Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Happened across this on FB from one of my TBM friends. Thought I'd share this incredibly well thought scientifically sound, brilliantly argued piece. We are a ok headed back....right?
http://www.gregtrimble.com/so-you-think-the-book-of-mormon-is-a-fraud/#.VZv6RYG8TZk.facebook
http://www.gregtrimble.com/so-you-think-the-book-of-mormon-is-a-fraud/#.VZv6RYG8TZk.facebook
He has the same old lame arguments. They've all been swatted down. Apparently he stopped reading much of anything once he forced himself to wade through that "chloroform in print".
Jack Handy has deeper thoughts than Mr. Trimble's.
Ahhhhh yes, and I remember him well.
This guy's blog is 'effing hilarious
It's a joke right? Like, we're being punked, right?
It's a joke right? Like, we're being punked, right?
Like this ridiculous shit
http://www.gregtrimble.com/a-letter-from-a-dad-to-carls-jrs-and-the-women-in-their-commercials/
http://www.gregtrimble.com/a-letter-from-a-dad-to-carls-jrs-and-the-women-in-their-commercials/
While I don't agree with everything he said about the Carls Jr. commercials, I do think they're over the top and too sexy for family time television.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQE-DXsozg8
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2015 08:21PM by wine country girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQE-DXsozg8
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2015 08:21PM by wine country girl.
What a stupid blog!
My summary: The Book of Mormon is true because: Most people who say the Book of Mormon is not true have never read it. Uneducated farmboy couldn't write such a book. Chiasmus. What author could make up 200 new names? Argument from ignorance: If Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon from the gold plates, then I know of no other possible place it could have come from. Other sheep not of this fold. Stick of Judah, stick of Joseph. The eleven witnesses never recanted. It is impossible for such a large conspiracy (11 people) to succeed. The Book of Mormon never contradicts itself. Book of Mormon gives you warm fuzzy feelings.
-------------------
I do not care for wimpy evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is true, when it is sitting next to a giant mountain of evidence proving that the Book of Mormon is NOT true. Anachronisms such as horses, elephants, steel, iron, steel swords, glass, coinage, wheat, barley, silk etc. The fact that M-DNA testing proves that Native Americans came from Mongolia and Siberia and not from the Middle East. The fact that no hostile witnesses ever got to see the gold plates, that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to "translate" while the plates were hidden in another room, and that the angel most conveniently took the plates to heaven so that they could not be put in a museum or examined by scientists and scholars.
I guess you can make yourself believe anything if you refrain from examining contrary evidence.
My summary: The Book of Mormon is true because: Most people who say the Book of Mormon is not true have never read it. Uneducated farmboy couldn't write such a book. Chiasmus. What author could make up 200 new names? Argument from ignorance: If Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon from the gold plates, then I know of no other possible place it could have come from. Other sheep not of this fold. Stick of Judah, stick of Joseph. The eleven witnesses never recanted. It is impossible for such a large conspiracy (11 people) to succeed. The Book of Mormon never contradicts itself. Book of Mormon gives you warm fuzzy feelings.
-------------------
I do not care for wimpy evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is true, when it is sitting next to a giant mountain of evidence proving that the Book of Mormon is NOT true. Anachronisms such as horses, elephants, steel, iron, steel swords, glass, coinage, wheat, barley, silk etc. The fact that M-DNA testing proves that Native Americans came from Mongolia and Siberia and not from the Middle East. The fact that no hostile witnesses ever got to see the gold plates, that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to "translate" while the plates were hidden in another room, and that the angel most conveniently took the plates to heaven so that they could not be put in a museum or examined by scientists and scholars.
I guess you can make yourself believe anything if you refrain from examining contrary evidence.
"I can still remember the exact spot I was sitting when I knew the Book of Mormon was true."
But you don't KNOW it's true. You believe it is. Arrogant, inaccurate, false statement #1.
"I noticed that most of the people that condemned the Book of Mormon the loudest, had never even read the book."
Completely false. In fact, most such people (myself included) have read it numerous times, more than the vast majority of mormons!
"Here is the bottom line. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet."
Actually, that's not the case at all (so much for his "logic"). Those two things are mutually independent issues.
"All of the other things that come up are only worth talking about if the Book of Mormon is true which is why I can’t figure out why so many people spend so much time criticizing all of the other aspects or doctrines of the Church."
Because there are massive problems with all the other aspects or doctrines of the church, many of which show the BoM is NOT "true." And as above, they're independent issues. Even IF the BoM were "true," that wouldn't make all the other false claims ago away.
" One cannot deny the existence of that book. It is there for all to read and it survives any and every attack."
It is indeed there for all to read, but it doesn't "survive" any "attack" -- or indeed any critical and honest examination.
"Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?"
Argument from personal incredulity -- fallacious and worthless. Besides, it's NOT "ancient scripture," evidence shows he didn't come up with it "on his own," and it's neither "historically accurate" nor "prophetic in nature."
"Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?"
First, there's no evidence such "ancient Hebrew literary styles" are in it. And again, an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, as above, he's arguing "I can't believe Smith came up with this by himself, so it MUST be true!" Which is a fallacy.
"How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet."
It includes no such "findings." And there isn't "so much" about the middle east -- what little is there was known from maps and books of Smith's time (and he got many of those things wrong). And another argument from incredulity.
"How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?"
Most of the names are one or two letter changes to biblical names. Some come from his locale in Vermont/New York. None of them are "Semitic in nature." And other argument from incredulity.
"If you think Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this book, then where did it come from?"
Yes, the old (and fallacious) "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong!" argument. Nobody knows for certain where it came from, though there are reasonable guesses. However, one does not have to prove it's a fabrication to reject it as authentic, one just has to admit there's no evidence to show it authentic. And there isn't.
"Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?"
Gentiles.
"Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi?"
There aren't "volumes." And none of them are "just like it says in 3rd Nephi." None, including the BoM version, have any supporting evidence, so they're irrelevant.
"If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture."
No, it's not the "only explanation," it's just the one you happen to like because it supports your delusion.
"How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony..."
11 isn't "so many." 3 of them admitted they never actually saw or touched the plates (only with "spiritual eyes"), the other 8 can't establish anything other than that they claim to have seen something that looked like plates with weird writing on them. They can't establish, even if their testimony is "true," that they were ancient, had an actual language on them, had reformed Egyptian on them, were gold, contained in another language what became the English BoM, etc. So they don't establish anything.
"How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no."
Now he's just flat-out lying. Self-contradictions exist, and are well-documented.
So basically, this person believes it's "true," but claims to know it's true -- then goes on to give a number of fallacious, dishonest, worthless arguments to back up his belief.
Typical mormon tool.
But you don't KNOW it's true. You believe it is. Arrogant, inaccurate, false statement #1.
"I noticed that most of the people that condemned the Book of Mormon the loudest, had never even read the book."
Completely false. In fact, most such people (myself included) have read it numerous times, more than the vast majority of mormons!
"Here is the bottom line. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet."
Actually, that's not the case at all (so much for his "logic"). Those two things are mutually independent issues.
"All of the other things that come up are only worth talking about if the Book of Mormon is true which is why I can’t figure out why so many people spend so much time criticizing all of the other aspects or doctrines of the Church."
Because there are massive problems with all the other aspects or doctrines of the church, many of which show the BoM is NOT "true." And as above, they're independent issues. Even IF the BoM were "true," that wouldn't make all the other false claims ago away.
" One cannot deny the existence of that book. It is there for all to read and it survives any and every attack."
It is indeed there for all to read, but it doesn't "survive" any "attack" -- or indeed any critical and honest examination.
"Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?"
Argument from personal incredulity -- fallacious and worthless. Besides, it's NOT "ancient scripture," evidence shows he didn't come up with it "on his own," and it's neither "historically accurate" nor "prophetic in nature."
"Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?"
First, there's no evidence such "ancient Hebrew literary styles" are in it. And again, an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, as above, he's arguing "I can't believe Smith came up with this by himself, so it MUST be true!" Which is a fallacy.
"How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet."
It includes no such "findings." And there isn't "so much" about the middle east -- what little is there was known from maps and books of Smith's time (and he got many of those things wrong). And another argument from incredulity.
"How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?"
Most of the names are one or two letter changes to biblical names. Some come from his locale in Vermont/New York. None of them are "Semitic in nature." And other argument from incredulity.
"If you think Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this book, then where did it come from?"
Yes, the old (and fallacious) "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong!" argument. Nobody knows for certain where it came from, though there are reasonable guesses. However, one does not have to prove it's a fabrication to reject it as authentic, one just has to admit there's no evidence to show it authentic. And there isn't.
"Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?"
Gentiles.
"Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi?"
There aren't "volumes." And none of them are "just like it says in 3rd Nephi." None, including the BoM version, have any supporting evidence, so they're irrelevant.
"If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture."
No, it's not the "only explanation," it's just the one you happen to like because it supports your delusion.
"How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony..."
11 isn't "so many." 3 of them admitted they never actually saw or touched the plates (only with "spiritual eyes"), the other 8 can't establish anything other than that they claim to have seen something that looked like plates with weird writing on them. They can't establish, even if their testimony is "true," that they were ancient, had an actual language on them, had reformed Egyptian on them, were gold, contained in another language what became the English BoM, etc. So they don't establish anything.
"How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no."
Now he's just flat-out lying. Self-contradictions exist, and are well-documented.
So basically, this person believes it's "true," but claims to know it's true -- then goes on to give a number of fallacious, dishonest, worthless arguments to back up his belief.
Typical mormon tool.