Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

It was Pahoran-esque behavior from multiple posters, many of whom surprised me with their vitriol. Genuinely personal, vile comments were aimed at her that went ignored by the mods. Pointing it out resulted in threats of banning. It was bizarre. It also showed that she had hit a deep nerve, too. I think many people who spend time defending the Book of Mormon online in forums like these viewed Brants work as unassailable. But also, I think it has a certain last line of defense quality to it, too. So when it was assaulted and shown to be quite vulnerable, the response wasn't measured and calm.

It was by Brant though. He is a scholar and a gentleman.

Regards,
MG

We agree he is a gentleman. His arguments are garbage though.

[_honorentheos]

And he avoids questions about how people can be believing LDS, have read these apologetic's, and yet end up rejecting Book of Mormon historicity.

I don’t think this is the first time that I’ve said that I fully understand that some people will read the apologetics and end up rejecting Book of Mormon historicity. I don’t know that that’s even open to question.

That doesn’t make them right.

Regards,
MG

It's not the apologetics that people read and realize the Book of Mormon isn't what they'd been taught it was. It's the scope and breadth of scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon being an actual historical record. The apologetics are attempting to convince people all of that evidence doesn't matter. Some attempt it by appealing to subjective experiences people have with the book. Some attempt to reframe the evidence. Others attempt to argue the social and personal value of the Book of Mormon is what one should focus on rather than it's value as a book about a past culture. But they all are also responding to non-LDS focused evidence. And they want you to ignore what the science shows to be the case. All reading the apologetics contributes to that is revealing how bad the arguments are against the overwhelming evidence it is a work of fiction.

DNA studies weren't invented to evaluate the Book of Mormon. Archeology and anthropology weren't developed because someone was out to prove there weren't Nephites. There are great arguments against the Book of Mormon in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel that he had no intention of seeing compared to Mormon claims about the domestication of plant and animal species in the new world. The vast, vast majority of the most damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is oblivious to the Book of Mormon existing, just like most people are ignorant about Mormonism.

God belief doesn't make Nephites any more possible. It requires a will to ignore facts in favor of Mormonism. But Nephites weren't real so the evidence is never going to swing in favor of that position. It's that simple.

ETA: My favorite Mormon Expressions podcast that relates to the above: http://johnlarsen.org/podcast/Archive/M ... sion67.mp3

[_Themis]

That’s not what I’m saying. It’s rather simple. No God, no Book of Mormon given by the hand of God/angels. If there is a God the door is open for belief in the Book of Mormon. But not by necessity. Again, it’s rather simple.

The problem is you are not dealing with lifelong atheists here. Almost every atheist or agnostic here was once a believing member of the LDS church and is aware of many of the arguments presented in those books you are promoting. Any questioning members are already open to the Book of Mormon being true. The problem is not atheists, but member's discovering the evidences showing the Book of Mormon is not historical. LDS apologia just helps us see they don't have good answers to the problems of the Book of Mormon.

[_mentalgymnast]

It's the scope and breadth of scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon being an actual historical record. The apologetics are attempting to convince people all of that evidence doesn't matter.

It does go both ways.

https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/blo ... -of-Mormon

And so forth...

Those threads, links, and conversations are available all over the internet and in books and other publications. You’ve seen them. So have I. We look at the evidence and weigh other contributing factors differently. And that’s fine.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

It's the scope and breadth of scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon being an actual historical record. The apologetics are attempting to convince people all of that evidence doesn't matter.

It does go both ways.

https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/blo ... -of-Mormon

And so forth...

Those threads, links, and conversations are available all over the internet and in books and other publications. You’ve seen them. So have I. We look at the evidence and weigh other contributing factors differently. And that’s fine.

Regards,
MG

LOL It most certainly does not go both ways. If it came even a little close you would not see so many believing members stop believing the Book of Mormon as historical.

[_mentalgymnast]

It does go both ways.

https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/blo ... -of-Mormon

And so forth...

Those threads, links, and conversations are available all over the internet and in books and other publications. You’ve seen them. So have I. We look at the evidence and weigh other contributing factors differently. And that’s fine.

Regards,
MG

LOL It most certainly does not go both ways. If it came even a little close you would not see so many believing members stop believing the Book of Mormon as historical.

I think you and I both know it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

Mere repeated exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of a person’s attitude toward it.

Check out “ Mere-exposure effect” on Wikipedia.

Also check out “Illusory Truth Effect”

The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University. When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical, as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new, unrepeated statements, leading people to believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received.

Believer...Non Believer. The same psychology is at play. It does work both ways. Mere-exposure effect and Illusory truth effect have taken you to where you’re at.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Lol. You really should read the clips before you cut and paste, Mentalgymnast.

illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure

You know, false information like stories about ufos, BigFoot, the Three Nephites, Lamanites, reformed Egyptian, and the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical document. Your wiki categories are referring to you.

Mere-exposure effect and Illusory truth effect have taken [me] to where [I’m] at.

[Guest]

It's the scope and breadth of scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon being an actual historical record. The apologetics are attempting to convince people all of that evidence doesn't matter.

It does go both ways.

https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/blo ... -of-Mormon

And so forth...

Those threads, links, and conversations are available all over the internet and in books and other publications. You’ve seen them. So have I. We look at the evidence and weigh other contributing factors differently. And that’s fine.

Regards,
MG

This is an example that proves the point. An apologetic website lists five items of evidence FOR the Book of Mormon. And then focuses on either attempts to show minor elements of the story such as metal plates, barley, and cement being discovered after the Book of Mormon was published are evidence. Or, in the case of the NHM alter and seal, artifacts are getting tied to Book of Mormon stories in ways outside archeologists ignore because it's just more Mormon hobby horse behaviour.

That's not an example that shows the evidence cuts both ways. It's trying to scramble out an argument to explain why there is no evidence of the people described in the Book of Mormon In the archeological record but instead apologetics have been reduced to finding hints of Nephites among the real, historic peoples who were decidedly not Nephites, Lamanites, or any other Book of Mormon -ites.

Belief in God doesn't change that. Wanting the Book of Mormon to be real is what leads to what you and Book of Mormon Central are doing. But that's swimming against a very strong current of evidence which is indifferent to the Book of Mormon as most scientists whose studies overlap just find it irrelevent. Coe dismissed the Book of Mormon as an expert on the Maya because an expert doesn't find Mayan culture in the Book of Mormon. Now folks like the Dale's and Gardner go about playing hide and seek "finding" Nephites in the serious work of archeology. But the serious archeologists recognize it for what it is. And that's how the evidence works here, MG.

[_mentalgymnast]

Lol. Read the clips before you post, Mentalgymnast.

Figured that you or someone would come back with this. Mere-exposure effect has played with your mind.

Are you not subject to conditioning influences?

I am. Am I no different than you?

Illusory Truth Effect

Mere-exposure Effect

We’re all subject to these psychological conditioning influences.

Like I said, it goes both ways. In my opinion, however, it’s important to see the human condition for what it is. We’re all subject especially to the ‘behind the scenes’ conditioning of Mere-exposure effect. It occurs in many respects beyond our conscious control.

I don’t know how you can be so dang sure of yourself and that your beliefs/views in looking at the world are inherently correct...rather than possibly corrupted or infected with false ideology or psychological influences beyond your control. It was recently that you said as much in regards to familial influences that had an impact on the way you view God...or the non-existence of God to be more exact. And that was something you were actually able to articulate.

What about all the other stuff along the way occurring through Mere-exposure effect. Day by day, Month by month, year to year?

You’re not immune.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

And you’re not immune either honor.

Regards,
MG