DiscussMormonism.com

I don't read many threads at MAD, most of them are yawn fests. But I happened to click on this one and was well rewarded with one of the best laughs I've had in a while. The thread is called "Joseph as Apologist" by Her Amun, whose basic point was that Joseph Smith was an ignorant fool who could never have possessed all the advanced knowledge within the Book of Mormon. He stated, in regards to Joseph Smith (in response to silly things like "Mormon" meaning "more good"):

Im not sure he was joking, though it might be possible.

I think he is being serious, and showing what an ignoramous he was. Hardly the kind of man that could have known Enochic traditions, egyptian names, pre-islamic arabian geography, 1st temple goddess theology,olive cultivation,ancient priesthood initiation rights,non-biblical Abraham traditions,ancient jewish coronation rights,ancient jewish poetic forms, the mesoamerican pattern of using invervals of 400 for cyclical calendar prophecy, ancient egyptian associations of Abraham and the lion couch, ancient hebrew adaption/redaction of egyptian funerary motifs or mesoamerican warefare.

to which the dude replied:

QUOTE(Her Amun @ Mar 6 2007, 06:26 PM) *

I think he is being serious, and showing what an ignoramous he was.


...a tradition that has been preserved in today's apologetics.

BADABING!!!!

Thanks, dude, I needed that!

I honestly do not know how he can get away with that without being banned. I've seen plenty such humorous cracks from him over the weeks I spent at MAD, and it's astonishing to me that he isn't even redlined.

fort,

he did get redlined that first week the mods went MAD after critics, but they seemed to have backed off. Yes, I admit I'm amazed, too. I guess he's just too charming for them to ban. You and I just don't have that much charisma. ;)

A quote from this same thread:

charity wrote:the dude, we are flexible because we don't have to be locked into any one explanation. We start with the knowledge that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith by the power of God. Exactly how the scripture originated (what was reformed Egyptian, where did Nephi live, how did Moroni get the plates to New York state) does not matter.

We find it interesting to consider those questions, but it doesn't matter. And we have fun with various theories that are proposed, with various scholarly studies that give information and suggestions about evidences.

Since we have sure knowledge via the Spirit, if someone produces some little bit that goes against what we know, we can let it roll of our backs like water off a duck. It doesn't phase us. We can be patient. 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.

(my emphasis)



"Dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum."

I love the definition of 'open minded' there.

Fortigurn wrote:I love the definition of 'open minded' there.

I love the symmetry of her post. Ironic at the beginning, irony at the end.

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I love the definition of 'open minded' there.

I love the symmetry of her post. Ironic at the beginning, irony at the end.

That's not just symmetry, that's chiasmus.

I must admit that for a long time in my past I greatly admired people who were particularly adept at put-downs, and for a while I even attempted to hone that skill, myself.

Recently, though, I have found that what really makes my day are people like my mother, who has been caring tirelessly for my father during his 3 bouts with cancer. Or, soldiers who are daily putting their lives on the line, fighting to protect our freedoms and to liberate millions from tyranny (see: Our War Heroes). Or, those good-hearted souls who go about oft unnoticably commiting Random Acts of Kindness.

This change has made me wonder in general if the things we each tend to admire, and the things that make our day, says something, if not much, about us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree with what you say Weng. The only difference I have with you is that I never admired people who put down others. I'm guessing you're making a comment on the inaptly named 'charity' and her style of posting?

Fortigurn wrote:I agree with what you say Weng. The only difference I have with you is that I never admired people who put down others. I'm guessing you're making a comment on the inaptly named 'charity' and her style of posting?

While I am pleased that you never admired such people, your guess was incorrect. My comment was intentionally generic in its application (I have learned that finger-pointing tends to be counterproductive), and if it was directed at anyone in particular, it was me--though Beastie's OP to this thread did prompt me reflect introspectively on the matter, which is why I posted my comments here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-