kolipoki09 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Many posters here may be familiar with both of these individuals, both of which need no lengthy introductions. Aaron Shafovaloff: Apologist for Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism (and critic of Mormonism)Rodney Meldrum: Mormon author (proponent of "Heartland Model" for Book of Mormon Geography)Feel free to watch as both individuals square off and speak openly about Mormon issues.
Anijen Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I think Brother Meldrum did a good job with his testimony at the end, and I applaud him for that. I am not an expert on DNA so I couldn't comment on that part, however I am on the Bat Creek Stone and it is undoubtedly a fake. Other than that, good for Meldrum for his defense of the church and the Book of Mormon against an anti. Edited June 21, 2011 by Anijen
Mike Reed Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Meldrum did a great job, considering that Aaron is trying to trap him in his words while fanning the flames of tension between Meldrum and FAIR/FARMS. Edited June 21, 2011 by Mike Reed 1
Mortal Man Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Rodney Meldrum strikes me as a decent fellow, not nearly the monster FARMS makes him out to be. I am not an expert on DNA so I couldn't comment on that part, however I am on the Bat Creek Stone and it is undoubtedly a fake.What do you think JS would have said about the Bat Creek Stone?Other than that, good for Meldrum for his defense of the church and the Book of Mormon against an anti.I guess I missed the "anti" part. 1
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I take it you presume both people were there promoting the LDS church?
Mortal Man Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I take it you presume both people were there promoting the LDS church?We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 That wasn't the question.Do you believe both individuals are pro Latter-day Saint?Or do you believe one or both of them have a neutral attitude towards the church?Or do you believe that one or both of them work against the church?You see, it is your kind of cheekiness that undermines your credibility when you may actually have a real beef you want to raise regarding the church. Because the next time you say something, one will remember your post and realize that you really aren't an honest player in the debate. Your follow up answer merely underlines that point.Think about it. 2
Anijen Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I don't remember writing this I am deleting it. Edited June 21, 2011 by Anijen
Mortal Man Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 That wasn't the question.Have you ever noticed how sometimes the Pharisees, Sadducees and lawyers are sometimes afraid to speak their real thoughts for fear of the people, so they contrive some question designed to trip Jesus up, but Jesus simply bypasses their superficial question and directly addresses what's really in their hearts?Do you believe both individuals are pro Latter-day Saint?I wouldn't characterize Aaron as "pro" but not being "pro" doesn't equate to "anti". They both seem sincere in their beliefs.Or do you believe one or both of them have a neutral attitude towards the church?I really couldn't say. I'd never heard of Aaron until I came across this thread.Or do you believe that one or both of them work against the church?I don't see anyone working against the church in this video.You see, it is your kind of cheekiness that undermines your credibility when you may actually have a real beef you want to raise regarding the church.I don't see how quoting the 11th Article of Faith constitutes "cheekiness". It's something I hold dear and firmly believe in.Because the next time you say something, one will remember your post and realize that you really aren't an honest player in the debate.I have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little questioned, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ad hominem attacks.Think about it.I think long and hard every day about many things. But now I'm going to bed.
kolipoki09 Posted June 21, 2011 Author Posted June 21, 2011 the BCS is pure B**L S**TI'm going to channel Rabbinic Judaism and look for layered meanings in what you've just said. Yes, the Bat Creek Stone appears to be fraudulent, there is no doubt about it.As a Boise State football fan, I also find a second meaning to that message that many board members may also sympathize with.
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Have you ever noticed how sometimes the Pharisees, Sadducees and lawyers are sometimes afraid to speak their real thoughts for fear of the people, so they contrive some question designed to trip Jesus up, but Jesus simply bypasses their superficial question and directly addresses what's really in their hearts?I wouldn't characterize Aaron as "pro" but not being "pro" doesn't equate to "anti". They both seem sincere in their beliefs.I really couldn't say. I'd never heard of Aaron until I came across this thread.I don't see anyone working against the church in this video.I don't see how quoting the 11th Article of Faith constitutes "cheekiness". It's something I hold dear and firmly believe in.I have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little questioned, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ad hominem attacks.I think long and hard every day about many things. But now I'm going to bed.Lets be honest, you aren't knowledgeable enough to describe accurately a pharisee or a sadducee. Not even knowledgeable enough describe accurately a kitchy, caravan parking (ancient trailer park) pharisee or sadducee. So when you make the somewhat humorous attempt at speaking to the real issue, you in fact try to avoid the honest truth.. that being you refused to identify an anti Mormon who was obviously so. When confronted with the fact, rather than admit it (ie being honest enough to address what was really in the heart of the matter) you chose obfuscation.Now, when there is a real debate going on, you would want your valid point acknowledged correct? You wouldn't want some wannabe intellectual to try to sidestep the debate, change the issue or wrap himself in some kind of outrageous cloak of misplaced self righteousness, and openly discuss the issues clearly and plainly.If you want those things, then you should not do the very things you do not want others doing.Honesty is an important quality whose value should not be undermined with people playing around with words in order to avoid the truth. If you cannot for some reason deal with things truthfully, then why even bother posting unless it is merely the temporary inflation of a small ego?Jeff: State your opinions without insulting others.
Urloony Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I wouldn't characterize Aaron as "pro" but not being "pro" doesn't equate to "anti". They both seem sincere in their beliefs.Make no mistake, Aaron is very much an Anti-Mormon. I believe he sees himself as the new generation Ed Decker/Tanners. He spends a great deal of time handing out tracks on Temple Square and regularly posts on CARM.Most of the reasons Christians believe the Book of Mormon is from Satan have to do with authorship and association with the larger movement of Mormonism, not with the original meaning of the book itself[1]. Don't get me wrong, I think the book is ultimately of Satan too, but we should be more careful and thoughtful in giving reasons why.postHe also has an obsession with his own idea that we, as church members, teach that God was a sinner. This seems to be a new pet teaching he has developed and been espousing to Latter-Day Saints. He has an entire website dedicated to it.The inescapable logical conclusion to this that God the Father, as a pre-Godhood mortal, perhaps committed any number of the following sins: Adultery Arrogance Bestiality Blasphemy Bitterness Bribery Callousness Child abuse Coveting Cowardice Cruelty Drunkenness False prophecy Gossip Hatred The practice of homosexuality (the list goes on)
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.You must have an ... Ahem! ... interesting definition of the word "worship"!
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 ... I wouldn't characterize Aaron as "pro" but not being "pro" doesn't equate to "anti". They both seem sincere in their beliefs. ...A single interaction does not an entire history make! (Done speaking like Master Yoda am I! )
Anijen Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm going to channel Rabbinic Judaism and look for layered meanings in what you've just said. Yes, the Bat Creek Stone appears to be fraudulent, there is no doubt about it.As a Boise State football fan, I also find a second meaning to that message that many board members may also sympathize with.I apologize I do not remember writing that, I think I left my laptop open, or someone knows my password, or I am developing terrets or amnesia. I apologize again. I really do not remember writing that.
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Mortal Man,Are you even familiar with Aaron Shafovaloff? Or is this your first impression of him? Edited June 21, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
David T Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm generally not a fan of Aaron and his tactics (he usually really grates on me), but he really was on his best behavior in this video. He let Ron do most of the talking, and Aaron didn't really try for cheap shots.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) What do you think JS would have said about the Bat Creek Stone?Why don't you tell us, you seem to have a great gift for reading the minds of dead people. I lack that gift. Edited June 21, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mortal Man Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Mortal Man,Are you even familiar with Aaron Shafovaloff? Or is this your first impression of him?The video was the first time I'd ever seen or heard of him.I certainly don't think the BoM is from Satan.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm generally not a fan of Aaron and his tactics (he usually really grates on me), but he really was on his best behavior in this video. He let Ron do most of the talking, and Aaron didn't really try for cheap shots.I actually agree. Not to bad of a video. It is interesting to see Meldrum present some of his info though. All in all he did a great job. And if I was ignorant of a great deal of many things he would convince me that his model is right.
alter idem Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I think Brother Meldrum did a good job with his testimony at the end, and I applaud him for that. I am not an expert on DNA so I couldn't comment on that part, however I am on the Bat Creek Stone and it is undoubtedly a fake. Other than that, good for Meldrum for his defense of the church and the Book of Mormon against an anti.You're an expert on the Bat Creek stone? Could you recommend some books to read on the subject? I am interested in it. You say 'undoubtedly' it is a fake. But since others believe it is real, am I correct in assuming that it has not been proven to be fake? In answer to someone elses' comment about what Joseph Smith would have thought of it; I think he would have given it some consideration, rather than assuming it was fake. I believe most people in his day gave the archaeological finds the benefit of the doubt.
alter idem Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 The video was the first time I'd ever seen or heard of him.I certainly don't think the BoM is from Satan.I believe Aaron is one of those Evangelicals who has made it his calling in life to tell LDS that we are all going to h*** because we aren't 'christian' and we believe in a the wrong god and are following Satan. I think he's one of those who pickets church meetings to warn us of the eternal danger we are in. He may be associated with 'concerned christians'--who I think are 'concerned' about LDS and how we are 'deluded'. So, you can see that some LDS may not have happy feelings about Aaron Shavloff.And it was refreshing to open a thread which involved Rodney Meldrum and not have it be negative.
Anijen Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) You're an expert on the Bat Creek stone? Could you recommend some books to read on the subject? I am interested in it. You say 'undoubtedly' it is a fake. But since others believe it is real, am I correct in assuming that it has not been proven to be fake? In answer to someone elses' comment about what Joseph Smith would have thought of it; I think he would have given it some consideration, rather than assuming it was fake. I believe most people in his day gave the archaeological finds the benefit of the doubt.What questions you might have on this I probably can answer. But further reading you might want to look at Dubious Archaeology, 2011, Library of Congress by Kenneth L Feder He also wrote a book called Frauds, Myths and Mysteries. I have both if you want me to look something up for you. The best study I have found on the Bat Creek Stone is; Mainfort and Kwas, The Batcreek Stone Revisited" in the Journal of American Antiquity (2004) which is where I got a copy from EBSCO Edited June 21, 2011 by Anijen
alter idem Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.In what I know of Aaron, I agree. Aaron is 'promoting' his own religion. It is a religion of opposition to the LDS faith--rather an odd faith, but whatever...it's a free country. Joseph Smith did believe that all people should be able to worship as they pleased--and I believe Joseph would have supported Aaron's ability to speak out against our faith--as long as critics did not cross the line into preventing us from practicing our faith.Opposition is expected and we can still use it in fulfilling the church's mission to preach the gospel.
alter idem Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 What questions you might have on this I probably can answer. But further reading you look at Dubious Archaeology, 2011, Library of Congress by Kenneth L Feder He also wrote a book called Frauds, Myths and Mysteries. I have both if you want me to look something up for you. The best study I have found on the Bat Creek Stone is; Mainfort and Kwas, The Batcreek Stone Revisited" in the Journal of American Antiquity (2004) which is where I got a copy from EBSCOThanks, I appreciate your help. I have done some reading online on the subject but I was looking for something more in depth. I'll check them out.
Recommended Posts