Historicity of _American Primeval_
- bill4long
- Apostle
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Why is it that Mormon apologists try to do what the "prophet, seer, and revelator" guys should be doing?
Identifying as African-American Lesbian who is identifying as a Gay Man and a Gay Journalist
Pronouns: what/me/worry
Rocker and a mocker and a midnight shocker
Pronouns: what/me/worry
Rocker and a mocker and a midnight shocker
- dantana
- Stake President
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:07 am
- Location: Joined 7/18/11, so, apparently, position of senior ranking member.
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Shades, I'm sorry that you had the movie spoiled for you. I'm not going to apologize though for not posting 'spoiler alert'.Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:42 amAAARGH!!! >:-( >:-( >:-(dantana wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:21 amIt's always a sure sign of a good bad movie when the writers can't figure out how to wrap things up and tie up loose ends...so they just kill off everybody. Since I don't want to take the time to look up character names - Half scalped guy, whom the writers want us to like, knowing that it's the white guys that did the dirty, goes ahead and saddles up with the white guys to go kill natives, and in the process kills his sweetheart. Then kills himself. Yeah, I know, they both needed to die to protect the white guy secret but, you didn't you have to turn him into a bad guy to do it. As for Dudley, I guess the writers felt they hadn't put in enough disappointment and carnage so... no California for him and Nell.
Would it have killed you to type "Spoiler alert" before typing all of those spoilers??
Quite often I record sports events on TV to watch later in the evening. When I sit down to watch later with my Coors original and my laptop for surfing the Mormon boards, I am careful not to click on any news sites, or whatever, that might by chance give away the game results. That is on me to do. If you have not yet watched a movie then I think that it is on you to not click on a thread discussing the movie, and not just rely on there not being an un-thoughtful dolt who forgets to post 'spoiler alert'.
Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever. - Lee Marvin/Monte Walsh
- sock puppet
- 2nd Quorum of 70
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
That is a loaded question. The 15 posers know they're just a corporate board of directors. While Joseph Smith Jr blabbed left and right with numerous versions of supposedly seeing Jesus, the suits in SLC claim it is too sacred to talk about when asked if they have seen Jesus (ref. the late Boyd K Packer) even though they claim to be 'special witnesses of Jesus Christ.' I suppose the special part of their witnessing is remaining steadfastly silent about it. Now that's a unique twist on witnessing.
Now, the Mopes. They thirst for some revelation. But it seems but for a few crumbs of change when each man in succession first assumes the prophet throne, it seems Elohim too must be pretty silent. Mormons seem to be slouching towards being Deists. Big E just doesn't have much to say, or doesn't trust revealing such to the 15 posers in suits. So--well, now what can a poor Mope do? Except sing for a rock and roll band? Oops. That would take talent. That won't do. So instead they conjecture and put words in the mouths of the silent 15 posers, sort of like their having fed Carla Ogden in the spring of 1993 with verbiage from Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism and asking her to fax it back to them and pronouncing it to be a correction from the First Presidency. Voila. There is revelation after all, particularly that which will support their favorite pet theories.
Continuing revelation? Laughable.
"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving god, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs." Sam Harris
-
- Nursery
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:09 am
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Which is fine because my interest is in the italics.Fence Sitter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:33 amBy the way, according to Kent Jackson in his 2001 article Joseph Smith's Cooperstown Bible, the Phinney Bible was based on a Bible from the Cambridge University Press and not the Oxford one.
Regardless of what can be said about the origin of the tables, lists, and layout of the Phinney Bible, the evidence suggests that the text itself derives ultimately from contemporary Bibles of the Cambridge University Press, probably by way of the Collins quarto and Elihu White’s quarto published by D. D. Smith. In a comparison of over three hundred verses between the Phinney and the Collins, I found only rare and inconsequential differences in punctuation, and all are likely attributable to typographical errors. In contrast, comparisons with Carey and some other contemporary Bibles showed many more punctuation differences. Collins noted that he took his text from an Oxford edition of but comparisons of punctuation and orthography between Collins and contemporary British Bibles show Collins to be virtually identical to a Cambridge edition but significantly different from an Oxford edition. The Elihu White Bibles are closest to Phinney in spelling also, again suggesting a common genesis. Whatever the origin of all these Bibles may have been, it is safe to say that the texts of American Bible makers such as Collins, Elihu White, and Phinney descended from a respectable and mainstream King James tradition. In spelling, Collins and related Bibles like Phinney differ from the archaic system of Oxford Bibles of their generation and follow the more modern spelling used then by Cambridge.
- Dr. Shades
- Founder and Visionary
- Posts: 2683
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
I've watched the first two episodes, so I'm invested enough to discuss its historicity but simultaneously don't want the ending to be spoiled.dantana wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:18 pmShades, I'm sorry that you had the movie spoiled for you. I'm not going to apologize though for not posting 'spoiler alert'. . . If you have not yet watched a movie then I think that it is on you to not click on a thread discussing the movie[.]Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:42 amAAARGH!!! >:-( >:-( >:-(
Would it have killed you to type "Spoiler alert" before typing all of those spoilers??
-
- God
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
The Church is only transparent about those things that have already been made public by other people. It’s not a proactive thing. Apologists don’t see the need to be transparent at all. Ever.Moksha wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:04 pmUp until the Church historian admitted the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened, the apologists at the MAD board would claim otherwise. Why? Because Mormon apologists believe they are commanded to Lie for the Lord. Dishonesty is an inherent part of their nature due to their understanding of that commandment.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:44 amBecause that's long been the Church's modus operandi.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
- Gadianton
- God
- Posts: 5331
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Right, the Church will never tell the truth unless it's essentially forced to.IHQ wrote:The Church is only transparent about those things that have already been made public by other people. It’s not a proactive thing. Apologists don’t see the need to be transparent at all. Ever.
Now what about the apologists? Why aren't they forced?
The best I can tell is there's no incentive. The apologists take criticism very personally and if there's a primary aim, it's to lash back at those who they feel have lashed at them. The Church is a cold, faceless corporation that doesn't care about its members, but at the same time, isn't opposed to doing tiny amounts of customer service in order to maintain the sale. Corporations love to do surveys not because they want to help the customer, but to know what psychological tactics to employ to maximize the amount of money they might separate from the customer. That could mean accepting returns unquestioned with a smile. It leads to sayings like, "the customer is always right". That means, of course, during the interaction with the customer. The missionary guide of my day was all about this stuff. Never tell the investigator they are wrong. Always keep it positive.
In a way, the Mopologists are more "real". They are never, ever going to do "customer service" as such, but while there could be some selection for the job in play, what it takes to be a PR guy for a faceless corporation vs. a Mopologist, the main difference is the incentive. The members, online or otherwise, aren't their customers. Tithing doesn't get paid to the apologists. At best, the customers are other apologists who are also angry with critics, and so there may be an incentive to do the opposite and make the critic as irate as possible.
My theory is that in general, to the small extent the Church supplies apologist organizations with money, it does so to retain the loyalty of the apologists and their affiliates more than in a hope the apologists are going to reactivate or convert anybody.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
- dantana
- Stake President
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:07 am
- Location: Joined 7/18/11, so, apparently, position of senior ranking member.
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
After giving it more thought, and consulting with my attorney, Lawyer, J. Noble Daggett I have decided to withdraw my non-apology. I instead offer up an Alford apology, a.k.a. an - I'm sorry, but - apology. In legal terms it means I admit to no wrong-doing but concede that I could be convicted by a jury of your peers.Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:21 amI've watched the first two episodes, so I'm invested enough to discuss its historicity but simultaneously don't want the ending to be spoiled.
Now, I wanted to keep fighting, since finding twelve peers of Mr. Dr. Shades would be neart impossible. (Grammar o.c.d., acronym-o-phobia, DJT disease and the sense of humor of a sore footed sorrel) Lawyer Daggett though said, let it go, be the bigger person, don't stir the pot. So I did.
Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever. - Lee Marvin/Monte Walsh
- Physics Guy
- God
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
- Location: on the battlefield of life
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Some people here have reported that Mormon apologetics actually made them believe less in the Mormon church. Some found the apologists’ tone and manner disgusting, while others were appalled to discover that the apologists’ poor arguments were really the best the Mormon church had to offer.
But now it occurs to me that these reports of apologetic counter-effectiveness are self-selected. The people who were turned off by apologists are more likely to post here about them.
Is there an unseen majority who were sent back to church with rejuvenated faith by reading Mormon apologetics? How could we tell if this were or weren’t so?
I was a teenager before it was cool.
- Gadianton
- God
- Posts: 5331
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: Historicity of _American Primeval_
Well, certainly that's true of this forum.But now it occurs to me that these reports of apologetic counter-effectiveness are self-selected. The people who were turned off by apologists are more likely to post here about them.
I doubt it. You could count me as one who wasn't turned off by the apologists for their tone (for 10+ years at least). I had issues with truth content of apologetics and shelved it on my mission. But even for many years after my mission I would not have had an issue with tone until I encountered it first hand. And it wasn't them being rude to me, but towards people who I didn't feel were deserving of the treatment.Is there an unseen majority who were sent back to church with rejuvenated faith by reading Mormon apologetics? How could we tell if this were or weren’t so?
I would say look at other Mormon forums and Mormon fads in general. Traditional Mopologetics is dwarfed by projects like Meldrums. At family events I have those few people who I talk to, and nobody even knows who FARMS is or they've barely heard of it. Everyone knows who Meldrum is. We live in a post-truth world where people want a story and an identity. They want to be part of the America First movement Mormon style, where America was consecrated by Moroni himself. If not that then they're more likely to be inspired by Julie Rowe than DCP. A very few want to approach it scientifically, and if they were out there, we'd see them building on the work the Mopologists have established. Where are the young Mormon scholars continuing the LGT research? The new MI has young scholars doing postmodernist stuff.
I suppose you could suggest there are a silent bunch who have been helped. Somewhat like Mental Gymnast when he claims to be speaking to the lurkers who he imagines are silently agreeing with him. How many books has Interpreter sold? How many tickets the 6days sell? They've got Steve Smoot, and who else?
I can make a suggestion that I can't prove, but that's sheer speculation. Going back for the longest time, you can't take courses on Book of Mormon geography and topics like that. I think I saw maybe one or two courses during the times I looked at course offerings, and you had to get permission to take them. I make the suggestion that there is a big problem with continuing the Mopologists research, a similar problem that flat earthers have.
BYU students aren't stupid. it's a delicate balance to maintain the compartmentalization, and I wager it would be dangerous to offer courses merging subjects like archeology with the Book of Mormon. It's one thing to be dazzled by Nibley's brilliance while he's talking fast, but to drill down and build up the tools required to pick apart his claims? Well, not likely to work out.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance