The role of critics at MAD

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

The role of critics at MAD

Post by beastie »

I finally struck gold by accident in a reply to Moksha, if I may say so, modestly of course, myself.

The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark. Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
Sam Harris
God
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:35 pm

Re: The role of critics at MAD

Post by Sam Harris »

beastie wrote:I finally struck gold by accident in a reply to Moksha, if I may say so, modestly of course, myself.

The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark. Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.


In other words, "due to my poor aim, I'm gonna need you to take my arrow and put it through the apple on your head".

Lovely. :-)
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi

User avatar
Bond...James Bond
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm

Post by Bond...James Bond »

The critics at MAD have to fit one of two forms:

1) Very educated people who are very moderate and polite in their speech and are willing to control the passion level of their responses in order to stay on the board.

2) Mainstream Christians who can always have Biblical inaccuracies thrown at them.

It should also be noted that no one is allowed to say anything bad about the Mormon Church, its Prophets, or its secret/sacred temple stuff. Any common sense critical questions are rejected with canned answers, and anyone (or any critic anyway) who shows any passion is rejected as a bigot.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07

User avatar
Sethbag
God
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am

Post by Sethbag »

What do you guys think of this thread?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22256

I thought it was a pretty good thread. And I thought that the TBMs looked pretty desparate by the end of it, or else completely brainlocked like that Tandy guy who said Joseph Smith just wanted to provide tabernacles so some spirits could go down into a good Mormon home instead of somewhere else.

Do you guys think this thread was powder puff? Do you think I mindless kept my speech polite and tossed softballs for the TBMs to hit out of the park?

I do think it's telling that the thread was eventually locked, and without anyone having Godwined it or anything like that.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

The role of critics at MAD is simply to provide a foil for believers/apologists. We're supposed to be fairly one-dimensional characters whose only purpose is to provide a contrast in which the superiority of the apologists/believers is made stark.


I take it to be the main role of LDS critics everywhere. You are playing your part in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13)

Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.


It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'.

User avatar
Sethbag
God
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am

Post by Sethbag »

BCSpace, and the TBMs are just playing their role from the parable of Brian.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

BCSpace, and the TBMs are just playing their role from the parable of Brian.


Moi? Why thank you!

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

I did read that particular thread and enjoyed it, Sethbag, and was not surprised it was closed, particularly when a believer actually admitted sex might not just be involved, but be the entire purpose.

I'm not saying that critics agree to play the role of foil - most don't. Foils are fictional characters, because real human beings won't stay within two dimensional boundaries.

What I mean is that this is the role the TBMs who run MAD envision, and it is why they are in a state of discontent and frustration. I think they have more or less admitted this by reiterating that the board is for believers, to provide the more experienced apologists an opportunity to refute critics, thereby helping the less experienced. Reality is not accommodating, however - I think for obvious reasons.

So, no, critics aren't obliging and throwing softball questions to the believers. But that is precisely what is so irritating to them, and why critics will continue to be banned at a fast clip. I still think your days are numbered.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

Quote:
Don't get uppity, accept your part in the play, and you'll do fine.



It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'


You misunderstand what I mean by "uppity". "Uppity" means refusing to stay within the imaginary role by bringing up topics that are very difficult to successfully refute.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

It doesn't work as well unless you do get 'uppity'

You misunderstand what I mean by "uppity". "Uppity" means refusing to stay within the imaginary role by bringing up topics that are very difficult to successfully refute.


It's exactly what I am referring to. We do ourselves a great diservice by not taking the hardest questions head on. Given past experience, just because a question gets left unanswered for a while does not mean the LDS Church is suffering in any way.

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

It's exactly what I am referring to. We do ourselves a great diservice by not taking the hardest questions head on. Given past experience, just because a question gets left unanswered for a while does not mean the LDS Church is suffering in any way.


Ah, now I get you. So what is your opinion of how MAD is currently run, and its stance on vigorously censoring/banning critics?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

Ah, now I get you. So what is your opinion of how MAD is currently run, and its stance on vigorously censoring/banning critics?


They generally do all right though I would agree that there have been at least two or three 'friendly fire' incidents. The rest I don't know enough about to formulate an opinion though judging by the behavior of some on this board, if that same behavior showed itself on the MADB board, I have no problem with such being banned.

I have other disagreements about some subject matter and opinions they won't allow, but it's their board and I can post on those subjects easily enough here or on the other boards I inhabit.

There are those on that board with plenty of capability. I think you should invite them to come out to play. I invite them myself as I find the LDS criticism on this board to be weak. I think we LDS could easily dominate the discussion here and by domination I mean irrefutable argument.

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

There are those on that board with plenty of capability. I think you should invite them to come out to play. I invite them myself as I find the LDS criticism on this board to be weak. I think we LDS could easily dominate the discussion here and by domination I mean irrefutable argument.


Now that I would like to see. In fact, I'd just about pay money to see it.

However, I really have given up on serious dialogue with believers. Perhaps you can convince me it's not hopeless.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

There are those on that board with plenty of capability. I think you should invite them to come out to play. I invite them myself as I find the LDS criticism on this board to be weak. I think we LDS could easily dominate the discussion here and by domination I mean irrefutable argument.

Now that I would like to see. In fact, I'd just about pay money to see it.


Why pay money when I am giving you a free show? ;)

However, I really have given up on serious dialogue with believers. Perhaps you can convince me it's not hopeless.


My experience has been that as soon as a critic realizes he is up a creek, he resorts to invective and logical fallacy.

Of course I don't claim to be knowledgable on all subjects, but I do my best.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

beastie wrote:
There are those on that board with plenty of capability. I think you should invite them to come out to play. I invite them myself as I find the LDS criticism on this board to be weak. I think we LDS could easily dominate the discussion here and by domination I mean irrefutable argument.


Now that I would like to see. In fact, I'd just about pay money to see it.

However, I really have given up on serious dialogue with believers. Perhaps you can convince me it's not hopeless.


I've pretty much given up, as well.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

My experience has been that as soon as a critic realizes he is up a creek, he resorts to invective and logical fallacy.

Of course I don't claim to be knowledgable on all subjects, but I do my best.


Funny, that's what believers do as well.

My personal area of interest is the fit of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, if you're interested in taking that on. For starters, here is a link to several lengthy essays I've written on the subject.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... esoamerica

Of course, my boyfriend is about due at my house, and we're having a big birthday party for my son tomorrow, so I probably won't be posting much the rest of the weekend.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

My personal area of interest is the fit of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica


I am comming up to speed on that though not anywhere near as good as I should be. I am more of a pure scriptorian and fairly well read on early Christian history.

But I noticed this while looking at your article......While 3 Nephi 21:14 is indeed a reference for horses, do you really think that, given the context, it's speaking about horses in the Americas during the time frame that is up for debate?

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

It's hardly crucial to my theory, so you can disregard it if you want. I didn't use it in my more detailed analysis. However, I find it illogical to suggest that Jesus would use a term that would make absolutely no sense to the natives.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22053
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by moksha »

bcspace wrote: While 3 Nephi 21:14 is indeed a reference for horses, do you really think that, given the context, it's speaking about horses in the Americas during the time frame that is up for debate?

You mean it could have just been a reference to small prehistoric horses? Makes sense. Perhaps there were some archaeological hobbyists among the Nephites. It is a fascinating subject after all.


I would like to go back to BC's statement that the critics should be asking the most rigorous questions of the apologists. Seems like this process is being circumvented at MAD through their moderation policies. What do you think?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

beastie wrote:It's hardly crucial to my theory, so you can disregard it if you want. I didn't use it in my more detailed analysis. However, I find it illogical to suggest that Jesus would use a term that would make absolutely no sense to the natives.


Or how about St. Paul and St. Jude quoting mythology as if scripture?

rcrocket

User avatar
Sethbag
God
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am

Post by Sethbag »

rcrocket wrote:
beastie wrote:It's hardly crucial to my theory, so you can disregard it if you want. I didn't use it in my more detailed analysis. However, I find it illogical to suggest that Jesus would use a term that would make absolutely no sense to the natives.


Or how about St. Paul and St. Jude quoting mythology as if scripture?

rcrocket

Well, considering that I and others don't believe in the words of St. Paul and St. Jude anymore than we believe in the words of the made-up LDS scriptural prophets, what's your point? The Bible is just as mythological as anything else out there, and appealing to comparisons with the Bible may work on evangelicals, but not on probably most of the critics on this board.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Eyepatch, huckelberry and 17 guests