"The discovering has been done"Do Critics Say This

[_Bond...James Bond]

What thread is this on?

It's called Elephants in America (or something).

[_cksalmon]

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.

I agree that she is over-the-top and (it would seem) less-than-informed about a great many issues, but she's no idiot.

I wonder if I can I still hang out here if I happen to think that Charity is sincere, even if sincerely misinformed? A dolt? Goodness. That's just ugly.

CKS

[_skippy the dead]

I wonder if I can I still hang out here if I happen to think that Charity is sincere, even if sincerely misinformed?

CKS

I sure hope so! Civility and respect are good.

(I, too, think Charity is very sincere.)

[_beastie]

It seems a pretty big leap to go from the fact that discoveries continue to be made to asserting this fact justifies an assertion for which there is no serious evidence. (by serious I mean of the sort that could be accepted by an objective nonbeliever)

But it's a leap believers seem to make quite willingly.

[_guy sajer]

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.

I agree that she is over-the-top and (it would seem) less-than-informed about a great many issues, but she's no idiot.

I wonder if I can I still hang out here if I happen to think that Charity is sincere, even if sincerely misinformed? A dolt? Goodness. That's just ugly.

CKS

I didn't call her an idiot, I asked whether she really was a dolt, leaving open the possibility that she was not. I should clarify by narrowing my frame of reference and rephrase the question, "Can she really be such a dolt on this issue?" Whether she's a general dolt, I'll take your word for it.

by the way, one can be very nice, even a grandma, and still be a dolt.

Charity is indeed very over the top, from what I've seen, and her lack of respect for others mitigates what obligation we might have to play nicey-poo with her. She makes herself a target, and does so overtly and purposively. She should not expect in return what she does not extend to others.

Her statement was so colossally ignorant that she practically begged to be skewered.

You know the saying, "If you can't stand the heat . . . ."

[_Who Knows]

Her statement was so colossally ignorant that she practically begged to be skewered.

Just wanted to clarify - The original statement I quoted above is from Juliann. Although Charity has said similar things in the past.

[_beastie]

Sheesh, what a thread. It reminds me of why I left MAD.

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

Whether or not that "proves" the Book of Mormon false is up to the individual, I suppose. There are people quite willing to accept it as pseudographia. Others believe a case can be made for a different location. (I doubt a convincing case can be made for a different location in America, but I understand some even propose nonAmerican locations - was it Malaysia, or some place like that?)

[_cksalmon]

by the way, one can be very nice, even a grandma, and still be a dolt.

Charity is indeed very over the top, from what I've seen, and her lack of respect for others mitigates what obligation we might have to play nicey-poo with her. She makes herself a target, and does so overtly and purposively. She should not expect in return what she does not extend to others.

Her statement was so colossally ignorant that she practically begged to be skewered.

I think I can understand that, at some level, guy. But, personally, I'm ready and willing to give Charity more than she either expects or deserves in return.

Both metaphysically and morally, I think I can afford to give more than I'm personally given in return. Otherwise, to speak in a strictly-personal manner (with reference only to myself), I'd be really pissed most of the time, based on others' responses. I don't expect her, or anyone else, to give back what I personally give in a strictly-reciprocal manner. Charity is her own person. I take her at face value. While I disagree, I do hope to understand her on her own terms. They are manifestly not my terms, to be sure.

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

Best.

CKS

[_Mister Scratch]

The thread, and juliann's remarks in it, remind me very much of her behavior on the last "apostate" thread, in which she was so completely and thoroughly humiliated by both KG and Beastie that she yanked the thread into the Pundits Forum, and then threatened legal action. She really had better watch her step with her idiotic assertions. This one will come back to haunt her as well, I predict.

[_Blixa]

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?