Indefensible, Incoherent, Inconsistent. Who is Desperate?

[_Pokatator]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm deathly afraid that scientology is true, and the thetans are messing with me.

Thank you for best laugh I've had all day!

[_Gadianton]

There are often comments such as this. The LDS faithful are accused of trying desperately to hold on to their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Defending the indefensible.

Not exactly. Most LDS faithful aren't aware of any issues regarding their faith other than the existence of an undercurrent often refered to as "anti-Mormonism". The vast majority of LDS faithful are focused on entirely different life problems and historical issues with the Book of Mormon never show up as a blip on the radar.

Many question the point of Mormon apologetics. Even some Mormons with an interest in it, there's a recent MAD thread on it. For apologists themselves, I really believe their anger and frustration with ex and antis, a complex situation for sure but I often feel very much linked to bad first impressions, safely keeps them from ever seriously questioning the Book of Mormon.

A small but growing class of targets, those whose internet searches or bookstore browsing lead them somewhere with information that they didn't see coming, struck out of the blue, and left with questions might be said to be desperately holding on to their faith.

But for this class, it's entirely appropriate to question the efficacy of apologetics. I mean, if we're talking specifically Book of Mormon digs, Hugh Nibley himself said that he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. If the "science" was that questionable even for the greatest apologist ever to walk the face of the earth, then I doubt critics are running scared that some future dig might put Zarahemla firmly on the map.

[_charity]

Sorry I was gone so long this morning. My shift at the Family History Center. I could have scotched some of the sidetrails with an earlier post.

You have failed to address, except in blanket denials, the point of the post. Even if, as you say, the purpose of this message board is to provide an open forum for disucssion, why do you need to discuss the Church? It is pretty clear that you all have nothing but contempt for the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, its history. So why not just move on?

I don't believe in Scientology. It has no interest for me. I don't go to Scientology websites and tell anybody who will listen what a crock I think it is. Why would I waste my time?

So why are you wasting your time? I really would like to know the real reason.

[_beastie]

Mormonism had a significant impact on my life. It still impacts my life through my family. It also has a fascinating history, and one aspect of apologia in particular interests me due to my interest in Mesoamerica.

All of this add up to my enjoyment of discussing LDS issues.

This really isn't hard to understand. That believers find it so incomprehensible I think is more reflective of the fact that they don't want to understand, and would rather cling to the silly notion that "you can leave the church but can't leave it alone" means something about the truthfulness of the church.

I know that, to many believers, the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon. It actually doesn't even matter if the silent exmormon views the church with the exact same attitude as the vocal exmormon. The silent exmormon is SILENT, and that's all that matters.

Gee, now why would believers want exmormons to be silent??? Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, gotta think about that one. Ya think it has something to do with why scientologists want ex-scientologists to shut up, too?

[_Gadianton]

Oh by the way, to the point about critics fearing the Book of Mormon proven by archeological evidence and the faithful waiting for a dig to turn up something, I hope Charity realizes that the newer FARMS apologetics isn't holding its breath. Bill Hamblin has devoted several threads in the past few years to make these two points:

1) Because the Book of Mormon civilizations were destroyed, we would not expect any significant evidence.

2) Even if Book of Mormon ruins were discovered, there would be no way to verify them - the names of the cities in particular.

He makes these points in response to skeptics who ask where the evidence is. So Charity's extrapolations from finds in Old World are foreign to the thinking of critics and current apologists alike.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Sorry I was gone so long this morning. My shift at the Family History Center. I could have scotched some of the sidetrails with an earlier post.

You have failed to address, except in blanket denials, the point of the post. Even if, as you say, the purpose of this message board is to provide an open forum for disucssion, why do you need to discuss the Church? It is pretty clear that you all have nothing but contempt for the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, its history. So why not just move on?

I don't believe in Scientology. It has no interest for me. I don't go to Scientology websites and tell anybody who will listen what a crock I think it is. Why would I waste my time?

So why are you wasting your time? I really would like to know the real reason.

What if it was because we love you enough to tell you the truth?

Would you believe it?

[_beastie]

He makes these points in response to skeptics who ask where the evidence is. So Charity's extrapolations from finds in Old World are foreign to the thinking of critics and current apologists alike.

She does this type of thing frequently - make assertions that are contrary to current apologia. Either she doesn't really grasp current Book of Mormon apologia, or she isn't reading much of it.

This is why I've stated she should stop wasting time defending something she really doesn't believe in - LGT. She insists she does embrace LGT, but she certainly doesn't embrace what its current proponents are saying. So I guess it's some personal little version she's got going here.

[_Pokatator]

Sorry I was gone so long this morning. My shift at the Family History Center. I could have scotched some of the sidetrails with an earlier post.

You have failed to address, except in blanket denials, the point of the post. Even if, as you say, the purpose of this message board is to provide an open forum for disucssion, why do you need to discuss the Church? It is pretty clear that you all have nothing but contempt for the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, its history. So why not just move on?

I don't believe in Scientology. It has no interest for me. I don't go to Scientology websites and tell anybody who will listen what a crock I think it is. Why would I waste my time?

So why are you wasting your time? I really would like to know the real reason.

Charity, why are you here?

Why aren't you full-time at the Family History Center?

What drives you to be the board nanny?

Why do you need to defend the Church?

Why don't you just leave us alone to lick our wounds and worry about the next Book of Mormon discovery?

It is pretty clear that you have nothing but contempt for the ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, critics, different view points other than the Mormon party line, real scholarship, and etc., need I go on?

So why not just move on? I really would like to know the real reason.

[_beastie]

by the way, I don't believe in the ancient Mesoamerican religion, either, but that doesn't stop me from being fascinated by it.

[_Trevor]

You have failed to address, except in blanket denials, the point of the post. Even if, as you say, the purpose of this message board is to provide an open forum for disucssion, why do you need to discuss the Church? It is pretty clear that you all have nothing but contempt for the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, its history. So why not just move on?

Because we are having fun.