If more evidence is needed (which is doubtful).

I am now wading through the book "No Weapon Shall Prosper" from the latest big guns of the Mormon apologist world, attempting to counter all the "misinformation" about Mormonism. It is edited by Robert Millet and contains essays on "sensitive issues" written by Mormon academics. I am supposed to write a review of this book, so I have to read it.

About halfway through is the article by Ugo Perego, the DNA authority at BYU, on the issue of DNA evidence as relative to the BoM. Near the end of his article he says, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and then a footnote. I thought to myself, "damn, why does he trot out that old fallacy?" and checked the footnote.

I just about fell off my chair, since the footnote is a citation to http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon601.htm and "Richard Packham", where he quotes what I wrote there, and then proceeds to explain (in the footnote) why it doesn't apply to the BoM DNA issue.

So, brothers and sisters, big brother is watching!

I can guarantee that absolutely nobody will be surprised to hear this.

" ...essays on 'sensitive issues' written by Mormon academics."


Well that's good for a chuckle, no? :)

3X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " ...essays on 'sensitive issues' written by Mormon academics."
>
> Well that's good for a chuckle, no? :)

Absolutely! And the first "sensitive issue" essay is to explain why people join the church. I thought, "Huh? THAT's a sensitive issue?" Then it occurred to me that it is indeed a question that really deserves an explanation, since it is hard for most non-Mormons to figure out why.

I bet you did almost fall out of your chair...hard up to find documentation???.... so they use RfM....that's just crazy. But it's kind of cool to know so many are actively engaged in reading all these posts. Keep reading and LEARN something Mormons.

That is the most..... I am at a loss for words! You made me laugh so hard I scared the dog! I am going to have Eric find a permanent place to put that when he gets back from the wedding. That is just too too TOO funny!

You have to know your audience, right? If you're a mormon "scholar" trying to prove the logical/historical evidence behind the BoM, you'd better do some research at exmormon.org.

So that's where the Ash-meister's been holed up.....

Sorry for the odd use of words; it just sorta tumbled out....

Last week I made a joking aside that a certain apologist "hates" me. Almost immediately, I received an email castigating me for perpetuating the myth that this apologist is some kind of evil scumbag.

So, yes, they do read this board religiously.

that is hysterical.

We should get all of RFM to google " Daniel Petersen is delusional" on a daily basis so whenever his name is googled it comes up....lol

Those Mormon apologist are a sad lot. They know the problems with the Mormon church but do not have the integrity and morality to not support it.

If they would just be honest enough with themselves to leave the church they probably would finally get a good nights sleep instead of trolling RFM....lol

Yeah, all you have to do is look at the way he takes care of himself to know how much he gives a diddly about truth... so long as he can afford another doughnut from his "labors", it's all good lol.

I have said this before, and ill say it again:

Dear F.A.iR. Folks,
I would Like to sincerely and truly thank you.
If not for visiting your website to find the answers to years of unanswered doctrinal questions,
I never would have been able to find my way out of the cult disguised as the lds church.
Your website is a goldmine of information,
and the gateway to freedom.
Please, please keep up the good work.
Well done.

Sincerely, Sister ambivalentmo.


LD$inc. Duping folks for 182 years.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2012 08:40PM by ambivalent exmo.

I love it that they read this board. Every one of them is a hard-working person of great sincerity who is searching for truth and thought they found it because they have the gospel.

Now they are reading some pretty cogent posts with links and annotations to church sources regarding the misrepresenting of Mormon history.

The choice is clear--was it there love for truth that brought them to their calling to help the church counter the apostate lies?

If so, what will they do when they encounter the church's lies?

It is a crucible for mopologists, a test of character. Many will choose truth and light, rejecting lies no matter the source. Others will be deceived and be lead down that shadowy path of perpetrating deception in the name of God, as if he could be the author of such deception.

ATTENTION APOLOGIST READING THIS. I'm talking about you. Think about it-- is a lie told by a priesthood leader somehow transmuted into truth? Is God or Satan the author if lies?

Choose the way of Jesus, not Satan, make the moral choice and leave the lies behind. Step into the sun.

Anagrammy

you can even double post!!
thats a way funny item there RP! i wonder how many of the fair and farm people are on the "edge" of accepting the apparent untruths of the TSCC!! :)

I'm glad to hear they are reading RfM.

But they are sexy underwear if that counts for anything. :)

isn't mormon academics an oxymoron?

I;m so glad i'm out and my children are safe. I hope someday Mrs Truthseeker will join us.

Richard, what is his argument why absence of evidence does not apply to the bom?

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard, what is his argument why absence of evidence does not apply to the bom?

My example was a claim that somebody has a degree from the university, but there is no record of his attending there, and the records are complete. He says that in the case of DNA for the BoM, the "records" (of DNA) aren't complete.

That is a valid counter-argument. My objection was to his stating that as a valid principle of evidence, which it is not.

Dr Petersen used a quote of mine from an RFM post I made as his forum signature for some time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2012 07:29PM by matt.

HA! Amazing. Also..

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. It makes like no sense...

English translation : "prove what we say is not true".

In other words, they are challenging you to prove a negative.

I just snorted so loud the dog woke up in a fright. That is genuinely hilarious. It never ends.

Does this mean I should put a piece of tape over the little camera at the top of my netbook screen?
:)