79 replies to this topic

[John Larsen]

Rommelator, on Aug 29 2008, 09:50 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?

Are you honestly trying to prove the BOM is true by comparing it to other myths. Come on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

John Larsen, on Aug 29 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

Are you honestly trying to prove the BOM is true by comparing it to other myths. Come on.

Nice.
No were are trying to be consitant with the scientists, that believe we came from goo.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 29 August 2008 - 09:31 PM.

[Rommelator]

Quote

Are you honestly trying to prove the BOM is true by comparing it to other myths.

Umm...call me crazy...but I am pretty sure that the Battle of Thermopolae of 480 BCE and the Greco-Persian Wars of 499 BCE are not a myth.

Furthemore, no, I am not trying to prove the Book of Mormon. I am simply trying to show you that ancient historians like Herodetus and Mormon had different historiographical standards which included inflating numbers for reasons modern historians are not sure about. Perhaps as propaganda. Maybe because the sources they worked with were bad. Or maybe because they just liked to mess with people who would read their works in the future.

For a rather enlightening discussion on this, consult Brant Gardner in I think it was volume 5 of his 6 volume Book of Mormon commentary Second Witness.

[Rommelator]

Correction: Herodetus wrote that 5,283,220 was the number of invading Persians. Man, it was even worse than I thought! Mormon was nothin' compared to this dude, who, according to John's standard, we should completely reject as ahistorical because he inflated numbers.

[1TrueDisciple]

ckonrad, on Aug 28 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Please take this poll if you are a non Mormon.

By "authentic" I mean, if the plates were translated by independant scholars and found to be the Book of Mormon as we have it today.

Would you believe yes, no, if not why not?

Thanks
-corey

Under the outlined conditions, the evidence would be convincing enough to warrant acceptance as truth.

[Mighty Curelom]

I would absolutely believe.  I'd become an FLDS convert in a heartbeat.

[Dr. Sandwich]

ckonrad, on Aug 28 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

Please take this poll if you are a non Mormon.

Yeah if you found the plates I'm in.

[Dr. Sandwich]

Dr. Sandwich, on Aug 30 2008, 02:09 AM, said:

Yeah if you found the plates I'm in.

on second thought maybe not... Hmmm that's a really weird puzzle.

I guess I'd have to believe the first vision story was true, but I'd have to come up with some way to deal with the CONTENT of the book... maybe deep allegory.

[krose]

Rommelator, on Aug 29 2008, 09:50 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! ...

Interesting. Was this honest fellow also a prophet who communed with God, and whose task was to create an accurate record of his people for future generations? What, exactly, is Mormon's incentive for number-inflating propaganda?

[spinner]

ckonrad, on Aug 29 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

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

I guess then the question is really not "would you believe?" but "what would you believe".  Makes for a messy survey, though.

The heart of the matter, though, is the oft-repeated chestnut that no amount of evidence would convince the skeptic of Mormonism's claims.  Of course critics could claim the converse that "no amount of contrary evidence could ever sway the believer", but I see no point in engaging in discussions neither side is even willing to assume the good faith of the other.  

My evidentiary standards for supernatural claims are quite high, but even outside of the supernatural claims in the BofM, I find the narrative highly implausible.

Edited by spinner, 30 August 2008 - 07:22 AM.

[AKS]

The absence of the plates is a major reason why I don't believe in mormonism.  So if the plates were found and validated I would very likely go back to church.  However, claiming that an angel gave JS the plates (which he couldn't translate and apparently didn't need for the production of the BOM anyway) and then took them back to heaven is just too fanciful for me to take much stock in.  The story does fit right in though with a man that might claim a fiery sword wielding angel threatened him with death if polygamy is not practiced. Or sinking treasure.  Or magical peep stones...  etc

[cdowis]

AKS, on Aug 30 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

The absence of the plates is a major reason why I don't believe in mormonism.  So if the plates were found and validated I would very likely go back to church.  However, claiming that an angel gave JS the plates (which he couldn't translate and apparently didn't need for the production of the BOM anyway) and then took them back to heaven is just too fanciful for me to take much stock in.  The story does fit right in though with a man that might claim a fiery sword wielding angel threatened him with death if polygamy is not practiced. Or sinking treasure.  Or magical peep stones...  etc

And I assume you are not a Christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees.

"I'll only believe it if it forced down my throat."

[AKS]

cdowis, on Aug 30 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

And I assume you are not a Christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees.

"I'll only believe it if it forced down my throat."

You assume I'm not christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees?  Weren't you just beating some guy up for stinking logic?

[ckonrad]

spinner, on Aug 30 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

I guess then the question is really not "would you believe?" but "what would you believe".  Makes for a messy survey, though.

The heart of the matter, though, is the oft-repeated chestnut that no amount of evidence would convince the skeptic of Mormonism's claims.  Of course critics could claim the converse that "no amount of contrary evidence could ever sway the believer", but I see no point in engaging in discussions neither side is even willing to assume the good faith of the other.  

My evidentiary standards for supernatural claims are quite high, but even outside of the supernatural claims in the BofM, I find the narrative highly implausible.

Yeah i'm starting to realize that, i never took a poll before on anything so it never occurred to me early on to be more specific, its one of those kind of things where i wasn't really aware that there were so many different ways of understanding the question. Maybe i'll try it again sometime down the road.

-corey

[Honorentheos]

I answered the OP poll as yes.  It would be hard to maintain a sketical stance on the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith if the plates were found, proved ancient, and shown to be more or less what he claimed they were.  That is about as close to certain as we get.  I also do not see it happening any time soon.

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?

I don't see a double standard here, based on the OP actually.  Herodetus gives us a poetic account of an event that has other backing evidence of the actual event.  The notion that Greece, Persia, Xerxis, Athens, Marathon, and other persons, places, and context material are authentic are not in doubt.  No one reasonably believes the entire matter is a fiction from his own mind.  But no one diputes that the account is one of his mind and not of other origin.

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal.  It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria.  If, on the other hand, it was a gold book being translated without divine means involved, there would be a double standard.

[Dr. Sandwich]

Honorentheos, on Aug 30 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

I don't see a double standard here, based on the OP actually.  Herodetus gives us a poetic account of an event that has other backing evidence of the actual event.  The notion that Greece, Persia, Xerxis, Athens, Marathon, and other persons, places, and context material are authentic are not in doubt.  No one reasonably believes the entire matter is a fiction from his own mind.  But no one diputes that the account is one of his mind and not of other origin.

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal.  It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria.  If, on the other hand, it was a gold book being translated without divine means involved, there would be a double standard.

But you have to remember that from Roomelator's point of view, the BOM was first a history of a civilization, and then, later, it was buried and translated through divine interpretation.

I assume he's granting that the exaggeration was not a strength, just that it doesn't mean it's false per say.

[Rommelator]

Quote

Was this honest fellow also a prophet who communed with God, and whose task was to create an accurate record of his people for future generations?

I believe so, yes. However, we need to define accurate in this case. To assume that the standards of historiography were the same anciently then they were today is presentism in its worse. Ancient historians had a different view of what could be passed as accurate than modern historians.

Quote

What, exactly, is Mormon's incentive for number-inflating propaganda?

I don't know, you will have to ask him. However, I have an idea. Mark Alan Wright in his 2008 presentation at Olivewood Bookstore discussed how ancient Mesoamerican kings, rulers, historians, generals, etc. like to inflate numbers in their records to establish a sense of power over enemies. Maybe Mormon was doing the same here. Brant Gardner has shown ancient Nephite sociocentrism in the Book of Mormon (another ancient trait amongst historians) so maybe we are seeing something similar.

Further, we need to remember that the Book of Mormon never claims to be perfect. Mormon, Moroni and Nephi all lamented in the flaws and shortcomings in their records. To attack the Book of Mormon on the claims on infallibility is, therefore, a straw man.

Quote

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal. It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria.

I agree that we have a unique case with the Book of Mormon, but the OP that relayed John Larsen's ideas did not establish that. John was criticizing the Book of Mormon (which claims to be ancient history) for having unrealistic numbers. I showed an example of another ancient history that also inflated numbers. We therefore have a convergence between an ancient history and another book that claims to be ancient history.What I was trying to show is that the problem of inflated numbers vanishes when we realize that this is how ancient histories were written. Or, to put it simply, bad history is not the same as not history. Even if Mormon got details wrong, which he himself admits he might have done, that does not invalidate the Book of Mormon as history because other ancient histories also got stuff wrong.

Quote

I assume he's granting that the exaggeration was not a strength, just that it doesn't mean it's false per say.

Correct. This is precisely what I am arguing. As I said before, bad history (in this case Mormon inflating numbers) is not the same as false history (or the Book of Mormon therefore not being historical at all).

Edited by Rommelator, 30 August 2008 - 02:23 PM.

[AKS]

Rommelator, on Aug 30 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Further, we need to remember that the Book of Mormon never claims to be perfect. Mormon, Moroni and Nephi all lamented in the flaws and shortcomings in their records. To attack the Book of Mormon on the claims on infallibility is, therefore, a straw man.

How remarkably convenient.  And where are these gold plates?  Oh thats right, taken back to heaven...  

[Rommelator]

AKS, on Aug 30 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

How remarkably convenient.  And where are these gold plates?  Oh thats right, taken back to heaven...  

What, pray tell, does this have to do with the conversation at hand?

[3DOP]

Perhaps I don't appreciate all the implications of "the plates Joseph used". It doesn't seem terribly significant or LDS faith-promoting to me that scientists should come into possession of some artifacts used by Joseph Smith. I would be more impressed if an Apostle walked on the Great Salt Lake.

I have no opinion about these things regarding LDS evidences. I know very little about...I can't think of the word...some sort of poetic meter or rhythm that is supposed to be positive evidence. NHM. The chiasmus, that's what you call it I think. The witnesses. BOA. I almost never look at those "Book of Mormon bullseye" threads. Likewise for DNA. Mountain Meadows. Polygamy. Horses. I almost never look at those "Book of Mormon misses the bullseye" threads.

I pretty much for sake of argument assume that the anti-Mormons are wrong about everything. I presume they are wrong about the plates and Mormons are right about them...whatever it is you say happened to them. I have no negative evidence to offer against LDS claims except for being unimpressed with Latter Day Apostles who after Joseph don't seem to have his mantle. No striking revelation or miracles. Miracles and fulfilled prophecy would have to make me sit up and evaluate things a little more closely even if you failed to persuade me about the apostasy. But Mormons also fail to persuade me that the Catholic Church is apostate. Forgive me, but most of you good folk sound eerily like those anti-Mormons, beginning with good intentions, yet with pre-conceived notions distorting all the evidence, unqualified to speak on a subject, and displaying the most zealous certainty in concluding that the Catholic faith is false.

I already accept that you have reasonable arguments for why the plates are wherever they are. So, how do these plates falling into the possession of science make non-Mormons believe that our own faiths are false?

3DOP