I'm going back to church!

[_Runtu]

This seals the deal:

DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

[_Yoda]

OK, you gave me heart failure when I read the title of this thread. LOL

Great article!

The article should be named:

"How Many Ways Can You Twist a Pretzel Before It's Likely to Snap?"

[_barrelomonkeys]

Ahaha! Oh, I looked at the title of this thread and have resisted the urge to peek in for a few minutes. Good grief Runtu!

[_Jason Bourne]

OK, you gave me heart failure when I read the title of this thread. LOL

Great article!

The article should be named:

"How Many Ways Can You Twist a Pretzel Before It's Likely to Snap?"

Gotta agree with Liz on this one. It seems like a lot of hoops are being jumped through.

[_Runtu]

OK, you gave me heart failure when I read the title of this thread. LOL

Great article!

The article should be named:

"How Many Ways Can You Twist a Pretzel Before It's Likely to Snap?"

Gotta agree with Liz on this one. It seems like a lot of hoops are being jumped through.

The funny thing is that Brant says on the one hand that the DNA issue is "nothing new" and sneers at Southerton and Murphy for thinking the issue is "shocking" for some. And then in the next breath he tells us some church members are shocked at the DNA evidence to the point that they are almost ready to leave. Which is it?

[_Inconceivable]

The "Bottlekneck" theory.


Yeah right.


Kimball called a news conference in the early 70's. The only thing he said went something like this, "Today ushers in the Day of the Lamanite".

What Lamanite?

He served a mission among the Lamanites - the Navajos.
He loved the Lamanites.
He did more for the lamanites than any other prophet.

Didn't he create the Lamanite exchange program? To think these kids in our homes in the 60's and 70's were imposters...

[_Who Knows]

Gardner said Murphy's claim that the book is "a piece of 19th century fiction" is based less on his own scientific research than on his own preconceived notions about it. "He didn't believe in the book before and went off looking for things that would support his view. He gives us information about what science is doing, but he is making a conclusion that supports what he had already decided."

Oh brother. What a gem.

Then Gardner goes on with this:

"We're often trying to compare our traditions versus science, but what does the Book of Mormon actually say? ... No matter how many opinions someone might have about the Book of Mormon, if the opinion is wrong, it's the opinion that's wrong and not the book,"

ROTFLMAO. What a tool.

[_harmony]

Gardner said Murphy's claim that the book is "a piece of 19th century fiction" is based less on his own scientific research than on his own preconceived notions about it. "He didn't believe in the book before and went off looking for things that would support his view. He gives us information about what science is doing, but he is making a conclusion that supports what he had already decided."

As if Brant doesn't do this? As if every apologist at FARMS doesn't do this? As if the church doesn't require that FARMS do this in FARMS' mission statement?

Why is it that these people cannot see themselves in their own words?

[_Some Schmo]

I saw the title of this thread and checked the calendar to see if it was actually April 1st.

I got about five paragraphs into that article and closed it with disgust.

[_Sethbag]

Harmony hit the nail on the head. The FARMS crowd, and the MAD apologist and apologist-wannabe crowd all start out with a premise that the church is certainly true, without fail, and then set about looking for things that can serve as evidence to demonstrate that. The whole apologetic mindset is that the church is definitely true, and all their preparation, all their research, and all of their desire is to be ready and able to offer good arguments in defense of anything that comes up to cast the church's truthfulness in doubt.

What gets me is that they like to keep it focused on just one thing at a time, and act like the Book of Mormon problems are the only problem the church faces, and forget that the Book of Abraham is even more obviously made up by Joseph Smith than the Book of Mormon. When you stop focusing on just one thing at a time an take in the "big picture" view and see the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham problems together, at the same time, it's just painfully obvious that it's not looking good at all for Joseph Smith's "translated from ancient records" homegrown scripture.

Add in all sorts of other evidence, such as the obvious deceipt and manipulation of women in Joseph Smith's sexual escapades with dozens of other women, some already married, mostly behind his real wife's back, and it becomes completely and totally obvious that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be, and that the church subsequently isn't what it claims to be. All of the belief, all of the hype, all of the success of the church in surviving and growing doesn't mean anything at all, when viewed in the context of the world's religions in general, where all sorts of obviously-untrue religions like the JWs also survived and thrive.

It's very important to me personally to accentuate the "big picture" view. It's really only looking at all of it at once, where it becomes so plainly obvious that the church isn't what it claims to be. Looking at it all at once, you realize that all of the Book of Mormon apologetics, all of the Book of Abraham apologetics, all of the Joseph Smith mega-sexcapade apologetics, are all attempts to shove their finger in a hole in the dike, hoping you will see it as a successful defense, and not notice the fifteen other people standing around with their fingers in holes in the dike too. Stand back and look at it and you realize the dike is holier than swiss cheese.