NOM

https://radiofreemormon.org/2020/08/rad ... ent-227879

This is the singular most delightful hour of listening to RFM I have ever had the privilege of having. THANK YOU RFM! Truly inspirational, explanatory, definitely challenging, completely enlightening, and educational, useful, and willing to tell it like it is. This is one not to miss. The challenge for Muhlestein is up. Man up or shut up Muhlestein, RFM has your number, you can run, but you CANNOT hide. You fool no one.

I haven’t finished listening to all of it yet, and I’m trying to be realistic on this topic.
Realities:
1) Few TBMs care about this and few will ever hear about it.
2) Of the few TBMs that will even hear what is going on with the BoA and Gee and M...most will 100 percent side with Gee and M... because what they say has to be true...there isn’t any other alternative.
3) I’m interested in hearing a year from now, how many TBMs this whole BoM fraud has caused to leave the church.
4) The article M.... wrote is in a semi-approved resource. RFMs Response is not an approved LDS resource, so few TBMs will even hear it.
5) There are always a few “Alma’s” who will hear the truth and recognize it and change course.

I believe the correct psychological term for Muhlstein's reaction is "running away with your tail tucked between your legs." The apologists have been thoroughly trounced, but as 2bizE points out it doesn't really matter to the vast majority of people who should care about it but simply don't.

When I was listening to Consiglieri reading Muhlstein's response it occurred to me that it is the same approach certain politicians take to cast shade on the reliability of the vote when it looks like it won't go in their favor.

I really can't tell for certain how well the church is achieving the intended apologetic goal of singing lullabys to people who are comforted by knowing some smart guy has done the work so they don't have to, but I think one of the most significant results of LDS apologetics has been that it has alerted the truly curious and intelligent seekers in the church that they are being hoodwinked. The result in the long run would be a general dumbing-down of the church. But then again, maybe that is the real goal, considering the often touted desire that the members become like little children.

One thing I noticed about Muhlestein's screed. He talks about how people misunderstand what "Latter-day Saint scholars believe or have said." Why should scholars be restricted to responding to what "Latter-day Saint scholars" say? There are so many problem with what the leadership and membership believe. The Latter-day Saint scholars don't bother to correct much of what the leadership and membership say. It causes problems when they do. A full understanding of the issues causes belief to be nuanced if it survives at all. Then you get TBM's angry that the neo-apologists are not sufficiently faith affirming.

I though the quote of David Bokovoy's experience with Muhlestein was very informative. I don't think Muhlestein was angry that David Bokovoy had nuanced beliefs about the BoA. I think he was angry that Bokovoy shared his views with students, and he needed to be removed from teaching because of that. Muhlestein is allowed to share his nuanced beliefs in the Interpreter and on the FAIRMormon site because most members won't ever see it. However, he would object to anyone saying it to the general membership.

I think the beliefs of the general membership and leadership are fair game for scholars. Unless the Latter-day Saint scholars start sharing with the membership a full picture, they cannot complain when their views are conflated with more common beliefs.

It was amazing someone could write such a long response and say absolutely nothing. No direct response to anything. Just a bunch of blathering on and on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This whole thing seams to be a combo of Moving The Goal Posts and the No True Scotsman logical fallacies.

Appologetics say that only a trained Egyptologist should comment on the BoA. When that happens and the Apologetic get made fools of, then they move their criteria to it must be a Mormon trained as an Egyptologist. So what would happen if someone were to examine things with respected Egyptian studies and come to the same conclusion? Again, they would find some way to discount that and then more requirements would be added.

This the LDS Apologist's playbook at it's finest.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:35 pm

This the LDS Apologist's playbook at it's finest.

Logical Fallacy Bingo!

wtfluff wrote:

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:35 pm

This the LDS Apologist's playbook at it's finest.

Logical Fallacy Bingo!

I don't think I could handle the amount of alcohol needed to play that.

Sent from my LG-H740 using Tapatalk

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:14 pm

wtfluff wrote:

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:35 pm

This the LDS Apologist's playbook at it's finest.

Logical Fallacy Bingo!

I don't think I could handle the amount of alcohol needed to play that.

There literally isn't enough ethanol on the planet to fix COJCOLd$ MORmON apologetics.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:57 pm

It was amazing someone could write such a long response and say absolutely nothing. No direct response to anything. Just a bunch of blathering on and on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He did address one thing. He said that it's not really Anubis in Facsimile 1 but a person in an Anubis costume, so Joseph's interpretation was pretty accurate, it's just that the guy had removed the mask. He didn't mention why removing the mask would also require him to pick up a knife and start getting all stabby.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:35 pm

Appologetics say that only a trained Egyptologist should comment on the BoA. When that happens and the Apologetic get made fools of, then they move their criteria to it must be a Mormon trained as an Egyptologist.

I'm sure if there was an LDS Egyptologist publicly disagreed with them on any point they would narrow the focus to something even more specific and attack that person as unqualified.

It's like being told you can't enter the discussion about the historicity of Nephites if you don't have a graduate degree in Bayesian inference. Once, on another forum I said, "ok, show me one ancient American artifact that supports the Book of Mormon narrative," and got bitch-slapped all over the place about how embarrassingly ignorant I was to even think I was qualified to ask such a question. A week later I was still being maligned but was no closer to getting an example of an artifact.