157 replies to this topic

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 20 February 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ah I see that now.  Then if we follow your hypothesis we must make assumptions to achieve your result.

We must assume:

• The map from 1815 had NHM correctly located to it's present day location
• The map or a copy of the map traversed the Atlantic ocean for purposes unknown
• The map then must traverse the eastern seaboard or directly from New York Port
• The map would then have to travel within the vicinity of Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith would then have to have reason to be exposed to the map in question
• The map itself must, by point-in-fact, impress upon Joseph the name of NHM to be remembered years later

Those seem like a lot of assumptions to get JS in contact with the map.

Do you have a proposal to remedy these assumptions?

Some of those assumptions are quite silly but this is a good example to show what I've been saying and you apparently haven't bother to read. I'll take ALL of these assumptions and I still am in more solid of a ground that he who takes super-natural assumptions (LDS believers).


clear enough?

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

That is the conundrum. JS was not educated in what the Saudi peninsula actually looked like. Popular opinion of the time was that it was a giant sand pit. He had no reasonable means of knowing about a Frankincense trail offshoot, a constantly flowing stream leading into the Red Sea. Let alone NHM, and Bountiful. Maps of his day wouldn't have helped. Thus it is no more reasonable to believe he had an extensive background in Middle Eastern geography, than "Angels delivering books".

[Robert F. Smith]

elguanteloko, on 20 February 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

Miracles are a matter of faith, NOT of "supporting evidence".

Pedro, you asked how we (non-believers) account for these type of historical issues and here it is: we make up any hypothesis that seems more plausible than the other ones and fits more events than the competing explanations. Just as when trying to show that Christ actually resurrected, trying to show evidence of Joseph Smith's revelations being true already assumes what it's trying to show and in doing so fails to realize that the explanation presented is the least likely explanation of them all.

Example: in the video you posted, Daniel C. Peterson says that JS looking at that map seems very unlikely... but being as open minded as possible, isn't it a hundred times more unlikely that JS got a revelation from a super-natural being? Saying JS looked at a map, as unlikely as it will EVER be (if it is), is ALWAYS going to be much more likely than a super-natural explanation of the events... than ANY super-natural explanation. That is, ANY explanation of event X that is not self contradictory, does not break any of the so-called "laws of nature", and fits the events fairly well will ALWAYS be more likely an explanation than one of a super-natural nature.

Recommended readings:

http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html

http://plato.stanfor...tries/miracles/

Given the normative assumptions (or Grundlage) of Judeo-Christian tradition, the epistemological problem which David Hume and Bertrand Russell have with miracles as the abrogation of the laws of nature or physics seems undeniable and understandable.

However, like Tibetan Buddhism, Mormonism as a theology denies the existence of the miraculous or supernatural, just as it denies the "absurdities of immaterialism."  Whether it is because Mormons are socialized to that POV, it remains a fact that the MMPI results for Mormons have to be adjusted to account for such fundamental beliefs -- which differentiate them from the remainder of the U.S. population.  Otherwise, Mormons would seem dangerously delusional, when in fact it seems perfectly normal to a Mormon that people might have visions or be actively and powerfully influenced by the Holy Ghost.  Even at that, however, since we are prisoners of our senses (according to Hume), and every revelation or inspiration is our own and non-transferrable, any preternatural sources of information are and remain personal..

Yet, here Pedro has presented us with a much different problem.  He is, in effect, asking us what does the preponderance of natural evidence show?  That is, evidence of the kind which historians usually employ in rationally discussing vaunted historical events.  Here is where the videos are powerfully expressive and difficult to refute.  For they make hash of the usual claim that there is no physical evidence to confirm Book of Mormon claims.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Some of those assumptions are quite silly but this is a good example to show what I've been saying and you apparently haven't bother to read. I'll take ALL of these assumptions and I still am in more solid of a ground that he who takes super-natural assumptions (LDS believers).


clear enough?

It's perfectly clear, but you have not answered the question I posed.  Thus you remain on the same foundation as anyone else.  You have no supporting evidence, nor do you have any alternative hypothesis from which you can eliminate some assumptions.  You state that some are quite silly; to which one's are you referring?  From my point of view each one is necessary for JS to use such a map to implement NHM into The Book of Mormon narrative--which seems to be something you are unwilling to admit.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mortal Man, on 20 February 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

It's stunning that Kerry is able to misquote Alma 7:10 at the exact moment the verse is highlighted for the audience. The actual wording, "..he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,..." is not equivalent to "...born at the land of Jerusalem." The genitive, "land of Jerusalem", is an alleged Hebraism, whereas the trailing "which..." clause is not. Furthermore, "land of Jerusalem", "land of our forefathers", "land of Zarahemla", "land of Nephi", "land of Middoni", "land of Sharon", "land of Enoch", "land of Omner", "land of Heni", "land of Shem", "land of Haner", "land of Hanannihah", "land of Ishmael" etc. is just the way JS spoke.

Kerry may have made a mistake, but it is still true that the phrase "land of Jerusalem" occurs throughout the Book of Mormon so often that it is understandable that Kerry might extrapolate and reinterpret in his own mind.  The phrase does not occur in the Bible. The commonality of such phrasing in the Book of Mormon does not mean that this "is just the way" Joseph spoke.  It is equally likely that this was an integral part of Book of Mormon style on the plates (whether Hebrew or Egyptian).

On the other hand, the trailing "which"-clause you mention is equally a Hebraism and occurs quite often in geographical phrases in the Bible.  The problem with that generic phrase is that it is not distinguishable from regular English phrasing.  The distinctive quality of Alma 7:10 is that it constitutes a geo-political concept which was unknown to Joseph and his contemporaries, i.e., the "land of Jerusalem" as found in Amarna Letters (with an apparent Bethlehem listed in it) as well as at Qumran.  It also flies in the face of common knowledge.  Joseph should have put in "Bethlehem" if the Book of Mormon were a forgery or some sort of historical novel.  Why would he opt to make a fool of himself by claiming that Jesus will be born at Jerusalem?

Alexander Campbell faulted Joseph on that precise problem in his Delusions in 1833.  Is it fair to fault Joseph no matter which phrase he uses here?

[Analytics]

Q: How do you account for Lehi's Trail and "land of Jerusalem"?

A: There are three broad explanations for the alleged hits in the Book of Mormon:

• The Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript and was translated with the power of God.
  
  
• A mischievous supernatural entity (e.g. Satan, a demon, magic elves, etc.) inspired Joseph Smith to include some hits in his record for the mischievous purposes of said entity.
  
  
• That there is a natural explanation, which could be luck, maps, specific knowledge that Joseph Smith happened to acquire from natural means, etc.

In general, I find explanation 1 and 2 equally probable and explanation 3 much more likely.

I account for Lehi’s trail and other alleged evidences for the Book of Mormon in the same way I account for magic tricks that I don’t understand—just because I don’t know specifically how an illusionist performed a specific trick doesn’t mean I conclude that it must be real magic; I simply say "I don't know, but I'm sure there is a naturalistic explanation."

Edited by Analytics, 21 February 2011 - 10:22 AM.

[Jaybear]

Analytics, on 21 February 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

• The Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript and was translated with the power of God.
  
  
• A mischievous supernatural entity (e.g. Satan, a demon, magic elves, etc.) inspired Joseph Smith to include some hits in his record for the mischievous purposes of said entity.
  
  
• That there is a natural explanation, which could be luck, maps, specific knowledge that Joseph Smith happened to acquire from natural means, etc.

4. The conclusion that these are in fact "hits" overstates the evidence. For example, have apologists actually convinced any nonLDS scholars that there was in fact placed called Nehom in 600 BC, at or near the place the alter was found. If not, then at best, its a "possible" hit.

[elguanteloko]

thesometimesaint, on 21 February 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

elguanteloko:

That is the conundrum. JS was not educated in what the Saudi peninsula actually looked like. Popular opinion of the time was that it was a giant sand pit. He had no reasonable means of knowing about a Frankincense trail offshoot, a constantly flowing stream leading into the Red Sea. Let alone NHM, and Bountiful. Maps of his day wouldn't have helped. Thus it is no more reasonable to believe he had an extensive background in Middle Eastern geography, than "Angels delivering books".

It isn't as reasonable as "Angels delivering books". Analytics brought up the example of trying to explain the tricks of a magician and that's very appropriate. We don't finish watching Chris Angel thinking "Man, that guy has priesthood-like powers!", right? Because ANY explanation that involves magical or super-natural explanations are much less likely to be true that just a cool trick we don't understand yet. You are asking non-believers to accept that Chris Angel does real magic... or similar.

Now, man, I'm not saying there aren't miracles but they are a matter of faith, not of evidence or "more likely explanations" at all; if they were then they wouldn't be miracles.

ETA: it was Chris not Christ Angel... LOL, sorry about that.

Edited by elguanteloko, 21 February 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[elguanteloko]

Robert F. Smith, on 21 February 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Given the normative assumptions (or Grundlage) of Judeo-Christian tradition, the epistemological problem which David Hume and Bertrand Russell have with miracles as the abrogation of the laws of nature or physics seems undeniable and understandable.

However, like Tibetan Buddhism, Mormonism as a theology denies the existence of the miraculous or supernatural,

lol really?

Quote

just as it denies the "absurdities of immaterialism."

  

yes, by naming it something different (i.e. "more fine or pure matter") which illustrates nothing at all. Just changing the names of things isn't explaining them.

Quote

Whether it is because Mormons are socialized to that POV, it remains a fact that the MMPI results for Mormons have to be adjusted to account for such fundamental beliefs -- which differentiate them from the remainder of the U.S. population.  Otherwise, Mormons would seem dangerously delusional, when in fact it seems perfectly normal to a Mormon that people might have visions or be actively and powerfully influenced by the Holy Ghost.  Even at that, however, since we are prisoners of our senses (according to Hume), and every revelation or inspiration is our own and non-transferrable, any preternatural sources of information are and remain personal..

Sure but then don't act as if it was the reasonable thing to think... it isn't. Plus I don't even think this is the case. If you seriously ask a mormon of medium education what he thinks the more likely and 'objective' explanation is for such type of events I don't think he'll give the "spiritual explanation" answer.

Quote

Yet, here Pedro has presented us with a much different problem.  He is, in effect, asking us what does the preponderance of natural evidence show?  That is, evidence of the kind which historians usually employ in rationally discussing vaunted historical events.  Here is where the videos are powerfully expressive and difficult to refute.  For they make hash of the usual claim that there is no physical evidence to confirm Book of Mormon claims.

See above. The apologists are the ones offering a VERY UNLIKELY explanation of certain events and we don't need to be refuting every silly explanation that pops up here and there and we told you why.

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 06:41 AM, said:

It's perfectly clear, but you have not answered the question I posed.

It was clearly implied that I accepted ALL of those assumptions at least for the sake of argument right now to illustrate the point.

Quote

Thus you remain on the same foundation as anyone else.

  

Next time you watch Chris Angel think of what the most likely explanation to his (be it said, lame) tricks are. Did he really walked on water or was it just a trick? What is the most likely explanation? Is the one who thinks that it's just a trick or has a very imaginative, 'natural' explanation on the same grounds than he who thinks he is doing real magic?

Quote

You have no supporting evidence, nor do you have any alternative hypothesis from which you can eliminate some assumptions.

  

I told you I accepted them all; I don't need to reject any or to make the explanation simpler to illustrate the point.

Quote

You state that some are quite silly; to which one's are you referring?  From my point of view each one is necessary for JS to use such a map to implement NHM into The Book of Mormon narrative--which seems to be something you are unwilling to admit.

2-4 need not be the case. The map itself didn't need to go anywhere as long as someone saw it and that person traveled. That makes 5 unnecessary. On 6, the person who saw the map could have told JS about the place for some reason not so long before he wrote it down.

...but yet again, I told you that I accepted all of the first assumptions to show the point. As unlikely you think these explanations are, the "An angel told me to" explanation is even less likely.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Yes really, any miracle is just something we don't have a explanation for YET.

True enough, but even scientists put names on things they don't have an explanation for
YET. IE; Dark Matter, and even more mysterious Dark Energy.

I'm reasonably well educated, and I have no problem with religion, or religious answers to religious questions.

I have no problem with "I don't know". The FACTS are that NHM, and Bountiful exist. They existed in 600 BCE, and they existed in 1830, and they exist now. We have pictures of them now. There is no explanation for JS knowing of them from his environment. Come up with an explanation that fits all the known facts.

[elguanteloko]

thesometimesaint, on 21 February 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

elguanteloko:

Yes really, any miracle is just something we don't have a explanation for YET.

True enough, but even scientists put names on things they don't have an explanation for
YET. IE; Dark Matter, and even more mysterious Dark Energy.

I'm sure they just came up with these things out of the blue...

Quote

I'm reasonably well educated, and I have no problem with religion, or religious answers to religious questions.

me neither but they are not the most likely explanations.

Quote

I have no problem with "I don't know". The FACTS are that NHM, and Bountiful exist. They existed in 600 BCE, and they existed in 1830, and they exist now. We have pictures of them now. There is no explanation for JS knowing of them from his environment. Come up with an explanation that fits all the known facts.

did you watch the video? Listen to what Daniel C. Peterson says there. Plus, I can come up with other explanations that can be much less likely but still ALWAYS more likely than a super-natural one. You aren't really getting the point. See the "Chris Angel" analogy or Analytics post.

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

Sure but then don't act as if it was the reasonable thing to think... it isn't. Plus I don't even think this is the case. If you seriously ask a mormon of medium education what he thinks the more likely and 'objective' explanation is for such type of events I don't think he'll give the "spiritual explanation" answer.

What would you consider a medium education?

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:

Next time you watch Chris Angel think of what the most likely explanation to his (be it said, lame) tricks are. Did he really walked on water or was it just a trick? What is the most likely explanation? Is the one who thinks that it's just a trick or has a very imaginative, 'natural' explanation on the same grounds than he who thinks he is doing real magic?

  

Apples and oranges.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:

It was clearly implied that I accepted ALL of those assumptions at least for the sake of argument right now to illustrate the point.

Obviously it was not as you stated point blank that some are 'just silly'.  Meaning that you didn't accept them as written.

Quote

Next time you watch Chris Angel think of what the most likely explanation to his (be it said, lame) tricks are. Did he really walked on water or was it just a trick? What is the most likely explanation? Is the one who thinks that it's just a trick or has a very imaginative, 'natural' explanation on the same grounds than he who thinks he is doing real magic?

Now we're not talking about an illusionist are we?  We are talking about known facts and a reasonable hypothesis with minimal assumptions.
  

Quote

I told you I accepted them all; I don't need to reject any or to make the explanation simpler to illustrate the point.

Actually you do; for as it stands there are far too many unknowns and if it did play out as those assumptions it would be similar to an individual going to Vegas, placing bets on all the Roulette tables (not just in 1 casino but all of them), and subsequently winning them all.  Astronomical in plausibility.  Couple it with additional evidence from Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon and you'd have further issues in plausibility.

Quote

2-4 need not be the case. The map itself didn't need to go anywhere as long as someone saw it and that person traveled. That makes 5 unnecessary. On 6, the person who saw the map could have told JS about the place for some reason not so long before he wrote it down.

Which begs the question and adds additional assumptions that do not increase the probability of contact; namely trust in the individual as authoritative on middle eastern geography.

Quote

...but yet again, I told you that I accepted all of the first assumptions to show the point. As unlikely you think these explanations are, the "An angel told me to" explanation is even less likely.

As much as you're trying to reducto ad absurdum you fail.  Moroni (nor any other angel) never told him about NHM, nor of Bountiful.  Thus your critique must bear upon the translation process or the prophet himself; from which you're placing your bets on the plausibility of the improbable.

Quote

...But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

[jmordecai]

thesometimesaint, on 21 February 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

elguanteloko:

The FACTS are that NHM, and Bountiful exist. They existed in 600 BCE, and they existed in 1830, and they exist now.

CFR that a place called NHM existed in 600 B.C.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1208976082

[krose]

elguanteloko, on 20 February 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

Example: in the video you posted, Daniel C. Peterson says that JS looking at that map seems very unlikely... but being as open minded as possible, isn't it a hundred times more unlikely that JS got a revelation from a super-natural being? Saying JS looked at a map, as unlikely as it will EVER be (if it is), is ALWAYS going to be much more likely than a super-natural explanation of the events... than ANY super-natural explanation. That is, ANY explanation of event X that is not self contradictory, does not break any of the so-called "laws of nature", and fits the events fairly well will ALWAYS be more likely an explanation than one of a super-natural nature.

Well said.

Just as an example, it is extremely unlikely that my cousin would be accidentally struck by lightning twice in ten years. However, the accidental nature of this outcome is much more likely than his being targeted by a god, such as Zeus or Thor.

[Mortal Man]

Robert F. Smith, on 21 February 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

Kerry may have made a mistake, but it is still true that the phrase "land of Jerusalem" occurs throughout the Book of Mormon so often that it is understandable that Kerry might extrapolate and reinterpret in his own mind.

There is no justification for conflating Jesus’ birth in Alma 7:10 with “land of Jerusalem” phrasing elsewhere in the BoM. These are two separate issues.

Quote

The phrase does not occur in the Bible.

No, but we have “land of Sihon”, “land of Og”, “ land of Egypt”, ”land of Moab”, “land of Ephraim”, “land of Canaan”, “land of Judah” etc. It’s hard to see how an avid reader of the KJV Bible couldn’t help but pick up this phraseology.

Quote

The commonality of such phrasing in the Book of Mormon does not mean that this "is just the way" Joseph spoke.  It is equally likely that this was an integral part of Book of Mormon style on the plates (whether Hebrew or Egyptian).

Seven of the “land of [someplace]” quotes I listed are from Moses 7:9. In the D&C we have: “land of Missouri”, “land of your inheritance”, “land of Egypt”, “land of Zion”, “land of peace”, “land of Kirtland”, “land of promise”, “land of Jerusalem” etc. It most certainly is the way JS spoke in his prophetic voice.

Quote

Joseph should have put in "Bethlehem" if the Book of Mormon were a forgery or some sort of historical novel.  Why would he opt to make a fool of himself by claiming that Jesus will be born at Jerusalem?

I see “at Jerusalem” in Alma 7:10 as evidence neither for nor against the BoM.

Quote

Is it fair to fault Joseph no matter which phrase he uses here?

As I’ve stated before, if Alma 7:10 had read, “born at Nazareth in the land of Galilee” then I would have scored it a major direct hit.

[elguanteloko]

ERayR, on 21 February 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

What would you consider a medium education?

they agree with me.  

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

they agree with me.  

I then must be illiterate.