Analytics gives a response that Gemli might agree with:
Let me summarize my point. I had claimed that there is practically no evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is or could be true and that there is overwhelming evidence that it is false. I said that apologists ignore the vast majority of this evidence, rationalize it away, and/or put it on the shelf. You adamantly disagreed with this, took offense, and alluded to intelligent Mormons as evidence of the religion’s alleged plausibility. I responded with references that point out that cognitive psychology proves that intelligent humans are very good at using their intelligence to defend and rationalize irrational views and that this is the norm, not the exception.
To illustrate my point about the overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon that is ignored by apologists, I pointed out that mainstream quantum mechanics proves that all Mormonism’s supernatural elements are impossible. Without understanding even the basic structure of these specific arguments, you waived it away, made up some random rationalizations, grabbed some miscellaneous examples of scientists having been wrong in the past, and then put it on the shelf.
Mfbukowski gives the quintessential LDS defense, minus any legalistic sophistry:
The objective is NOT to find objectivity or correct history, but the matter studied should lead one to a FEELING OF SWEETNESS IN ONE'S HEART.
The problem with MF Bukowski's position of the prominence of feelings is that it isn't anchored to anything. It can be whatever anyone wants it to be. I could get good feelings from a good meal or the devil's cookbook or scientology or Mormonism. He simply cannot be sure that his is the correct path for anyone other than himself. So, how does one justify preaching his brand of Mormonism to anyone without a huge disclaimer? How does one justify asking for money based on mere good feelings? Sounds like "The Secret."
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Dr. Stak wrote:I wish he'd have taken it a step further and just say being a mopologist devalues what it is to be a Mormon.
That would have been an epic response. 'bukowsk is a leeuniverse level conquest, unfortunately.
I'm sure as an academic, time isn't something you have gobs of laying around, but I do encourage you should it be feasible, to visit Sic et Non and boast about your Phd. Let them know how important you are, and all the places you have travelled to and eaten lunch at.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
I wonder why no one at MD&D mentioned Nahom or the usage of "Adieu" in the Book of Mormon as proof of its veracity? What about those pygmy mammoths from 3,700 BCE on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean? Why isn't that board responding with their most exacting proofs?
The thread has a link to https://evidencecentral.org/, part of the Book of Mormon Central family. The very firs piece of evidence is "Abinadi wore a disguise..."
If that is the the level of evidence that is worthy of publishing, why even try?
I think Mormonism Live could so some episodes or even occasional segments looking at these published "evidences." They are quite entertaining and mind boggling.
I mean, using DCP's level of evidence as eViDeNcE you could just say the Book of Mormon used words to convey a story, and since we all use words, it's extremely compelling eVidEnCe that the Book of Mormon is so, so true.
by the way, Dr. Midgley turned 90. Happy Birthday.
Wait, what? If that's true, then he was born in 1931. He's clearly too young to be a World War II-era veteran, so I'm guessing that all his military exploits took place during the Korean War?
.
"Clarity from Mormon God only comes in very critical instances like convincing Emma that Joseph needed to sleep with other women."
--drumdude, 02-28-2026
