I'm going back to church!

[_truth dancer]

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 don't forget the girls right along with the women!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Trevor]

How many people join the LDS Church based on those claims it makes that can be submitted to scientific scrutiny, or at least, feel that Mormonism meets the demands of a naturalist epistemology reasonably well?

How many believers, having really examined in detail the historical and scientific evidence concerning LDS claims, lose their faith in Mormonism or have to refashion it significantly to adjust to their new understanding of the facts?

[_moksha]

"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," Gardner said.

"What we know today about the Book of Mormon is more right than what we knew 10 years ago, and what we knew 10 years ago had some misconceptions. Our opinions will continue to change in the future, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of the book."

Mr. Gardner is right - even if underlying assumptions of literalness and historicity are wrong, the symbolic truths remain. He is also right that change is inevitable.

[_Runtu]

Mr. Gardner is right - even if underlying assumptions of literalness and historicity are wrong, the symbolic truths remain. He is also right that change is inevitable.

I would imagine that it's the book's message that is important, not its historicity. But then I've been told (most recently by why me) that such is not the case.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Yikes! Anyone checked out some of the comments to the article?

Am I supposed to believe in a software engineer over the word of DNA/Genetic scientist? That's an intellectual mis match. I am a mechanic, maybe I can try and become a key note speaker at an Economics seminar.

I will never look at a scientists "findings" as fact. They can say what they want, but I for one will believe what I feel in my heart where the Book of Mormon is true or not. I have read it and I believe it to be true. A scientist can print anything he/she wants but it won't make me believe any other way nor can anyone else.

The Flat Earth Society would welcome with open arms the likes of Brant Gardner and his Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum. And speaking of Brant Gardner's spiritual software, he could use a serious upgrade.

Gardner is one of the more prolific apologists defending the Book of Mormon against scientific evidence. LDS apologetics is primarialy made up of non-professionals writing outside their area of expertice.

The real problem for the Book of Mormon is its historicity. Nothing matches reality. It fails all historical, anthropological, archeological, and reasonable scientific tests. If you think it's only "anti-mormons" who think this take your best evidence for the book to a regular academic professional and see how they view it. Take the Book of Mormon to a mesoamerican archeologist or a Mayan expert. Take the Book of Abraham to a Egyptologist. Take the quotes from the brass plates inside the Book of Mormon to a scholar of the Hebrew Bible.

It's interesting how science is completely dismissed by Mormons when its conclusion don't support Mormonism, yet fully embraced when it does.

I note that many of the attacks equate software engineer to biologist. Who are you going to believe? But I am familiar with Brant Gardner's work. He knows his stuff when it comes to Mesoamerica. The two so-called LDS scientists, on the other hand, either know virtually nothing about Mesoamerica or about DNA. One is an anthropologist. Why would HE know anything more about DNA than a software engineer? The other is a biologist who, while knowing a few things about DNA, knows nothing about Mesoamerica. Put them together and you get a remarkably ignorant view of ancient America. And they are supposed to be the experts??
Brant Gardner, on the other hand, specialized in Mesoamerica. He can read their languages. He is a top authority on Mesoamerican culture. And he sees many hits between the Book of Mormon descriptions of society and what he knows about Mesoamerica. Which do you think is the authority here?

David Farnsworth

Alright....I could link to several more I think are funny....but it's easier to just read the comments for yourselves. Those were just a few (at the top) that I thought were interesting.

[_Trevor]

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.

Well said all around, Sethbag. I have always wondered whether converts would have joined the LDS Church had they been told this story:

Joseph Smith was a young farmboy who was well-known for being able to find things with a special rock that he put in his hat. He led teams that looked for the treasure of Captain Kidd in western New York and Pennsylvania. One day, an angel told him where he could, for the first time, find a treasure that people had assumed existed on a particular hill. He went alone to the hill, but the angel would not give it to him. Finally, after he got married, the angel gave him the treasure, which was a book engraved on gold plates. God only let a few other people see his gold book, which God told the farmboy to translate into English. Most of the time he translated, the farmboy only looked at his rock. He didn't even need the plates, because the strange words and their English translation appeared to him in vision as he stared at his rock. When Joseph was done with the translation, the angel took the plates back, and no one has ever seen them again.

With a story like that, no one would even think of bothering with DNA evidence, would they?

[_cksalmon]

It seems to me that only in Mormonland could a "rebuttal" be synonymous with saying, "Hey, there's actually no problem here at all. Anyone who thinks that there is a problem is obviously intellectually wedded to preconceived ideas about what might constitute a problem and doesn't realize that the Book of Mormon is actually true--no matter what some non-LDS might think about it."

I'm sure his talk went over great with the crowd. "Fweww!" *rubbing forehead clean of sweat* "I guess there really is no problem here at all." *Checking it off the list* "No problem here, per Brant." *Feeling better now*

And if any MB-savvy LDS does happen to think there is a problem, let's consign their posts to the non-critical LDSforums.

It's a double-whammy. No problem. If you think there is, why don't you talk to some folks who couldn't imagine a problem with Book of Mormon historicity even if it came up and severed their legs with its teeth.

Meh.

CKS

[_Polygamy Porter]

Yikes! Anyone checked out some of the comments to the article?

Alright....I could link to several more I think are funny....but it's easier to just read the comments for yourselves. Those were just a few (at the top) that I thought were interesting.

Indeed James ol' boy, I parsed the article and read every comment!

[_Polygamy Porter]

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.

Well said all around, Sethbag. I have always wondered whether converts would have joined the LDS Church had they been told this story:

Joseph Smith was a young farmboy who was well-known for being able to find things with a special rock that he put in his hat. He led teams that looked for the treasure of Captain Kidd in western New York and Pennsylvania. One day, an angel told him where he could, for the first time, find a treasure that people had assumed existed on a particular hill. He went alone to the hill, but the angel would not give it to him. Finally, after he got married, the angel gave him the treasure, which was a book engraved on gold plates. God only let a few other people see his gold book, which God told the farmboy to translate into English. Most of the time he translated, the farmboy only looked at his rock. He didn't even need the plates, because the strange words and their English translation appeared to him in vision as he stared at his rock. When Joseph was done with the translation, the angel took the plates back, and no one has ever seen them again.

With a story like that, no one would even think of bothering with DNA evidence, would they?

I just wanna see the goddammned stone box.

[_Gazelam]

Here is a waterproof stone box found in Titicaca, Isla Del Sol. Moronis was probably very similar: