Madb

[Casslan]

Is the MADB site down?

I can't get on. My computer comes up with this: HTTP 403 Forbidden

"This error (HTTP 403 Forbidden) means that Internet Explorer was able to connect to the website, but it does not have permission to view the webpage."

:confused:

[skalenfehl]

Madb?

[Flyonthewall]

Madb?

It is the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board.

I can get there this morning

Take a look Skalenfehl

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showforum=11

[skalenfehl]

Very interesting. I'll have to read more!

[Flyonthewall]

It's a more rough an tumble place, but I have learned a lot, not only about my own religion, but about the faith of others.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thanks, that looks interesting. There is so much out there that I don't even know exists!

[Ray A]

Very interesting. I'll have to read more!

MADB was originally the discussion forum of the FAIR website, but became independent of FAIR last year, about mid-year. FAIR still links to them, but they both stress independence. An informal board survey done last year showed that apologists only slightly outnumbered critics, but that may have changed since then as they appear to have clamped down on some critics. One rule is that if you make a claim and are asked by a poster to back the claim by evidence, you need to produce the evidence.

While opinions are allowed, whenever possible posters should provide sources, the full context of quotes, scriptures and other citations, and links to relevant information. If asked for documentation for your opinion, you will be expected to provide it.

No personal threads are allowed, though in some rare circumstances they will be allowed. So you can't start a thread about yourself, or any other poster active on the board. If you like the heat of debate, and to have your opinions regularly challenged, then you'll fit in.

[skalenfehl]

I've been pouring over some of the threads. I could spend months on one topic alone. One that caught my eye is a subject that has fascinated me since the early days of my mission--Book of Mormon geography and how it correlates with today's topography. I found a very interesting hieroglyph (sp?) of four symbols or so that (supposedly) mean "zalahemla". Apparently the Mayans did not use the letter 'r' but 'l' as, say, I think, the Chinese don't. Some of that stuff is over my head, but I think I can wrap my brain around it with enough time. My problem is time, or lack of it...

line upon line, I suppose. I bookmarked the site.

[Flyonthewall]

They have several forums there.

One for introductions(no debate),

one for member blogs(connected to blogs by individual posters),

one for Pundits (anyone can view, but post by invitation only),

one for discussion, (where most of the discussion and debate goes on),

and one for socializing(for congenial discussion, not necessarily church oriented).

Sounds like you went to the School of the Pundits. I see that as for the super braniacs, but interesting as far as I can follow it.

[MaidservantX]

You'll find me there, as Maidservant. I enjoy both MADB and FAIR. As flyonthewall said, it's a rough and tumble place, not exactly where you might want to send someone tender in the gospel. On the other hand, I can't think of any obscure question that hasn't been brought up and 'posted' to death for anyone who thinks they need or want to know everything about everything -- the supposedly "deep, dark secrets" of the Mormon church! :)

[Dale]

If the Book of Mormon was written in a scribal language i think it used an un-common "r." The word Zarahemla would suggest it did. Another problem is not everybody may have called a place by the same name. If the people inhabiting a site adopted a language without an "r" Zarahemla could have been likely dropped by those people as a popular place name.

I understand many languages existed in Meso-America. Such confusion of languages would have made the organized passing down of original place names difficult. (Genisis 11)

Unlike in Israel Meso-American place names have for the most part not even been passed down. And i understand we only know a few place names from late Book of Mormon times. And these are from areas mostly not proposed as Nephite territory. Brant Gardners review of Bible vs. the Book of Mormon is clearer on that point than i can be.

I am kind of burnt out with debating critics these days. I prefer instead seeking to help persons that are sincerely interested and want to know the answers. So as an RLDS person i prefer to hang out here with LDS, or on my Community of Christ message board. I do still post on the MADB board, but only on certain topics that i feel are important. I do not waste my time these days on convincing hard-core critics.

[Ray A]

I am kind of burnt out with debating critics these days. I prefer instead seeking to help persons that are sincerely interested and want to know the answers....I do not waste my time these days on convincing hard-core critics.

Ditto.

[Flyonthewall]

In the short time I have been on MADB, I have definately seen the same things brought up as new, time and again. That is when things can get...vigorous.

This forum is a bit more cordial.

[Moksha]

Is the MADB site down?

(HTTP 403 Forbidden) :confused:

Perhaps they are not allowed to do apologetics on Sunday or else they are gathering more eggs for their baskets.

I may need to log on to Mormon Discussions later to find out what the problem was.

[Ray A]

In the short time I have been on MADB, I have definately seen the same things brought up as new, time and again. That is when things can get...vigorous.

This forum is a bit more cordial.

I think this is a correct observation. I posted on MADB since 2004, and have nearly 4,000 posts there, but little is really new, and much is rehashing the same subjects over and over. Nevertheless I still read it, and follow posters like Dr. Peterson (who is always informative and entertaining), Kerry Shirts, and the inimitable Juliann. Few threads really capture my attention now, but once in a while one or two are riveting reading, especially when started by Juliann, who is not known for being shy or timid.

[Elphaba]

I think this is a correct observation. I posted on MADB since 2004, and have nearly 4,000 posts there, but little is really new, and much is rehashing the same subjects over and over. Nevertheless I still read it, and follow posters like Dr. Peterson (who is always informative and entertaining), Kerry Shirts, and the inimitable Juliann. Few threads really capture my attention now, but once in a while one or two are riveting reading, especially when started by Juliann, who is not known for being shy or timid.

Oh my gosh Ray! I really really like you, and can't imagine how we could possibly be so polarized on our "favorite people from MADD"!

I've already described my feelings for Peterson, although I left one thing out: Whenever he was starting to lose the discussion, he inevitably had to leave because he had to catch a plane for Yomgietg, Elgwagawamakalaka.

Next, KS. I could never stand the juvenile attempts at humor in his signatures, i.e., "Lord "Ugh that was doggone BAD!" K" Additionally I find his scholarship similar to Nibley. A lot of parallels pulled together that could mean a lot of things, but chosen to mean what he wants them to mean.

However, I do think his work is worthwhile. I have enjoyed reading it and do find his scholarship very interesting. What I said above I do believe, but I do not believe it to be true in total. BTW, I just conducted a search for him, and he seems to have backed off on his silly signatures. True?

And then J! You find J riveting? I found her revolting! Her never-ending college graduate wannabe ramblings:

J: "If you want to take Mormon history seriously you must look to Claremont now."

Everyone else: "Excuse me? Who are you?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Her fixation on the "catastrophic event," even when people would explain to her it hadn't been that way for them.

Her sneering and rigideness. Her obvious attempts to join the other board in conversation to prove her superior, Claremont credentials, only to be pounded because she didn't have any mods (including herself) protecting her. Her lying, (such as her conversation with Mauss) her refusal to apologize even when she'd been caught red handed (this happened to me with her), her refusal to "hear" anyone, her inability to understand that a non-member does not equate an "anti."

I had one encounter with her where I talked about polygamy, stating it is still practiced by the Church as defined by its doctrine. This happens when a man marries his second, third, etc., wife in the temple. She immediately became belligerent and snide, impertinently insisting I was wrong, etc.

Within a week or so, on another thread, she was arguing the exactly same point that I had made!

Classic J!

The two major reasons I left MADD were Juliann and Pahoran. IMO, they brought the board's morale so down I it was toxic to me.

Ray, in MY opinion, you always seemed to be riding the fence, and if that is true, I can see how you'd enjoy these three. I can see how members would enjoy them as well, as they were tired of the "antis" who did indeed come onto the board thinking they were going to trip everyone up with the tired old "Joseph married other men's wives" kind of crap. It drove me nuts as well, but then I just quit reading those threads.

For me, not being an "anti," but not being a member either, I just found their humor to be impudent and presumptuous. I also found their serious posts to be always pedantic and dismissive, before confirming someone was a troll or a serious seeker. Also, K was the only one who wasn't enamored of himself, IMO.

I did enjoy the Pundit Board though. It was unfortunate it didn't have more action.

I am very glad you found your way to this board. I think you'll like it.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

Interesting post (as usual) Elphaba. I'll add my 2 cents.

I've already described my feelings for Peterson, although I left one thing out: Whenever he was starting to lose the discussion, he inevitably had to leave because he had to catch a plane for Yomgietg, Elgwagawamakalaka.

Actually, Dan does travel a lot, and he's also a busy bishop who also frequently attends conferences related to his academic work. When he left for Australia he was also accused of "running away". His critics, btw, were impressed with his Australian lectures on Islam at various universities. Whatever "board opinion" of him is, I take a different view of the real life person.

Next, KS. I could never stand the juvenile attempts at humor in his signatures, i.e., "Lord "Ugh that was doggone BAD!" K" Additionally I find his scholarship similar to Nibley. A lot of parallels pulled together that could mean a lot of things, but chosen to mean what he wants them to mean.

Kerry is imitating Uncle Dale in those signatures, as UD was the one who started this trend. And UD is another very informative poster who holds very balanced views of Mormonism, and quite respected on MADB. I pick and choose what Kerry writes on his website, and I find his online library of information often useful, even if I don't always agree with his interpretations.

BTW, I just conducted a search for him, and he seems to have backed off on his silly signatures. True?

Only because they were imitations of UD in the first place.

And then J! You find J riveting? I found her revolting! Her never-ending college graduate wannabe ramblings:

Juliann has always been controversial, and that's what makes her interesting. She possibly has as many critics as George Bush. I think she is far more liberal in her opinions than many realise, or she gives away. She'll sometimes come down hard on "TBMs" too, but her critics ignore this. I was once a fierce critic of her too, about five years ago. Time and experience mellows, at least in my case.

The two major reasons I left MADD were Juliann and Pahoran. IMO, they brought the board's morale so down I it was toxic to me.

Well, our differences of opinion widen even more here (but I still like you too). Pahoran is pure entertainment. Sordid confession: His polemics often leave me in fits of laughter. He's very skillful with words and knows how to go for the jugular (and sometimes reproved by the mods, like when he was recently told to stay out of a thread or face suspension). Again, another whom I once fiercely criticised many moons ago.

Ray, in MY opinion, you always seemed to be riding the fence, and if that is true, I can see how you'd enjoy these three. I can see how members would enjoy them as well, as they were tired of the "antis" who did indeed come onto the board thinking they were going to trip everyone up with the tired old "Joseph married other men's wives" kind of crap. It drove me nuts as well, but then I just quit reading those threads.

My "riding the fence" has also been called "flip-flopping" (a term that highly amuses me). One thing you should note, Elphaba, is that I am criticised by both TBMs and critics (anti/ex-Mormons). The critics hate when I defend Mormons or Mormonism, and some of them have gone to extra-ordinary lengths to try to discredit me. I am unfazed, but have no desire to waste anymore time with them. I haven't always been flavour of the month with apologists, either, but I am and have been for a long time now a "Mormon sympathiser", and I do believe the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, and that Joseph Smith gave some very powerful revelations. This, perhaps, is what makes me sympathetic. But I'm not orthodox, and this can ruffle LDS feathers, but I don't believe Joseph Smith was orthodox either. Current Church orthodoxy is something that has evolved since the 1950s, much enhanced through people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, and we see this in their anti-evolution, sometimes anti-science, and anti-intellectual commentary. I think, frankly, Joseph Smith would not pass most of the orthodoxy tests today. His mind was far more open on many subjects, and he once said that when he revealed something new the Saints "fly to pieces like glass", because of tradition, and they "cannot stand the fire". If you will comprehend God, then your mind must expand through deep contemplation of the things of God, and he also said that if he revealed all he knew, some among his "friends" would rise up and kill him. One time he gave a sermon on the word of wisdom, then the next day rode down the main street smoking a cigar. Some might call this devious and hypocritical, but it was his way of getting a message across. Dr. Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon academic who has studied Mormonism in great depth, once wrote that Joseph Smith was one of the most complex human beings who ever lived. I fear sometimes the Saints don't understand this part of his character, and have instead generated sanitised views, which is often why critics pounce on them. Sanitised history has, in my opinion, done far more harm to Mormonism than all the critics combined. When you hear from an enemy what your friend should have told you, no dagger pierces more deeply. I have discussed this at length in many places, so will not go into the details of my opinion. It's not all the Church's fault, but often well-meaning "faith-promotion" can do far more damage than historical truth and historical criticism. Dr. Peterson once said that I often write "uncomfortable things", uncomfortable things for Mormons too, which is why I haven't always been flavour of the month. I don't classify it as fence riding, or flip-flopping. I simply like to call a spade a spade, and try to speak and write the truth, as I see it. Neither "side" particularly befriends me, and both think I'm "working" for the "other side". I can live with that.

What has turned me against critics is their sheer antagonism to Mormonism, and the fact that no barrier is too great in their obsessive desire to "expose Mormonism". This is how Dr. Peterson described it, and I doubt you'll agree with his summary, as most exmos haven't. He's describing RFM:

But this doesn't exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people they don't know and haven't even met--against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the Church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the Church--Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the jargon of the board--are routinely stereotyped as insane, tyrannical, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, greedy, foolish, rude, poor tippers, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread--and I'm not making this up--devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of Church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring--who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi. Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Reflections_on_Secular_Anti-Mormonism.html

So yes, I "see" their point of view, and I see it clearly. If that is riding the fence, then so be it.

I did enjoy the Pundit Board though. It was unfortunate it didn't have more action.

The Pundit board does seem rather dead now, and I notice that it's now open to public viewing, which is wasn't before. Maybe it's much of an ornament now.

I am very glad you found your way to this board. I think you'll like it.

I actually started posting here when the new format and board was started by Heather. You'll see this by my registration date. A host of anti-Mormons came here with their "enlightenment approach", some with the intention of destroying faith because they considered themselves of superior intellect. I came here to oppose them, but most of them were quickly banned anyway, and rightly so, so I stopped posting when they were banned. I like informed and civil discussions, but unfortunately when I get among angry ex-Mormons I lose my cool too easily. Their endless gripes and complaints and sour bickering, as noted by Dr. Peterson above, is just too much for me to wear.

[MorningStar]

You'll find me there as .... uhhhhhhhh ......... Oh yeah. MorningStar.

[Ray A]

You'll find me there as .... uhhhhhhhh ......... Oh yeah. MorningStar.

I forgot to mention that Morning Star's humour was one of MADB's bright spots for me.

[Moksha]

I forgot to mention that Morning Star's humour was one of MADB's bright spots for me.

She is still good here too. :) It is good that she and Elphaba are here.

If I remember right, Ray A. and Dan P. got together during Dan's Australian speaking tour. Never did find out if they searched for the Sydney Krispy Kreme together.

I was sort of attached to Severian over there for a while. I understand he is currently on a mission to the outer planets. Not sure how many converts he has made.

[Ray A]

If I remember right, Ray A. and Dan P. got together during Dan's Australian speaking tour. Never did find out if they searched for the Sydney Krispy Kreme together.

I notified the Krispy Kreme bakers beforehand that they'd need extra stock in September 2007. Sales apparently skyrocketed, with several universities reporting running out of Krispy Kremes, particularly after the lectures on Islam.

I was sort of attached to Severian over there for a while. I understand he is currently on a mission to the outer planets. Not sure how many converts he has made.

Apparently the mods didn't like Severian's sense of humour. I suspect his MADLite version was incompatible with serious apologetics.

[skalenfehl]

Well, I find a lot of the topics fascinating, and I'm sure I'll spend a lot of time reading there, but I doubt I'll register there. I've had my share of debates but I never tire of sharing my testimony.

[Ray A]

I've had my share of debates but I never tire of sharing my testimony.

Then you probably wont fit in:

Do not use the boards to proselytize (pro- or anti-)....Appropriate statements of faith (or lack thereof) in the context of apologetic discussions are permitted.

(Board Guidlines)

[Flyonthewall]

Then you probably wont fit in

I agree with Ray:

I would suggest that you peek in there for a while to get the feel of the environment, and then make up your mind as to whether it is your type of board. It isn't everyone's "cup of herbal tea".

[skalenfehl]

I enjoy peeking, lol. I've already read through some good posts. I'm working on Poulsen's work right now.