Three Powerful Books

[_mentalgymnast]

MG acting like the greatest cause in the universe is defense of some good against increasing evil...

Sure, it’s important to fight corruption and evil. More importantly on an individual level though?

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.”

That’s paramount. I think that is God’s wish and desire for His children.

[MG holds] onto the possibilty of a creator god and that is what matters.

I think that does matter, yes.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...you don't think evidence matters in determining truth or you should explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

Evidence is nice to have. It will also either support or not support biases already held. But because all the evidence is not in and we find contradictory evidence in some instances, we find ourselves choosing faith vs. faithlessness. What I’ve been arguing all along is that it is at that juncture...choosing...that we are subject to other influences. And they are many.

It is those influences that steer us towards belief or non-belief. And some of those influences are connected with our own psychological health and well being.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: "But it is pointless to think/believe that any one of us are NOT immune to Illusory Truth Effect and Mere-exposure Effect. I mean, that’s science, right?"

Gadianton: No it isn't, MG. The 'discoverers' of the "Illusonry Truth Effect and mere-exposure Effect" aren't immune to bias either. We can assume the theory is false, as you assume whatever idea a critic advances is false, on the criteria of author bias.

One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the other
By the time I finish my song?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG isn't a troll. His behavior can be troll-like, especially as conversations go on a long time and irritating people is his last hope, but threads like this one begin with a great deal of sincerity. He really believes in the Church, and he really believes certain discoveries he's made with books like Givens' would convince any impartial observer.

But none of us are impartial. That’s where we come up against a sticky wicket.

In one form/way or another that’s the argument I’ve been making.

I do agree with you. I’m no more a troll than anyone else here is. Although I can think of one or two folks I’d be hard pressed to not admit to thinking that their behavior, at times, is troll like.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

MG:

Why is belief in Mormonism necessary in your mind? Why is it necessary to even consider it? Your above comment about "choosing faith v. faithlessness" is artificial and wouldn't even come up unless some Mormon missionary came knocking and presented the false dichotomy.

Surely you have to admit that there isn't much by way of evidence to support Mormon claims. The rock and the hat was hidden from view or at least pushed to the side for over 100 years. Dr. Jenkins publicly pointed out to poor departed Dr. Hamblin that there isn't any evidence to support Nephites/Lamanites in the new world. Adam Clarke seems to be more of a father to Mormonism than the god with whom Joseph Smith claimed to be communicating. Today, "revelation" is in the form of scheduling changes and legal documents. President Nelson isn't going around supposedly healing the masses like Joseph Smith supposedly did when there was a cholera outbreak in Nauvoo. Today, the leadership seems more preoccupied with the Wall Street Journal than anything else. The meetings are monotonous. The temple is just more busy work when one realizes that Jesus or President Nelson could easily do the work for all at once. Jesus did it for everyone and so why not temple work for everyone? I guess getting members to give loyalty oaths to the church, over and over again, is a thing.

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, MG's worldview is moronic.

Moron:
1 a very stupid person.

2 a person affected with mild intellectual disability.

Where do I go from here...

Apparently my worldview doesn’t match with yours. I guess that says something.

Thanks,
MG

[_Lemmie]

MG isn't a troll. His behavior can be troll-like, especially as conversations go on a long time and irritating people is his last hope,

you are correct in calling mentalgymnast’s behavior “troll-like” rather than the obvious option. Now’s not the time to burden the mods with unnecessary tasks, right? Lol.

H: "One of the arguments from the Greatest Guesser fiasco that made me laugh was around the origin of the paper."

I'm glad you brought that up. If ever a paper was a product of sheer unrestrained bias, it's that one. There is no other possible way to account for the existence of the paper. With the credentials they have, absent brainwashing, they could easily be instructed on the countless fundamental errors they made in the paper. HOWEVER --- notice the point was made as an observation or passing comment about the work now and again by critics, but the hundreds and thousands of comments attacking the paper from both critics and believers alike were nearly entirely focused on the substance of the paper.

Regarding the Dales’ paper, I am quite surprised to see they plan to present it again.

[_Themis]

Evidence is nice to have. It will also either support or not support biases already held.

LOL The evidence did not support my bias, but it was more then enough to overcome those bias's. Probably because some of us have less over all bias then others.

But because all the evidence is not in and we find contradictory evidence in some instances, we find ourselves choosing faith vs. faithlessness. What I’ve been arguing all along is that it is at that juncture...choosing...that we are subject to other influences. And they are many.

All the evidence will never be in. This is wrong thinking. What we look for is sufficient evidence to make conclusions. That is all we can do. Insisting in all evidence being in is just a justification to continue believing what you want. This suggests a high level of bias.

It is those influences that steer us towards belief or non-belief. And some of those influences are connected with our own psychological health and well being.

It's all belief. Better to follow the evidence when looking at what is most reasonable to believe MG, instead of what you are doing.

[_honorentheos]

...you don't think evidence matters in determining truth or you should explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

Evidence is nice to have. It will also either support or not support biases already held.

But because all the evidence is not in and we find contradictory evidence in some instances, we find ourselves choosing faith vs. faithlessness.

What I’ve been arguing all along is that it is at that juncture...choosing...that we are subject to other influences. And they are many.

It is those influences that steer us towards belief or non-belief. And some of those influences are connected with our own psychological health and well being.

Regards,
MG

That's bananas. You are effectively saying evidence doesn't matter because there is always a chance new evidence can come in so ultimately you just choose to believe. And then justify that belief based on "influence". That's garbage.

It's true we can't know many, many things - really almost everything - with certitude so we have to make judgments to how probable a thing is or not based on the evidence we have. But that's not relying on faith or faithlessness. That's saying based on what we know now and the probability new evidence is capable of overturning that understanding, what seems most likely to me is "X". And using that to move forward with an acknowledged limit on what we know or don't about a thing.

It's why I can say I have a good deal of confidence the Book of Mormon is not a historical record. The evidence needed to overturn that would be seismic requiring DNA, archeology, biology, religious studies, world history, and numerous other fields to be so far off that we may as well have never left the 1500s. Is more evidence coming in? Sure. But it's incredibly improbable it will shake things up so much I have to toss my current understanding in the bin and start over. OTOH, Book of Mormon apologetics is reframing the Book of Mormon every other weekend. We have Early Modern English, LGT, heartland, inspired fiction, Hemispheric literal, etc., etc. You read new books like the three in the OP looking for that thing that finally snaps it all into place. That's your bias struggling with the probabilities the evidence is clearly laying out. You use faith as a fulcrum to rebalance the scale in what is clearly a ridiculous exercise when viewed from a distance.

Now, when it comes to God belief I tend to have a spectrum of probability. Is the God of the Old Testament, the New Testament, of Mormonism, of Islam likely to be real? Very improbable. So much so I have no issues living life according to an understanding those religious descriptions of an intervening creator deity are very unlikely to suddenly become the best explanation for the evidence we have around us. But is it possible there is/was something with some form of intelligence on the other side of the Big Bang? Hard to say. The BB is an event horizon beyond which we apparently can't know much about. Accordingly, I'm agnostic about that. I don't know how it affects me either way. Are we in a simulation? Less likely but maybe. Is there something beyond our three dimensional view of the universe that could, upon discovery really shake things up? Yeah, that could happen. Maybe anyway. And it could really flip things on its head. But what it incredibly unlikely to do is make Mormonism true or the Semitic myths the West inherited and evolved become literal.

It won't make the church in Salt Lake right about LGBT issues or Glen Beck right about US history. It won't make responsible alcohol consumption a moral issue or sex outside of marriage the most corrupted act next to taking another human life. It won't make having two earrings in one ear evil, or wearing a white shirt and a Norman Rockwell haircut virtuous.

And it won't make the Book of Mormon true.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Joseph Smith was a well known treasure digger from a family that itself was well known for being superstitious and constantly looking for a get rich quick scheme.

We know that nobody ever really saw the gold plates.

We know that the gold plates were not used in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.

We know that the Book of Mormon bears striking resemblance to other contemporary books, especially one that Joseph Smith's chief scribe, Oliver Cowdery, was quite familiar with.

We know Joseph Smith plagiarized much of his "translation" of the Bible.

We know that Joseph Smith was blatantly wrong in his "translation" of the Book of Abraham.

We know that Joseph Smith was fooled by the Kinderhook plates hoax.

We know that Joseph Smith never told anyone about the so-called "first vision" until over a decade after it happened, and after the church had been formed, and then changed his story about it several times before he died.

We know that he used his position of power to rape and sexually assault many women and girls, and used that power and influence to trick many women and girls into "marrying" him, regardless of their age or current marital status.

We know that he plagiarized much of the temple endowment from masonry.

We know that he engaged in an illegal banking scheme.

We know that he ordered the destruction of a newspaper printing press after it printed the truth about his secret polygamy.

Yet we are supposed to believe this is the guy "God" chose to be his so-called "prophet"? Is that about right? MG is beholden to a joke of a religion and no matter how many ‘nuanced’ angles he takes to compartmentalize his thinking he can’t avoid the irrefutable evidences of history and outright fraud and abuse of his followers.

Facts are real’er than feels. It is what it is.

- Doc