"The discovering has been done"Do Critics Say This

[_Who Knows]

I've seen this come up over and over again on the MAD board - most frequently by Juliann, but it's a favorite of Charity's as well.

Here's Juliann's latest:

What I do find interesting is that the conventional wisdom that is the bread and butter of countermos is beginning to evaporate on several fronts. That may not help the Book of Mormon at all...but it does mean the countermos are going to have to do something besides say that the discovering has been done when it obviously hasn't. And that is what is being said no matter how anyone protests. Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?

It usually goes like this:

Someone will post some new scientific find, and then J or C will post something sarcastic like "But wait, we've already discovered everything we're going to discover" as an apparent attempt at a jab at critics.

I've just never heard a critic say anything of the sort, or even imply anything of the sort. Am I just missing it? Or are J & C just way off base here - looking for anything to criticize the critics with?

[_Blixa]

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????

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I've never heard a critic suggest nothing new will be discovered. What's funny is this new finding about elephants is still off on the time-line. It does nothing to help the Book of Mormon, it just moves the evidence slightly closer, but it still doesn't help.

[_Who Knows]

Now Juliann has this gem:

I do know that every countermo says the Book of Mormon has been "proved false"

Someone's losing it...

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Now Juliann has this gem:

I do know that every countermo says the Book of Mormon has been "proved false"

Someone's losing it...

I don't think "countermoes" make this claim, but generally speaking the Book of Mormon has never been accepted as a work of non-fiction. This isn't "anti-mormon" opinion, it's fact. Even apologists would have to admit it. Could future evidence prove it to be non-fiction? Maybe, but it's been around for 175 years and has failed to convince anybody, other than a tiny group of true believers, that it is a true history of a group of ancient americans. Does this mean its been "proved false"? No, but it isn't any more believable than any other wacky claims from fringe groups like flat earthers, hollow earthers, and alien abtuctees. I will use a Saganism and say the Book of Mormon is "not proved." As such, I have no reason to follow a group of old men in SLC.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've seen this come up over and over again on the MAD board - most frequently by Juliann, but it's a favorite of Charity's as well.

Here's Juliann's latest:

What I do find interesting is that the conventional wisdom that is the bread and butter of countermos is beginning to evaporate on several fronts. That may not help the Book of Mormon at all...but it does mean the countermos are going to have to do something besides say that the discovering has been done when it obviously hasn't. And that is what is being said no matter how anyone protests. Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?

Thanks for posting this, WK. I have a few thoughts. First, where did juliann learn how to write? I always come away from her posts scratching my head, wondering just what she was trying to say, exactly. It seems that she is running the English language through the logic of some other grammar, such as Russian or German. Second, what the hell does this mean:

That may not help the Book of Mormon at all...but it does mean the countermos are going to have to do something besides say that the discovering has been done when it obviously hasn't.

1. In my experience, the "countermos" *don't* say that. They say that no real discoveries have been found.
2. I doubt very much that any "countermo" is going to allow him or herself to be bossed around by the likes of juliann.
3. If no "discovering has been done," then what have the LDS archaeologists been doing down in Central America for the last 50 years?

Next, let's take a look at this garbled nugget:

Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?

(bold emphasis added)

Can someone tell me what this bolded word is referring to? Does it refer to the "pace"? Or the "new findings"? Also, can anyone here explain how the qualification "sometimes" is changing the meaning of this sentence? The woman does not know how to form basic sentences in English.

Here, if she wants someone to say what she appears to want someone to say, I'll give it my best shot:

"I admit that new findings which have sometimes changed current thinking are coming in at a rapid pace." (???)

Maybe this is better: "I admit that new findings, which are coming in at a rapid pace, have occasionally changed current thinking." (Is the "current" a tautology in this instance?)

One more time: "I admit that certain findings have caused us to rethink some very minor points." Better?

It usually goes like this:

Someone will post some new scientific find, and then J or C will post something sarcastic like "But wait, we've already discovered everything we're going to discover" as an apparent attempt at a jab at critics.

I've just never heard a critic say anything of the sort, or even imply anything of the sort. Am I just missing it? Or are J & C just way off base here - looking for anything to criticize the critics with?

No, they are way off base. Critics are *asking* for evidence, not claiming that "all the discovering is done." The thinking may be done when the Brethren speak, but I'm sure that much more archaeological evidence is yet forthcoming. (Though not necessarily any that will support the Book of Mormon, even in a tangential, NHM sort of way.)

[_guy sajer]

I've seen this come up over and over again on the MAD board - most frequently by Juliann, but it's a favorite of Charity's as well.

Here's Juliann's latest:

What I do find interesting is that the conventional wisdom that is the bread and butter of countermos is beginning to evaporate on several fronts. That may not help the Book of Mormon at all...but it does mean the countermos are going to have to do something besides say that the discovering has been done when it obviously hasn't. And that is what is being said no matter how anyone protests. Have you ever seen an anti admit that new findings are coming in at a rapid pace that have sometimes changed current thinking?

It usually goes like this:

Someone will post some new scientific find, and then J or C will post something sarcastic like "But wait, we've already discovered everything we're going to discover" as an apparent attempt at a jab at critics.

I've just never heard a critic say anything of the sort, or even imply anything of the sort. Am I just missing it? Or are J & C just way off base here - looking for anything to criticize the critics with?

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

Of course we admit that new findings are coming, often at a rapid pace. In my case, this helps explain why I left the cult to begin with.

It's just that new information is not coming to justify a belief in Mo'ism, nor any of its pillars (Book of Mormon, PoGP, Joseph Smith), not at a rapid pace, not at a snail's pace. New information is coming, and almost all of fails to confirm, or outright contradicts, the idiosyncratic truth claims of Mo'ism.

It kills me that nitwits like Charity belong to a trivial, obscure little tribe like Mo'ism and there they sit, surrounded by the vastness of the rest of humanity, taking potshots at those who cannot find a compelling reason to belong to their teeny, tiny, insignificant little clique.

By God, that's rich.

[_beastie]

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.

Protests are futile. Oh, come on, who can speak for "counter-mo's" better than TBMs?

[_The Dude]

LOL. go read what else she is posting in that thread. You've only seen about half of it reposted here. It get's better... or worse.

Look at me! I'm a flailing antimormon. My own religion (science) is yanking the rug out from under me! Whoopee!

[_beastie]

What thread is this on?