The last time Don appeared here it didn't seem to create intriguing arguments as to why he went from Atheism back to Mormonism. The Hart Book he told us to read was not impressive and he has had similar outcomes on other platforms. (Search exmormon reddit and you will find him using the same arguments).
An important question put in this thread pertaining to the genetic curse described within stories of Book of Mormon doctrine will never go away, not now, not years from now, and not ever.
Don, you are on the losing side of history -- you lose in your effort to entrap people into the confines of false religion through silly apologetic parallelism so aptly expressed in your book -- but how awful, Mormonism is slavery and retards the soul. You have made your choice, Don. I am sorry for you. I classify you as bedding down with liars and deceivers. Perhaps you are no better than them?
So be it. I rebuke Mormonism with my uplifted hand and with all the energy of my soul.
[An important question put in this thread pertaining to the genetic curse described within stories of Book of Mormon doctrine will never go away, not now, not years from now, and not ever.
Good point. Why curse the Lamanites with Asiatic DNA and what does that mean for Elder Gong?
The last time Don appeared here it didn't seem to create intriguing arguments as to why he went from Atheism back to Mormonism. The Hart Book he told us to read was not impressive and he has had similar outcomes on other platforms. (Search exmormon reddit and you will find him using the same arguments).
Don's arguments on the subject are pretty weak to everyone except Don and those who want to Cheerlead him.
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.
What you've witnessed is a dazzling display of stubbornness. I find it quite amazing!
I am always taken aback by your aggressive rudeness to people like Don. You know Don. I don't think Don has done anything to merit you being so rude to him. But you say it is MY problem that I am unwilling to cooperate with your rudeness and demanding behavior.
The last time Don appeared here it didn't seem to create intriguing arguments as to why he went from Atheism back to Mormonism. The Hart Book he told us to read was not impressive and he has had similar outcomes on other platforms. (Search exmormon reddit and you will find him using the same arguments).
Religious opinion is kinda like that. People on either side of the divide are often unconvincing to each other. I don't know that the next step following this should be rudeness. But, go figure, people on both side of the divide are rude to each other. Rude, dismissive, nasty even. I am frequently disappointed by this, and this thread is no exception. Don's refusal to participate here is likely to be a result of the kind of rudeness Shulem engages in here. I can tell you that Don is not afraid of any of you. Shulem included. The fact that Shulem and you are unlikely to be convinced by Don's reasons or arguments is no reason to be afraid of anyone, and he isn't afraid of you. What he is tired of, I am guessing, is the rude, dismissive behavior of people like Shulem and you. It is all the usual tiresome tribalism where the people who agree with you are brilliant and deserve cheers, while the people who come to different conclusions are morons, cowards, or what have you.
I had a run in with a couple of otherwise cool people on the chat of Mormonism Live who were ridiculing Don with the same kind of blanket sloppiness I see here. I can understand saying that you don't agree with him for believing in God or returning to Mormonism, but the complete dismissal of his historical work is unjustified and frankly makes the naysayers look dumb. D. Michael Quinn believed in Mormonism, and his historical work was/is valued by many critics. Don Bradley is a good historian, who has done excellent and illuminating work. Feel free to leave the belief in Mormonism aside. One of the geniuses of the Mormonism Live chat accused Don of apophenia, and that told me all I needed to know about his prejudice.
History is an argument based on evidence, not a live video of what happened. Historians do the best they can to use the available evidence and appropriate models to come up with the best hypotheses they can. Our appreciation of those arguments is too frequently dictated by our biases. I wish we could all recognize that faithful LDS historians can do good, valuable work, just as LDS critics who are historians can do good work. Usually, their work is best put to the test in peer reviewed publications, and the busy ones who have their priorities straight aren't wandering around the internet looking for people to argue with, when they could be working on their publications.
Don is not afraid of Shulem. My guess is that he looks at interactions with Shulem as a waste of his time. Shulem's attitude, like the attitude of many people here, tells you all you need to know about how persuadable they are. Honestly, I don't blame most LDS people for not coming here where they are painted in such a denigratory fashion and dismissed out of hand. I don't blame Don for not wasting his time on Shulem. His participation would be a waste of time that would mostly sate Shulem's need for attention. Increasingly I find myself uninterested in visiting this site. It is not that I disagree with the positions that people take. I agree that the Book of Mormon is at the very least racialist, if not racist. I do not approve of the methods of many LDS apologists, and I don't agree with their arguments. It is the nastiness here that gets old. I am tired of the negative emotions.
I don't say that to you to make any kind of announcement. I made no announcements here, although my words were misread as such. I don't expect people to change on my account or for anyone else, including Don. But, please, you have to be smart enough to recognize that people have other reasons aside from being intimidated by your arguments for not coming here. As for me, I am just tired of all of the negativity, and the demands that I do this, that, or the other because someone here did not understand what I typed and did not take the time to think about it. The fact that I can agree with much of the substance of what is written here and yet still feel unwelcome much of the time really says something to me, even if it says nothing to you. All this stuff about why you block Kishkumen and so forth. LOL.
I see Kish and Marcus both make these kinds of posts about “you’re not smart” a lot. They have very different ideologies. But the common factor seems to be that they were both in academia. There may be something about that background that doesn’t fit well with discussion on forums like this. Obviously the majority of the posters here aren’t from academia, and maybe it’s just difficult for the two to mix.
