. Charity is an idiot, and I'm sure most of the apologists on MAD cringe when they see here post something. She's an embarassment to their cause. Juliann isn't much better. I respect Daniel Peterson. He can be a pompous jerk at times, but he is obviously very intelligent, well educated, and has found a way to compartmentalize Mormonism. Charity is at the opposite end of the spectrum. An obviously dumb chapel Mormon who thinks she is in the apologist club. She isn't even humble and nice. She's as arrogant as DCP with nothing to back it up. It's actually kinda sad. Juliann wants to be like DCP, but unfortunately for her she is closer to the Charity end of the apologist spectrum. That's just my opinion of the MAD club.

[_beastie]

Heh, just read Juliann referencing my statements on her latest post:

Whenever we dare to say anything about countermos there is great activity on the FAIR Obsession Board. This is how they are trying to pretend they never never say the discovering has been done:

QUOTE
I've just never heard a critic say anything of the sort, or even imply anything of the sort.


Then there is always the Antis are from Venus and Mormons are from Mars rejoinders from those who aren't even aware that when there are multiple experts who spend their lives looking there tend to be "new findings":

QUOTE
Its such an old canard. When I read things like "Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?" I have literally no idea what planet this is being beamed from.

"New findings?" "at a rapid pace?"

Then, why don't I see evidence of this in scholarly journals, academic conversation or even general interest publications????


Another indignantly proclaims:

QUOTE
Not only have I never seen a critic make this assertion, but I, and others, have repeatedly corrected these same folks in the past for making this assertion.


This same poster then goes on to say:

QUOTE
For the record, I believe archaeological evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that the Book of Mormon did not take place in ancient Mesoamerica.



But remember...none of them have ever heard a countermo even imply that the discovering has been done and the Book of Mormon has been proved false...it just didn't happen in Mesoamerica. Perhaps China?

Note the following fallacies in her argument:

I clearly stated that the evidence is "overwhelmingly conclusive". Now she turns that into a categoric statement about proof.

Notice also she conflates the historicity of the Book of Mormon with its "truthfulness", in particular, the historicity of the Book of Mormon setting in ancient Mesoamerica.

This should be interesting to those LDS who believe the Book of Mormon is "true", but do not adhere to the Mesoamerican LGT, or who believe the text is pseudographic.

Hmmm. I wonder. Could Juliann's insistence that the Book of Mormon can only be "true" if it actually took place in ancient Mesoamerica be considered..... FUNDAMENTALIST???

[_beastie]

Indeed, if my statement were not correct: that the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that the Book of Mormon did not occur in ancient Mesoamerica - were not true, John Clark would not be making statements such as this:

Those who choose not to believe it [I.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...

But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm

It is only through already having a spiritual testimony that one can even recognize the "clear evidence".

If a spiritual belief is a prerequisite for recognizing "clear evidence", then the evidence is not clear.

Another amusing sidebar about Juliann's commentary is her insistence that people should refrain from commentary on subjects they have not adequately studied. Yet, as far as she has demonstrated and admitted, the bulk of her understanding of ancient Mesoamerica originates with one or two texts on the subject, and the rest from LDS apologia.

The fact that she didn't understand the nature of the Mesoamerican ballgame is more than enough evidence that she is does not possess the adequate background knowledge to make informed statements on whether or not my statement is correct: the evidence is overwhelming that the Book of Mormon did not occur in ancient Mesoamerica.

This is painfully obvious to anyone who understands ancient Mesoamerica, has read the Book of Mormon, and does not possess the prerequisite spiritual testimony.

Note also that my statement does not state, or imply, that there will be no future, important discoveries in ancient Mesoamerican studies. Yet Juliann is using it as proof that her original distortion of the "countermo's" assertions was correct.

The fact that Juliann does not recognize that fact demonstrates all the reasons discussing this issue, or any issue, with her is like banging one's head against a wall.

[_Great Cthulhu]

Right beastie. The things she's saying are totally incoherent. She must still be drunk from last night. I suggest something like that because from what I've read of her posts she is not stupid -- if Juliann thought about what she's posting instead of blazing away like a lunatic, then I think she would see that none of this hangs together. But it's enough to goad people into a board war... and what else is there to do on a weekend, eh?

(Also, since people are giving their opinions, I don't think Charity is stupid at all. She's just very far down the rabbit hole.)

[_Who Knows]

The evidence is overwhelming that santa claus does not exist. Can i prove he doesn't? No. Do I ever think evidence will come forth that he does exist? No.

Is it possible that the necessary evidence could arise? Sure. I'd actually welcome it.

[_beastie]

I still think the biggest howler was seeing the Mayan timelines jump to the right time after the discovering had been done and there were just no civilizations in that Book of Mormon timeline. Well, now there is. So we jump to "but it's not the right ones!".

Just what is she talking about?

It's easy to bandy about a vague word like "civilizations" and pretend that you're talking about something meaningful, but I have to say, what the heck is she talking about?

It has long been known that "civilizations" existed in Mesoamerica during that "Book of Mormon timeline". She acts as if the question of "the right ones" is insignificant. Given how the Book of Mormon clearly describes a very advanced civilization with advanced social complexity, advanced government, control over extended polities, then what kind of civilization is extant during that time period is the exact point of it all.

This reminds me of the repeated accusations that the Book of Mormon was against contemporary understanding of ancient Mesoamerica because scholars believed it was a a peaceful civilization, and now we know it was a civilization consumed with war.
If this isn't being repeated by people who just don't have adequate background knowledge to judge it, then it is being repeated by people who are being knowingly misleading. Why? During Joseph Smith' period, it was accepted that the ancient Americans were not only war-like, but that there were two opposing groups, one civilized (and often Judaic in origin) who was responsible for the incredible ruins that testified of an immense civilization, and one barbaric (the ancestors of the current "barbaric" Native Americans, of course).

It wasn't until the twentieth century that a notable Mesoamerican scholar decided that the Maya were really a peaceful nation of astronomers. Yes, it was later debunked. It takes a remarkable sleight of hand to try and pretend that the debunking of a twentieth century notion is somehow a validation of a nineteenth century document, which contains nineteenth - not twentieth - century notions about ancient America.

So who the heck was claiming there weren't even "civilizations" in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time frame?????

[_Some Schmo]

Good Lord, what a crock of crap. Is Charity really that big of a dolt?

Charity's not a dolt; she's a TBM. Call her blinded to reality if you wish to, but don't call her an idiot. She's a nice lady. She's a grandmother. And, she firmly believes that Mormonism is true. She's doing the best she can, in the service of a cause she truly believes in, with the knowledge at her current disposal. (Emphasis added)

This is exactly what makes her a dolt: it's the very fact that she ignores all the common sense thrown at her and digs down to maintain belief in the absurd... and then goes on to criticize those that don't agree with her.

There aren't many who are bigger dolts on that board, and that's really saying something.