The Sacred Curse

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3575
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Dr Exiled »

I used to engage Mr. Bukowski prior to being kicked off of MDD by, I believe, Scott Lloyd, for bugging him about always responding to anything with follow the brethren, follow the brethren. Anyway, I think Mr. Bukowski is viewed much the same way one would view the old high priest in the ward that had his pet theories about whatever. However, if one digs down on what Bukowski claims, pretty much anything is true for a person, as long as that person believes it. He acknowledges the history problems and says so what, I believe anyway, and cites Alma 32 and D&C 93.

I agree that if the church ever espoused Mr. Bukowski's thinking, many would leave, that is if they were paying attention.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Analytics
God
Posts: 4220
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Analytics »

Sounds like a great book. I look forward to reading it.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3575
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Dr Exiled »

I'm about 3/4 the way through it and it occurred to me that if the Nephites came in and took over, one would expect to easily find their dna, not the other way around. Isn't the royal dna more likely to be preserved?

It seems so obvious, now more than ever, that the fictional model is the future. Many will leave once it sinks in, but the brethren will counter with where President Nelson already is when he was discussing geography and said that the more important question was the supposed spirituality one finds in the book. I personally believe that this spirituality wouldn't be there without the group pressure pointing to believe the mundane is somehow amazing.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

candygal
God
Posts: 1432
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 8:38 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by candygal »

I don't suppose we could get Simon to dicker a little with Smac on the Mad board?? I would so love this!

aussieguy55
God
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by aussieguy55 »

Yes Simon go over there and rumble. Instead of them talking about you they have to talk to you.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"

Stem
God
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Stem »

Smac just keeps saying the "science is inconclusive on the question" or something of the sort. The question in my mind is considering all the scientific findings is there anything to support the notion of the Lamanite story? He just keeps trying to turn it around on Simon. Well, no, if the science doesn't support the existence of something then there's no reason to conclude it exists. He'll just come back with, "well the science is inconclusive, we don't really know if there were Lamanites or not. I know cause I've read the apologetic responses".

Even if the case can be made its possible they were around at some point, it still doesn't give any reason to think they were around.

Brackite
God
Posts: 6365
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Brackite »

Here is the link to the other Mormon discussion board about Simon's new book .
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/725 ... -new-book/
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Lemmie »

From Brackite’s link, the first post:
Smac:

First, this sounds like Southerton is talking about generalized teachings about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself. Latter-day Saint apologists are, in the main, not fixated on so-called "Lamanite DNA."

Critics (most notably Southerton and Murphy) have, I think, hung their hats almost exclusively on extra-textual arguments about the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Introduction's reference to "principal ancestors," culled comments from LDS leaders, etc.) and have largely ignored the actual text of the book itself.

They have also tried to posit DNA as the definitive falsifying factor of the Book of Mormon when the subject is obviously much more complex than that (adoptive lineage, heritage-as-lineage, plus the arguments set forth in the FARMS Review and elsewhere (see below) that DNA can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon).
[spacing added for ease of reading]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wow. Revisionist history is just stunning. Is this how they teach it now?

Every time science disproves an element of the Mormon church, someone decides:

1. That’s not really what we believe.

2. That’s not what you learned growing up, and if it is, you learned it wrong.

and/or

3. Words don’t mean what we used to think they meant, if that meaning is disproven by science.

The havoc that arguments like that must wreak in an intelligent mind is beyond understanding.

User avatar
Simon Southerton
Area Authority
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Simon Southerton »

candygal wrote:I don't suppose we could get Simon to dicker a little with Smac on the Mad board?? I would so love this!


I'm sorry. I don't debate with fundamentalists on any topic. That includes the Flood, evolution, Creationism and Book of Mormon historicity. I'm happy to launch grenades from across the Pacific.

The tyranny of distance and time zones make this especially difficult. I'm not prepared to sit down and discuss stuff at a time that is always convenient for apologists and rarely convenient for me.

I've done a little toing and froing on the r/Mormon website but I wouldn't call it debating. https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... red_curse/
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama

User avatar
Simon Southerton
Area Authority
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Simon Southerton »

Lemmie wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wow. Revisionist history is just stunning. Is this how they teach it now?

Every time science disproves an element of the Mormon church, someone decides:

1. That’s not really what we believe.

2. That’s not what you learned growing up, and if it is, you learned it wrong.

and/or

3. Words don’t mean what we used to think they meant, if that meaning is disproven by science.

The havoc that arguments like that must wreak in an intelligent mind is beyond understanding.


The apologetic arguments only carry weight in their echo chamber. They would be more testimony-threatening than anything I write if they could just manage to get ordinary members to read their nonsense.
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama

User avatar
Arc
Star A
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 8:25 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Arc »

aussieguy55 wrote:mfbukowski on the other board made these nice comments (insults?)

"Sigh
It's just the old historic vs the newer spiritual understanding of our beliefs.

It's no different than Book of Mormon geography vs horses in the Book of Mormon, metallurgy, translation vs revelation, the Book of Abraham, and every other misunderstanding. Evolution. Young earth. Big Bang and ex nihilo, geocentric universe and flat earth!

Can't we see it's all the same argument, different day?

What a waste of time!!

Every alleged anachronism disappears if Joseph was teaching spiritual principles and not science or history.
When will we get over this nonsense??

Grow up people!

Grow up critics, somewhere there's a brain in your head that should get you past Santa Claus and baby stories!!"

Simon must be getting to them

aussieguy55, it had been a longtime since I visited the other board before yesterday when I went looking for the original of the mfbukowski post you quoted, and couldn't find it. What I did see was that Smac 97's Gish Gallop nonsense over on the Simons' New Book thread is so offensive to logic and reason I actually thought about opening an account there. Would you, or someone who has actually seen the original mfbukowski post you cited here, kindly provide a direct link to it? Thanks.
"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy." Steven Weinberg

Stem
God
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Stem »

Simon Southerton wrote:
The apologetic arguments only carry weight in their echo chamber. They would be more testimony-threatening than anything I write if they could just manage to get ordinary members to read their nonsense.


Absolutely true. That's most explicitly obvious when you substitute the Church with something else. Every defense they make on topics like this supports all the crazy theories which resonate with the exceedingly few oddballs.

As it were, though, I participate over on that board from time to time, and happened upon it yesterday. The brief back and forth got me interested to go purchase your new book. So, that's nice. Looking forward to it.

User avatar
Dr LOD
Teacher
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Dr LOD »

Simon Southerton wrote:
The apologetic arguments only carry weight in their echo chamber. They would be more testimony-threatening than anything I write if they could just manage to get ordinary members to read their nonsense.


So very true.

A particular apologetic argument only works in the carefully proscribed area of facts and truth that they carefully lay out beforehand. Selectively culling the facts to be used and the facts to be ignored. They then present this super compartmentalized product as the TRUTH. The funny part is there was absolutely no faith on their part involved. It was all the product of their pride and rationalization.

It is also fun to see the incongruity of their apologetics across different subjects, as they use different data points. In one a particular fact is discounted or ignored, in another it is the lynch-pin of the apologetic argument.

User avatar
Gray Ghost
Elder
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:43 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Gray Ghost »

Exiled wrote:I used to engage Mr. Bukowski prior to being kicked off of MDD by, I believe, Scott Lloyd, for bugging him about always responding to anything with follow the brethren, follow the brethren. Anyway, I think Mr. Bukowski is viewed much the same way one would view the old high priest in the ward that had his pet theories about whatever. However, if one digs down on what Bukowski claims, pretty much anything is true for a person, as long as that person believes it. He acknowledges the history problems and says so what, I believe anyway, and cites Alma 32 and D&C 93.

I agree that if the church ever espoused Mr. Bukowski's thinking, many would leave, that is if they were paying attention.


Yes, if you ask him about that enough, he'll admit it. Pragmatism is a knife that cuts in an infinite number of directions.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Lemmie »

Simon Southerton wrote:
The apologetic arguments only carry weight in their echo chamber. They would be more testimony-threatening than anything I write if they could just manage to get ordinary members to read their nonsense.

Truly. I just finished reading, well, trying to read, a response Smac97 gave that contained FIFTY-FOUR paragraphs, with no paragraph containing more than one sentence.

To me, the most telling one, given after he wrote a huge OP about your book that included, literally, listing 22 footnotes from FAIRMORMON, was his answer to the question, had he read your book?
Smac97 wrote:

Haven't read it, and likely won't.

In a lengthy thread where he goes on and on trying to dispute the details of your book, that would give an ordinary believer pause, I should think. He may end up being your greatest publicist.

Also, this just cracked me up.
smac97:

( Also, what is a "Mesoamerican apologist"? Daniel Peterson is an American professor of Islamic Studies at BYU. He was born and raised in California.)

Come on, hasn’t he read about all those child psychologists? What wunderkinds they must be, still in puberty and producing such work. Oy.

candygal
God
Posts: 1432
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 8:38 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by candygal »

Simon Southerton wrote:
candygal wrote:I don't suppose we could get Simon to dicker a little with Smac on the Mad board?? I would so love this!


I'm sorry. I don't debate with fundamentalists on any topic. That includes the Flood, evolution, Creationism and Book of Mormon historicity. I'm happy to launch grenades from across the Pacific.

The tyranny of distance and time zones make this especially difficult. I'm not prepared to sit down and discuss stuff at a time that is always convenient for apologists and rarely convenient for me.

I've done a little toing and froing on the r/Mormon website but I wouldn't call it debating. https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... red_curse/
I get it and respect your decision not to participate on those subjects; especially on that board. But would still like to have seen it...! :biggrin:

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by DoubtingThomas »

Lemmie wrote:Every time science disproves an element of the Mormon church, someone decides:


The same is true for all religions. Religions evolve to survive. Mormon apologetics isn't original, many Bible apologists make similar arguments to defend the Bible.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Sacred Curse

Post by Lemmie »

Louise Midgley:

The previous tiny little difference of opinion that Professor Peterson and I had with "Little Old Donkey" over whether the traces of the DNA of the three migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon now be present in all native Americans rests on ignorance of the reasons this simply has to be so.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4759479061

bolded to note the lack of understanding of how evidence works. Assuming the conclusion is such bad science. What is worse is how badly he abuses members of his church for doing the same thing. From the same link:

....the rubbish being peddled by Rodney Meldrum about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Flexible, Google [Bot] and 28 guests