cinepro

If you don't have a dog in the fight, then it probably isn't Confirmation Bias. It would more likely be an Availability Bias, where things that are more recently emphasized and discussed come to mind more quickly, so when you hear a statement in General Conference you link it to things that have prominently been in the news (like the upcoming US election.) Availability Bias

When it comes to the Second Coming, I think this is one of the best talks I've heard:

Sometimes the remake is just better than the original...

While it's great that it was dismissed, I am disappointed that it wasn't dismissed based on the merit (or lack thereof) of the accusation.

Not sure if this ever got discussed here, but since it was such a big discussion back in 2018, I wanted to make sure everyone saw how this turned out.

Where did you hear this rumor?

The true value of a theory (and some might say the only value of a theory) is the effect it can have on someone that doesn't already believe it. So tell me: what is the value of your new "reworked EmodE" theory to someone that isn't already committed to the idea that the Book of Mormon is true? You might be thinking that the more complex this theory gets, the more convincing it is because that makes it less likely for 19th century authors to have created it. But I'm not sure it works that way for someone who doesn't already believe in the supernatural nature of the creation of the book.

I agree. Reading old Ensigns (1970s - 1980s) is definitely more towards the "BYU Studies" end of the spectrum. Articles where you can actually learn stuff. Now it's almost full-Watchtower.

I might be missing something, but it seems extremely odd for someone who has been on this forum for two weeks to accuse someone else of being a sock puppet. I mean, even if JasonMonroe were a sock puppet, if it were someone whose time on this forum predated August 3, how would you even know who it was?

I predict that six months from now, that will be part of the apologetic theory.

If people filling in gaps on the facsimiles with made-up stuff and overestimating their ability to translate the Egyptian and therefore deceiving people bothers you, I have terrible news.

Assuming the "angel Moroni raising" you refer to was outdoors, outdoors is much safer than indoors. Especially if you're singing and spending a lot of time near people indoors. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1

It might be more correct to say that apologetics is dancing with science, and science is leading.

Uh, that's what I said. It is most honest to say that we don't know where the BoM came from. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the believers' case. I would also be wary of being overconfident in the "EModE findings" and what they mean. I don't know how long you've been in the apologetics game, but things like that have a way of circling back and biting you in the behind.

It's not Richard's job to explain who wrote the Book of Mormon. Even if we don't know who did it, that doesn't mean that "God did it" is the logically compelling argument. It simply means that we don't know who did it, or how Joseph did it. It is enough for Richard to simply say that the evidence doesn't support your theory about the origin of the book. Sure, his "Joseph did it" theory may not satisfactorily explain what you present as evidence that there is "Early Modern English" in the book, but I'm pretty sure your "God did it" theory also doesn't satisfactorily explain it either.