Do you believe the plates existed?

[Gadianton]

"There is, but you won't look at it!" Meaning that the "evidence" is just the witnesses' testimonies

You know, this is a great point. Has DCP ever told the story of the tile brick even if just to mock it?

On the one hand, his line of attack is that nobody is looking at the evidence but if they do, then they aren't qualified, and if they are, then they haven't read enough on Mormon topics. But at the same time, he knows that even the mere suggestion of naturalistic explanation is very dangerous for his TBM readers. Critics don't have to beg believers to take it seriously, they just need to get the bare idea into the believer's head and irreparable damage begins immediately.

[Doctor Steuss]

I would like to bear my testimony, that the Brick of Mormon is true...

[Moksha]

The plates are the MacGuffin of the story, much like the Maltese Falcon in Treasure of the Sierra Madre. They were introduced just to get the story going.

"Forget about the gefilte fish, we are going to eat the gefilte fish already."
-- Sleeper

[Gadianton]

Brick of Mormon

LOL!

I challenge somebody to mention "Brick of Mormon" at Sic et Non and see if they get banned for it!

[Doctor Scratch]

Brick of Mormon

LOL!

I challenge somebody to mention "Brick of Mormon" at Sic et Non and see if they get banned for it!

I think DCP has banned pretty much everyone except for Gemli.

[Marcus]

I would like to bear my testimony, that the Brick of Mormon is true...

Priceless.

[drumdude]

Kyler writes like an insufferable teenager:

My only point here would be that, whatever purpose Sagan and Hitch and Gemli have found, I don't think it was sourced from atheism. For all that I find inspiring from both Sagan and Hitchens, atheism is neither its wellspring nor its foundation. As Gemli would likely say, atheism is merely a lack of belief, and that lack is a black hole that sucks up trust in the divine and offers nothing in return.

And the things that tend to remain after that black hole has done its work--an admiration for nature; a thirst for creativity; an abiding concern for humanity and the human condition--fit comfortably within a theistic worldview. Theism takes the philosophical underpinnings for those ideas and infuses themwith the enduring rebar of divine worth, ultimately saving them from the twin rots of nihilism and relativism.

Because one thing the data make clear are that for every Hitchens and Sagan and LaneWolfey are the unseen casualties that have taken the implications of atheism to their logic conclusion. Those are people who would've likely benefitted from the habits of prayer that Gemli's happy to toss into the fire.

Whatever purpose Kyler has, it wasn't sourced from Mormonism. Mormonism is just a thin superficial veneer on top of Christianity. But whatever turned him into an ignorant prick probably did come from the LDS church.

[Fence Sitter]

Apologists demand that critics climb over the molehill of the witnesses while simultaneously ignoring the mountain ranges of evidence of a 19th century production of the Book of Mormon.

[Dr Exiled]

It's ironic that critics have to climb over the molehill of the witnesses while apologist ignore the mountain ranges of evidence of a 19th century production of the Book of Mormon.

It speaks volumes. When I was younger as many here can probably attest, the theory spoken in the foyer was that the Aztecs were the Nephites and the Olmecs were the Jaradites. DNA, anthropology and archeology killed that pet theory. So, we are left with the delusional or lying witnesses.

[malkie]

It's ironic that critics have to climb over the molehill of the witnesses while apologist ignore the mountain ranges of evidence of a 19th century production of the Book of Mormon.

It speaks volumes. When I was younger as many here can probably attest, the theory spoken in the foyer was that the Aztecs were the Nephites and the Olmecs were the Jaradites. DNA, anthropology and archeology killed that pet theory. So, we are left with the delusional or lying witnesses.

Your last sentence makes me wonder: in these days, might it have been a common thing for "witnesses" to testify to things that seemed "normal" then, but not so much now? To testify of things that were beyond their competence? Perhaps they were just men of their time.