harmony wrote:MAD's contention is that critics such as yourself, who refer to the church as "the cult", aren't interested in discussion, but are only interested in vilification and spewing venom. And they don't care what you would like, period. The only way MAD will die is if critics they actually like and respect, like The Dude and Tarski, leave. And they won't. (We already had this discussion with them.)
Why not call a spade a spade? Just about any definition of a cult fits the COJCOLDS to a tee.
harmony wrote:MAD's contention is that critics such as yourself, who refer to the church as "the cult", aren't interested in discussion, but are only interested in vilification and spewing venom. And they don't care what you would like, period. The only way MAD will die is if critics they actually like and respect, like The Dude and Tarski, leave. And they won't. (We already had this discussion with them.)
Why not call a spade a spade? Just about any definition of a cult fits the COJCOLDS to a tee.
*patiently* Because no one likes their religion to be referred to as a cult. And it doesn't matter how well that religion fits the definition, it's still almost impossible to get the apologists of that religion to admit any resemblance whatever to a cult (resembling a cult nowadays is a bad thing, kinda like marrying multiple wives... ). So MAD folk do not want to even see the word "cult" in reference to the LDS church, and will do whatever it takes to maintain their blinders. Including excommunicating anyone who uses the word on their board.
Jersey Girl wrote:In what way is charity MAD "royalty"? Doesn't add up for me.
Jersey Girl
Sure she is. She has as much posts as anyone and is protected as much as anyone else.
For the record, Charity is not considered MAD royalty. I actually like Charity. I've had private email conversations with her, and she is a very nice person. Sometimes her views get a little "out there", and, she honestly doesn't realize how she comes across sometimes.
As far as how she is viewed by the moderators, it's really rather sad. She is viewed as more of a nuisance. I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but when FAIR transitioned to a new server, it allowed a maximum of 16 posts per day per poster. This was put into place, in part, to keep Charity from dominating the board. Now, this posting maximum could have changed again when FAIR became MAD. I'm not sure how much the software they are using now changed.
Jersey Girl wrote:In what way is charity MAD "royalty"? Doesn't add up for me.
Jersey Girl
Sure she is. She has as much posts as anyone and is protected as much as anyone else.
For the record, Charity is not considered MAD royalty. I actually like Charity. I've had private email conversations with her, and she is a very nice person. Sometimes her views get a little "out there", and, she honestly doesn't realize how she comes across sometimes.
As far as how she is viewed by the moderators, it's really rather sad. She is viewed as more of a nuisance. I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but when FAIR transitioned to a new server, it allowed a maximum of 16 posts per day per poster. This was put into place, in part, to keep Charity from dominating the board. Now, this posting maximum could have changed again when FAIR became MAD. I'm not sure how much the software they are using now changed.
The new board must not have restrictions. I've seen Zakuska with almost a hundred posts in one day many times. The "Top 10" posters for today all are above 20. Zakuska has 80 for the day (I think those rankings are based on a 24 hour period).
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
fubecabr wrote:Should we shut it down? Well we could. How? By boycotting it.
No need. By stifling open debate and discussion, FAIR/MAD will die a slow death, just like ZLMB did.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Bond...James Bond wrote:The new board must not have restrictions. I've seen Zakuska with almost a hundred posts in one day many times. The "Top 10" posters for today all are above 20. Zakuska has 80 for the day (I think those rankings are based on a 24 hour period).
Bond
I've noticed the same thing about Zakuska's number of posts, and mostly they are self indulgent one liners -- even his opening posts. At least you can have an exchange with Charity. I'd rather read one of Charity's posts any day of the week.
Fubecabr -- Why would you want to shut down another board? Is it some kind of power fantasy? Certainly it would be easier to take down a simple message board than the LDS religion as a whole, but what's the point? I think there is a lot of good debate over there. There are a number of borderline LDS and "recovering from RfM'ers" who benefit greatly from the discussion. I don't see where you are coming from. Also, from your opening post, I noticed you misidentfied Sethbag as "FAIR royalty". He's a pretty steady critic, by the way.
I am afraid that MAD is here to stay and rightly so. Now lets face, MAD is a thorn is the side of the critics and of the exmos who are hostile to the LDS church. And in fact, MAD is doing a good job in answering questions for LDS lurkers. You see, what you all must realize is that there are answers to critic questions. And nothing about the LDS church has been proven false. In fact, although the LDS church has taken some hits from the internet, I do believe that LDS sites are now preventing some people from exiting because such LDS posters can post a comment and receive an answer or have realized that some LDS people had the same questions, and stayed in the LDS church.
I know that MAD is a problem for some critics. But by and large, it is very successful in defending the LDS faith. And that is what it is meant to do.
And my LDS friends on that board are very good people behind the cyberwall...oh and by the way, sethbag is a critic, trust me, he is a critic and He and I have posted many posts to eachothers' comments. I know a critic when I read one. But seth is a good guy.
why me wrote:I am afraid that MAD is here to stay and rightly so. Now lets face, MAD is a thorn is the side of the critics and of the exmos who are hostile to the LDS church. And in fact, MAD is doing a good job in answering questions for LDS lurkers. You see, what you all must realize is that there are answers to critic questions. And nothing about the LDS church has been proven false. In fact, although the LDS church has taken some hits from the internet, I do believe that LDS sites are now preventing some people from exiting because such LDS posters can post a comment and receive an answer or have realized that some LDS people had the same questions, and stayed in the LDS church.
I know that MAD is a problem for some critics. But by and large, it is very successful in defending the LDS faith. And that is what it is meant to do.
And my LDS friends on that board are very good people behind the cyberwall...oh and by the way, sethbag is a critic, trust me, he is a critic and He and I have posted many posts to eachothers' comments. I know a critic when I read one. But seth is a good guy.
Wow, the more I read from you, the more I wonder if you aren't the sister of Gazlam.
for what it's worth, many of us "exmos who are hostile to the LDS church" cut our truth teeth on that very board. There are so many chapel Mormons. I was one of them. Once I realized all of the crap I was reading was in fact true history, it was the dancing around these issues and the pious poumpous pontificating pukes of the Fboard that help me realize the under belly of the beast.
I hope that board stays up. It helped me see the light. Denial C. Peterson is an asset to the exmormon movement.
For the most part, I was quite disappointed that FAIR got rid of their message board. It provided a sort of validation to all of the 'anti' critical arguments. MAD just doesn't have that same status unfortunately.
I would hardly call that a 'thorn in the critics side'. FAIR was the critics best friend.
And I wouldn't say FAIR had 'answered' the critics. More like they provided pathways for continued belief - if that's what you so desire. "We don't know the answers right now" "God hasn't revealed it to us yet" "We'll find out why in the next life" etc. etc. Sure you can cling to those as methods/pathways for continued belief. But they are NOT answers.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:For the most part, I was quite disappointed that FAIR got rid of their message board. It provided a sort of validation to all of the 'anti' critical arguments. MAD just doesn't have that same status unfortunately.
I would hardly call that a 'thorn in the critics side'. FAIR was the critics best friend.
And I wouldn't say FAIR had 'answered' the critics. More like they provided pathways for continued belief - if that's what you so desire. "We don't know the answers right now" "God hasn't revealed it to us yet" "We'll find out why in the next life" etc. etc. Sure you can cling to those as methods/pathways for continued belief. But they are NOT answers.
Of course it is always difficult to counter speculation as proof and to counter what someone said over a hundred years ago and attempt to explain it or defend it. Apologetics is not an easy game to play. But as you know, who knows, the LDS church is not for everybody and I would never claim that it is. MAD is not a critics best friend by a long shot. Since I have been there I have seen faithful members give answers to critics and do quite nicely. And many critics seem to have come here to roost for a while. But the loyal critics who stay at MAD seem to be a decent bunch of individuals who have or are coming to terms with the LDS church. It can be a good place to have a conversation, if the critic so desires.