Bill Hamblin: "The Book of Mormon is Historically Fallible."

[_beastie]

I disagree. I think MAD would survive if the only forum they had was the fellowship forum. Besides, even amoung the saints there is disagreement about things.

It would survive, but probably not be as interesting to the very people they want to attract - The Apologists. The Apologists really want to get in the ring with critics, but they want to WIN, WIN, WIN. Frankly, most of the time that's not possible without rigging the system. Maybe one day, when all this marvelous evidence comes rolling out supporting, say the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, then it may be a more level playing field, but right now, The Apologists have weights on their ankles and still want to win the race.

But let's turn this back to MDB for a moment. What's more important to you? Would you rather have more TBMs, or would you rather have unrestricted fee speech where you can blaspheme and profane to your heart's content? And what do you want with TBMs anyhow? Would you try to learn why they still believe, or would you try to deconvert them?

The problem is that "profane" and "blaspheme" are vague terms. Wade once tried to argue he didn't have anything against criticisms being made against the church, but they should be, in the end, edifying. Sheesh, how can criticizing Joseph Smith be "edifying" to a believer? And can criticisms of basic church claims be seen as anything BUT "profane" and "blasphemous"? Believers tell us all the time it hurts their feelings too much when critics attack their church leaders. So why even pretend you want to have discussions with critics in the first place? It's a silly game.

[_asbestosman]

I just think in general a lot of people here have experienced frustration because it's not so much that there are "different rules" as there is an "unwritten order of things" and the only way to find out you've violated it is to be banned.

I'm not so sure that's true. I agree that there is an "unwritten order of things", but I don't think it's all that difficult to figure out what it is. I think critics either delude themselves into thinking that their level of criticism will be tolerated, or they simply foget where they are--perhaps in a moment of heat.

Now I grant that the line is vague and changes with time, but it's not that hard to stay safe. One need only be certain that one is not habitually upsetting TBM posters. Is that rule so difficult to see? Take Rhinomelon for example. He seems quite careful not to offend even where he disagrees. I would say that Dan Vogel also demonstrates this quality.

[_Runtu]

I'm not so sure that's true. I agree that there is an "unwritten order of things", but I don't think it's all that difficult to figure out what it is. I think critics either delude themselves into thinking that their level of criticism will be tolerated, or they simply foget where they are--perhaps in a moment of heat.

Now I grant that the line is vague and changes with time, but it's not that hard to stay safe. One need only be certain that one is not habitually upsetting TBM posters. Is that rule so difficult to see? Take Rhinomelon for example. He seems quite careful not to offend even where he disagrees. I would say that Dan Vogel also demonstrates this quality.

Well, if I offended anyone over there, I wish someone would have pointed it out and told me I was crossing a line. If I did something that merits banning, I can handle that. But lacking any warning or explanation from the mods, I'm left to "figure out what it is" on my own. Only now it's too late.

[_asbestosman]

It would survive, but probably not be as interesting to the very people they want to attract - The Apologists. The Apologists really want to get in the ring with critics,

I agree that MA&D likes to attract apologists, but I'm not so convinced that apologists want to get in the ring with critics. Yes, the apologists wish to answer or at least defend agains criticisms, but I'm not so sure they love to fight with critics so much as they wish to remove any possible dammage from attacks that have been made. In other words, I think apologists would be happy if no new criticisms were raised. In such a scenario I think apologists would move on to interesting apllications of their field of experiece to LDS doctrine and speculative teachings.

[_Runtu]

I agree that MA&D likes to attract apologists, but I'm not so convinced that apologists want to get in the ring with critics. Yes, the apologists wish to answer or at least defend agains criticisms, but I'm not so sure they love to fight with critics so much as they wish to remove any possible dammage from attacks that have been made. In other words, I think apologists would be happy if no new criticisms were raised. In such a scenario I think apologists would move on to interesting apllications of their field of experiece to LDS doctrine and speculative teachings.

I think that's true to some extent, but there are some people who go there for the thrill of the battle. When I was on that A.I. board, a FAIR regular came in, guns blazing, and made a lot of enemies for the church over there. It was obvious to me that his interest was not in defending but in winning. I think conversely that some critics are there just to argue as well. I suspect that if you did a study, you'd find a spectrum of similar personalities across the TBM/apostate divide on MAD.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
(Dr. Steuss posted a bunch of quotes from Kurt Vonnegut (who died last night) in that "Get No Respect" thread, and one of them I just love: Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say? Shall I tattoo it on my forehead now?)

You're "Get No Respect"? And to think I wasted my time trying to befriend a miserable cur such as yourself. I feel dirty now (I think I need a shower).

Seriously though, I'd hate to see you go Dude. You've always been really fair with me, and forgiving when I show my ignorance, and your scientific expertise is much needed (in my opinion).

Thanks for the heads up on Vonnegut's death. My friend ended up sending me an email later that day with a scanned picture from Breakfast of Champions (of a tombstone). The world really did lose a cool hombre with his passing (hopefully someone will do his vicarious temple work someday so I can hang out with him in the CK).

[_harmony]

The only way to sink the good ship MAD is for the critics to abandon ship. Without critics, MAD simply dries up.

I disagree. I think MAD would survive if the only forum they had was the fellowship forum. Besides, even amoung the saints there is disagreement about things.

I don't think so. Without the critics, it becomes sacrament meeting. And we all know how many people sleep through that.

Apologists think they can't survive on an unmoderated forum like this one,

No, they think this forum is crude, and often times it is. They may also think that this forum is not worth-while if critics are more interested in proving the church is wrong than listening to how it might be right.

No, what they object to is the unmoderated freedom of speech. If you were correct, they can go to the Celestial forum and never see a swear word or a temple reference. They don't.

As for the 'worthwhile' comment, how interested are the apologists in listening to the opposing argument? If they do not listen, they cannot complain when someone else does not listen either. Sauce, goose/sauce, gander.