79 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

I have nothing against personal revelation. IMNTBHO it is the best way.  

However when it shows up on a satellite picture it is beginning to be in the realm of "Proof".

[John Larsen]

Hawkmoon, on Aug 29 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

I would like to see you actually back this little statement up... or was it just typical John Larsen hyperbole?

Sure thing. Where would you like me to start? Which discrediting would you like to begin with? Would you like to start with the anthropologists, the geneticists, the biologists, the physicists, the astronomers, the bible scholars, the historians, the archaeologists, the metallurgists, the military scientists, etc. etc. etc.

thesometimesaint, on Aug 29 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

Nahom, and Bountiful have been found.

No they haven't.

[DH]

Well, I'd believe they are authentic ancient records. However, questions would still remain: Are these records ancient mythology? Are they ancient fictionional accounts? Are they accurate historical records? Are they inspired by God to convey certain messages to people? Are the messages meant for a particular nation or for everybody? And so on.

In other words, yes, if scientists proved these to be authentic documents, I'd believe they are ancient documents. In order to know if they are scripture, or whatever else, further inquiries would still be needed.

[thesometimesaint]

John Larson:

Mere assertion.

Here is the pictures

http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

[John Larsen]

thesometimesaint, on Aug 29 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

John Larson:

Mere assertion.

Here is the pictures

http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

And which peer reviewed journal did Dr. Lindsay publish his paradigm shifting findings in?

Here's proof of bigfoot: The Bigfoot Field Research Organization
And here's proof of alien abduction: Alien Abduction and Experience and Research
How about astro projection?: The Astral Projection and Astral Plane Research Project

Want some more?

[ckonrad]

spinner, on Aug 29 2008, 07:36 AM, said:

And I could counter that no amount of counter-evidence would convince a believer, no?  I think that in fact the responses show a nuanced view on this, not the dogmatic approach you suggest.

I voted 'yes', although the question is difficult to answer because it doesn't specify just what is meant by 'believe'.  I would certainly be likely to believe certain things like Joseph's Smith's claims to supernatural powers.  I would also probably believe that the Book of Mormon is, to a large degree, what the internal narrative says that it is.  

Would I believe the Mormon Church?  I assume that was what you meant by 'believe'.  That is a tougher question.  I would certainly look at it with new eyes, but it is possible to believe the Book of Mormon without believing everything taught by the SLC Church, as many other offshoot branches show.  I don't buy into the logic that if the BofM is 'true' then the entire belief structure of the LDS church also has to be true.  Mormons have to admit this as well when they hold up the BofM Witnesses as proof of the BofM--many of them stopped believing the SLC church but still (according to Mormon claims) had a testimony of the BofM.  If you don't believe that somebody can accept the BofM but reject the LDS Church, their story loses the evidentiary value that Mormons place on it.

That's a good point i suppose i should have specified what i meant by "believe". I guess I'd rather leave that open to the person answering the question so that they can tell me just what they would "believe" instead of me determining that. Would a person believe in just the Book of Mormon if it was found to be authentic by scholars, thats fine, other mights believe in the entire LDS church. I know it seems like a redundant question but there are obviously some people that still wouldn't believe even if they saw those plates themselves.

I think its important to understand that the reason i started this poll isn't to try to convince people to believe by using this sort of method, that wouldn't make sense. It has to do more with curiosity about something someone said on another thread about why the plates were taken back. I just wanted to see what non Mormons would do if scientists actually did have and prove that the Book of Mormon was exactly what people claim it to be.

-corey

[ckonrad]

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

And which peer reviewed journal did Dr. Lindsay publish his paradigm shifting findings in?

Here's proof of bigfoot: The Bigfoot Field Research Organization
And here's proof of alien abduction: Alien Abduction and Experience and Research
How about astro projection?: The Astral Projection and Astral Plane Research Project

Want some more?

Those pictures in the link weren't taken by Jeff Lindsay they were taken by someone else, Jeff Lindsay isn't a Mormon scholar or anything like that he was the bishop of the LDS church in the town i grew up in for awhile and now goes around giving talks, pretty much all the information on his site is information he has pieced together over the years from reading articles on fairlds.org or various books that are out there. I think he is a Chemist actually.

-corey

[krose]

I think all of us who have been around the block are familiar with Lindsay's work. The interesting thing about him, to me, is his frank admission that the job of an apologist is not necessarily to produce proof, but to come up with a way for the church's claims to be plausible in some way. Proof and hard evidence are not necessary; all the believer needs is some explanation that makes the claim possibly true.

He even titles the page you referenced "Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility."

Edited by krose, 29 August 2008 - 03:43 PM.

[saemo]

Pa Pa, on Aug 29 2008, 07:51 AM, said:

Kind of says it all.

I thought so.

[Hawkmoon]

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

Sure thing. Where would you like me to start? Which discrediting would you like to begin with? Would you like to start with the anthropologists, the geneticists, the biologists, the physicists, the astronomers, the bible scholars, the historians, the archaeologists, the metallurgists, the military scientists, etc. etc. etc.No they haven't.

Start anywhere you would like... I think it will prove to be fascinating. However, if you would like me to state one for you please indicate how "military scientists" have discredited the BofM.


However, since this isn't the thread for this demonstration-- how about I start one in which you will be able to awe us all?

Edited by Hawkmoon, 29 August 2008 - 04:25 PM.

[John Larsen]

Hawkmoon, on Aug 29 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

Start anywhere you would like... I think it will prove to be fascinating. However, if you would like me to state one for you please indicate how "military scientists" have discredited the BofM.
However, since this isn't the thread for this demonstration-- how about I start one in which you will be able to awe us all?

I won't be able to awe folks like you because when reality and the Book of Mormon diverge, you tend to side with the Book of Mormon.

In military science, a great topic of concern is the actual logistics of moving and feeding troops and especially hygiene. Although they never talk about in the movies, sanitation was a huge problem in marshaling and encamping troops and is dealt with quite extensively in military science writing. In fact, the US Cavalry's big first mistake under Custer was to underestimate the size of the Indian force based on their calculation of encampment hygiene and forage land for the horses.  Until the advent of better roads, transportation method, food preservation and the like, amassing large numbers of troops was impossible and most large battles in history were fought by much smaller forces than you would expect. Even if you tried to get more forces to the front, the logistics of moving them becomes much more complex. Thins problem continues today. Think about the Iraq invasion and those long traffic jams of tanks and Humvees trying to get to Baghdad.  

In the 6th Chapter of Mormon, The Book of Mormon claims:

Quote

7 And it came to pass that my people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them.
  8 And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers.
  9 And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war.
  10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.
  11 And when they had gone through and hewn down all my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.
  12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.
  13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.
  14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.
  15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

In 385 C.E. it would be impossible to marshal these numbers to a single battle field. Never, in the known history of warfare, has such a large battle been fought because it is impossible.

Shall we now talk about scimitars?

[John Larsen]

krose, on Aug 29 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

I think all of us who have been around the block are familiar with Lindsay's work. The interesting thing about him, to me, is his frank admission that the job of an apologist is not necessarily to produce proof, but to come up with a way for the church's claims to be plausible in some way. Proof and hard evidence are not necessary; all the believer needs is some explanation that makes the claim possibly true.

He even titles the page you referenced "Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility."

And if you lower the burden of proof to merely establish plausibility you can "prove" put near anything. There are very few things that aren't plausible given enough equally unlikely predecessor events.

Edited by John Larsen, 29 August 2008 - 08:37 PM.

[e=mc2]

krose, on Aug 29 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

I think all of us who have been around the block are familiar with Lindsay's work. The interesting thing about him, to me, is his frank admission that the job of an apologist is not necessarily to produce proof, but to come up with a way for the church's claims to be plausible in some way. Proof and hard evidence are not necessary; all the believer needs is some explanation that makes the claim possibly true. He even titles the page you referenced "Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility."

And plausibility is precisely what historians aim for, since there is no proof of anything in antiquity. I am astonished that there are some living today in our scientific world who *still* fail to comprehend the mere ABC's of how history is discovered and how it works.

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

And if you lower the burden of proof to merely establish plausibility you can "prove" put near anything. There are very few things that aren't plausible given enough equally unlikely predecessor events.

No you cannot prove near anything. You can show it to be reasonable and rational and plausible ***based on evidences discovered and adduced and deduced.***

[e=mc2]

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

I won't be able to awe folks like you because when reality and the Book of Mormon diverge, you tend to side with the Book of Mormon.

In military science, a great topic of concern is the actual logistics of moving and feeding troops and especially hygiene. Although they never talk about in the movies, sanitation was a huge problem in marshaling and encamping troops and is dealt with quite extensively in military science writing. In fact, the US Cavalry's big first mistake under Custer was to underestimate the size of the Indian force based on their calculation of encampment hygiene and forage land for the horses.  Until the advent of better roads, transportation method, food preservation and the like, amassing large numbers of troops was impossible and most large battles in history were fought by much smaller forces than you would expect. Even if you tried to get more forces to the front, the logistics of moving them becomes much more complex. Thins problem continues today. Think about the Iraq invasion and those long traffic jams of tanks and Humvees trying to get to Baghdad.  

In the 6th Chapter of Mormon, The Book of Mormon claims:
In 385 C.E. it would be impossible to marshal these numbers to a single battle field. Never, in the known history of warfare, has such a large battle been fought because it is impossible.


Shall we now talk about scimitars?

And so, based on your own incomplete understanding of warfare in ancient history, you presume to know all about what is possible and impossible? Your silliness is showing John.

[e=mc2]

John Larsen:
And which peer reviewed journal did Dr. Lindsay publish his paradigm shifting findings in?


Jeff Lindsay didn't, but the geologist, archaeologist, historian, and scholar and botanist who made the expedition *did* publish their findings in one of the publications of the Omani government. Does that count? If not, WHY not?

[e=mc2]

QUOTE(thesometimesaint @ Aug 29 2008, 02:03 PM)
Nahom, and Bountiful have been found.

John Larsen:
No they haven't.

Kerry says:
Yes they certainly have. The German archaeological team who excavated Nahom has also found 3 altars with the inscriptions identifying the temple there as being in Nahom, in the region of Nahom. The Arabian guide who took the BYU expedition there also sat on one of the burial mounds and taught them that the region has been called Nahom for centuries and it really is where Arabians take their dead to bury them. (it's in the DVD called "A Journey of Faith") The region even has a tribe of Nahom who controls the area. You are simply flat wrong here.

Edited by e=mc2, 29 August 2008 - 08:50 PM.

[Rommelator]

Quote

In 385 C.E. it would be impossible to marshal these numbers to a single battle field.

The funny thing about ancient historians is that they tended to inflate numbers (especially in military narratives). John, have you read Herodetus' reports on the Battle at Thermopylae and the Persian invasion of Greece? In his Histories he reported that over 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Talk about inflating numbers! And yet we seem to give Herodetus a "get out of jail free" card whilst simutaniously condeming the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it too presents unbelivable numbers in a military context. Does anyone else see a double standard here?

Quote

Shall we now talk about scimitars?

Sure. You want to know the answer? There is ample evidence, both from physical and epigraphical sources, to suggest that both the ancient Near East and Mesoamerica had scimitars. Bill Hamblin and Paul Hoskisson disucsses such in Warfare in the Book of Mormon. Heck, since I mentioned it, and since we are on the subject of the military, maybe you would care to refute the evidences presented by these scholars (include Messrs. Peterson, Welch, Nibley, Ricks, Sink, etc.) in that volume John. I am sure you should have no problem. After all, ancient military history is your strong point.

[e=mc2]

Rommelator, on Aug 29 2008, 08:50 PM, said:

The funny thing about ancient historians is that they tended to inflate numbers (especially in military narratives). John, have you read Herodetus' reports on the Battle at Thermopylae and the Persian invasion of Greece? In his Histories he reported that over 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Talk about inflating numbers! And yet we seem to give Herodetus a "get out of jail free" card whilst simutaniously condeming the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it too presents unbelivable numbers in a military context. Does anyone else see a double standard here?
Sure. You want to know the answer? There is ample evidence, both from physical and epigraphical sources, to suggest that both the ancient Near East and Mesoamerica had scimitars. Bill Hamblin and Paul Hoskisson disucsses such in Warfare in the Book of Mormon. Heck, since I mentioned it, and since we are on the subject of the military, maybe you would care to refute the evidences presented by these scholars (include Messrs. Peterson, Welch, Nibley, Ricks, Sink, etc.) in that volume John. I am sure you should have no problem. After all, ancient military history is your strong point.

Oh I get it! Now that you have your new present, you are reading it, and now going to flaunt it eh?

[Rommelator]

Quote

No they haven't.

How wonderfully ignorant this statement is.Care to refute the evidence, John?



http://www.farms.byu...s...um=1&id=187



http://www.farms.byu...k...8&chapid=61



http://farms.byu.edu...o...&cat_id=267



http://farms.byu.edu...o...&cat_id=267



http://farms.byu.edu...o...um=1&id=165



http://farms.byu.edu...?...um=1&id=172



http://farms.byu.edu...b...&chapid=195







http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Quote

Oh I get it! Now that you have your new present, you are reading it, and now going to flaunt it eh?

Anything to whip [atheistic] secterianism.

Edited by Rommelator, 29 August 2008 - 09:01 PM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

And if you lower the burden of proof to merely establish plausibility you can "prove" put near anything. There are very few things that aren't plausible given enough equally unlikely predecessor events.

Yeah kinda like the theory of evolution, or how the earth was formed, or how the moon wasw formed, or perhaps the big bang? I guess anything is possible.

I mean given enough time anything could happen? Right?

I remember hearing about some scientists taht claimed if you put a group of monkeys on some type writers that given enough time they would randomly produce all of the books at Harvard in order.

I guess it is funny that when it come to religion they just cant use that same standard. Its not my problem its thiers.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 29 August 2008 - 09:30 PM.