Okay, I give. What critics?

[_Jason Bourne]

And who could forget Primary Chorister? ;-)

Anyone remember The Vines?

And there was Sansfoy and Brianspro! Two of my favorites!

If I recall correctly, part of what happened was when the board started limiting posts. It just wasn't the same after that!

:-)

~dancer~

So were there good defenders at ZLMB? Or were the critics just able to trounce the believers because of a more open and free format?

[_Runtu]

And who could forget Primary Chorister? ;-)

Anyone remember The Vines?

And there was Sansfoy and Brianspro! Two of my favorites!

If I recall correctly, part of what happened was when the board started limiting posts. It just wasn't the same after that!

:-)

~dancer~

So were there good defenders at ZLMB? Or were the critics just able to trounce the believers because of a more open and free format?

I believe I stumbled across FAIR shortly after it started sometime in late 2002, I think (my memory is a little hazy). So I recognize a lot of those names. There have been good people on both sides of the argument, and I have learned a lot from my interaction with them.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think the hard fact isn't that critics are particularly better at these debates, or that one group is meaner than the other - the hard fact is that believers who are defending the faith just have the harder job. I've said this many times - which would be easier? Criticizing Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, or defending it? Criticizing the Book of Abraham "translation", or defending it?

Critics have a far easier job - one of my favorite critics, Gadianton, used to say that apologists are probably brighter people, because it's hard to come up with some of these defenses, and that critics can be of mediocre intelligence and still wipe up the floor with the apologists.

This is true for any defense and apologetic activity-Christian, Jew, Muslim, even politics. And religion is even harder because of the supernatural nature of it lacks hard proofs.

[_Runtu]

This is true for any defense and apologetic activity-Christian, Jew, Muslim, even politics. And religion is even harder because of the supernatural nature of it lacks hard proofs.

What makes it doubly hard for Mormon apologetics is that there is plenty of hard evidence against the church's truth claims. It's one thing to defend the supernatural, such as the resurrection. It's another thing to try and defend the existence of ancient pseudohebraic civilizations in the Americas or defend the translation of the Joseph Smith papyri.

[_Jason Bourne]

I posted on both UTLM and ZLMB. I met Webguy when I visited the Tanners' bookstore in 2002. His rationale for moderating was to keep UTLM a safe place for former LDS to post at without being overwhelmed by LDS. I think the word irony is overused; but if there ever was a place for it the current situation at FAIR is ironical after all the LDS bitching on ZLMB about UTLM.

Those who founded ZLMB are not the same ones as those who founded FAIR/MAD though it seems some of the ZLMB posters migrated to FAIR/MAD and became entrenched there. I do not think you can attribute irony in this situation since the ones that may have left ZLMB for a more protective place may have wanted ZLMB to be more restricted but it did not become so.

[_beastie]

So were there good defenders at ZLMB? Or were the critics just able to trounce the believers because of a more open and free format?

It depends on the topic, in my opinion. Critics aren't more intelligent or "better" in some way than defenders of the faith are. It all has to do with what is being defended. I think defenders usually "win" in debates about whether or not Mormonism is a Christian faith, for example. And they can offer good evidence that Mormonism, as a social system, can be very helpful to many individuals (although they tend to ignore the potential harm, as well).

But in regards to other topics, the negative evidence is just so overwhelming (say, for example, Joseph Smith secretly marrying young women and other men's wives, or the Book of Abraham problems) that no amount of intelligence and diligence is going to make the defenders' argument look "good". So yes, in a more open and free format, they were regularly trounced in those sort of arguments.

I'm sure they would not agree. Perhaps they really felt that their arguments always looked better, and critics were just mean people, and that was what created the stress. Who knows. The human mind is amazing in its capacity for self-delusion. (maybe my own mind is deluding myself in terms of who looked "good"!)

[_beastie]

Those who founded ZLMB are not the same ones as those who founded FAIR/MAD though it seems some of the ZLMB posters migrated to FAIR/MAD and became entrenched there. I do not think you can attribute irony in this situation since the ones that may have left ZLMB for a more protective place may have wanted ZLMB to be more restricted but it did not become so.

That's a good point, and perhaps those who used to defend ZLMB's nonpartisan approach are actually uncomfortable with the climate at MAD, even though they are not open about such sentiments.

However, notable apologists like Dan were very critical of ULMB due to its moderating bias. Yet he was one of the first to go to FAIR.

[_richardMdBorn]

So were there good defenders at ZLMB? Or were the critics just able to trounce the believers because of a more open and free format?

Well DCP was there. You decide whether or not he's a good defender. :)

[_Jason Bourne]

Well DCP was there. You decide whether or not he's a good defender. :)

I think Dr. Peterson can be a very good defender and often is. However, his some of the way he banters is not good and at times does not make him look good.