FARMS Actually Converted an Atheist With Evidence for Book of Mormon

[_Philo Sofee]

Robert Boylan, a Mormon scholar(?) apologist(?) member, posted this a few days ago, of an atheist gent (former I should say) who was convinced of the evidences FARMS established for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. So chalk it up to FARMS, they did make an atheist convert. I wonder though, why all atheists don't see the light, and all unbelievers find any of Nibley's materials or Sorenson's or FARMS arguments, logic, and evidenced conclusions convincing... What a victory if the world (is it too much to ask for just another 1000 atheists out of the many millions that exist?) actually became convinced instead of a single, negligible solitary individual here and there every now and again once a century found it true. This says vastly more about the quality of evidences than the lone ranger type of conversion that is more rare than genuine and fulfilled prophecies coming out of Russell M. Nelson.
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com ... r-day.html

Why is the evidence so truly inferior to critical analysis, and not convincing to the world's truly intelligent folks? I suspect because it isn't hardly as strong as suspected.

Here is Marcel's testimony (in French)
https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/ ... rcel-kahne

[_Flaming Meaux]

That's not even a particularly good example. He mentions being "in his fifteenth year" when he started meeting with the missionaries, and then was baptized when he was 21. He describes coming from a family of "non practicing Jews," many of whom were murdered in concentration camps when he was six. At that point he claims to have started his quest to find meaning in life--starting with the Jewish tradition, then Catholicism, and then Mormonism. There's nothing in his own testimony that would lead one to believe he was atheistic from a truly considered philosophical position (by which I don't mean to state that he wasn't "a true atheist" in the not-a-true-Scotsman fashion, there just wasn't anything about his testimony that indicates that he had concluded at any time that there wasn't any God--it just mentions him having the general questions of "what's the point of this?" which doesn't necessarily mean someone is an atheist).

He's also reading the 'very convincing FARMS' material when he's a teenager, so forgive me if I suggest that possibly his critical reasoning faculties were not 'fully polished' at the time, if you know what I mean.

Mormons and evangelicals are so desperate to have seeming 'intellectuals' in their camp that they'll pull out the '(s)he used to be an atheist' irrespective of whether it applies to the particular case or not, it seems.

[_Philo Sofee]

That's not even a particularly good example. He mentions being "in his fifteenth year" when he started meeting with the missionaries, and then was baptized when he was 21. He describes coming from a family of "non practicing Jews," many of whom were murdered in concentration camps when he was six. At that point he claims to have started his quest to find meaning in life--starting with the Jewish tradition, then Catholicism, and then Mormonism. There's nothing in his own testimony that would lead one to believe he was atheistic from a truly considered philosophical position (by which I don't mean to state that he wasn't "a true atheist" in the not-a-true-Scotsman fashion, there just wasn't anything about his testimony that indicates that he had concluded at any time that there wasn't any God--it just mentions him having the general questions of "what's the point of this?" which doesn't necessarily mean someone is an atheist).

He's also reading the 'very convincing FARMS' material when he's a teenager, so forgive me if I suggest that possibly his critical reasoning faculties were not 'fully polished' at the time, if you know what I mean.

Mormons and evangelicals are so desperate to have seeming 'intellectuals' in their camp that they'll pull out the '(s)he used to be an atheist' irrespective of whether it applies to the particular case or not, it seems.

Thank you for the update! I don't read French very well, but I was suspecting something along these lines. Now if a Dawkins, or Meier or Barker or Eller would convert? Oh just DAHHHHHHYYYYYUUUUUUUMMMMMMM! That would move mountains!

[_Res Ipsa]

That's not even a particularly good example. He mentions being "in his fifteenth year" when he started meeting with the missionaries, and then was baptized when he was 21. He describes coming from a family of "non practicing Jews," many of whom were murdered in concentration camps when he was six. At that point he claims to have started his quest to find meaning in life--starting with the Jewish tradition, then Catholicism, and then Mormonism. There's nothing in his own testimony that would lead one to believe he was atheistic from a truly considered philosophical position (by which I don't mean to state that he wasn't "a true atheist" in the not-a-true-Scotsman fashion, there just wasn't anything about his testimony that indicates that he had concluded at any time that there wasn't any God--it just mentions him having the general questions of "what's the point of this?" which doesn't necessarily mean someone is an atheist).

He's also reading the 'very convincing FARMS' material when he's a teenager, so forgive me if I suggest that possibly his critical reasoning faculties were not 'fully polished' at the time, if you know what I mean.

Mormons and evangelicals are so desperate to have seeming 'intellectuals' in their camp that they'll pull out the '(s)he used to be an atheist' irrespective of whether it applies to the particular case or not, it seems.

Thank you for the update! I don't read French very well, but I was suspecting something along these lines. Now if a Dawkins, or Meier or Barker or Eller would convert? Oh just DAHHHHHHYYYYYUUUUUUUMMMMMMM! That would move mountains!

Why would it move mountains? If Dawkins jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?

People do things for emotional reasons, and then back rationalize. I don’t think a prominent atheist converting to Mormonism would be evidence of anything other than how weird brains are.

[_krose]

As Flaming indicates, this guy didn’t claim to have been an atheist, but from a non-practicing Jewish family killed at Auschwitz. He does say the Catholic concepts of God and trinity he had to learn in school were confusing, but that’s still not atheism.

Also, he was converted at age 14 (1950-ish) by the missionaries telling him the Smith vision story, and by the standard read-and-pray method. Then he read Nibley and found him convincing, and decades later, working as a church translator, read FARMS material and thought it was great.

So to sum up, not an atheist, and not converted by FARMS.

[_Flaming Meaux]

I’ll just note that one of the original links has his testimony in both French and English—I’m not 100% at reading French, either. ;)

[_I have a question]

As Flaming indicates, this guy didn’t claim to have been an atheist, but from a non-practicing Jewish family killed at Auschwitz. He does say the Catholic concepts of God and trinity he had to learn in school were confusing, but that’s still not atheism.

Also, he was converted at age 14 (1950-ish) by the missionaries telling him the Smith vision story, and by the standard read-and-pray method. Then he read Nibley and found him convincing, and decades later, working as a church translator, read FARMS material and thought it was great.

So to sum up, not an atheist, and not converted by FARMS.

This. And he was a child. Without Internet access. Who converted thinking; Joseph wasn't a polygamist; the Book of Mormon was translated using the actual gold plates and a pair of stone spectacles; the Book of Abraham was literally a translation of actual papyrus; blacks were in fact black because they were cursed for one reason or another, drinking Coca Cola was a sin, the first vision account was THE First Vision account. That's what FARMS back then would've told him.

If 14 year old Marcel is the best claim they have about their influence (and it must be) they should be ashamed and apologetic about wasting their lives on a bunch of stuff that a. has been unsuccessful in converting anybody and b. has been reversed and replaced with what used to be declared anti-mormon material, but is now endorsed as "Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days". Their own Church has made them a laughing stock to both critics and members alike.

[_Kishkumen]

Um. Uh. Yawn.

[_Maksutov]

We should encourage FARMS in this thinking. Let them walk into the buzz saw.

[_lostindc]

Surprised Dawkins converted anyone, but then again, I believed in the Church narrative for a period of my life, so who am I to judge.

I am not a philosopher, I am just a nobody, but I found Dawkins to be kind of crappy at philosophy compared to other pop atheists. Not a big deal.