Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Not so easy?


Bill Hamblin

Recommended Posts

Hey random,

Instead of only being 'sorta on your side", how about you just give in?  Go ahead, you know you want to convert.  We'll let you come on over and 'hit for the other team'.  I'll even give up that nasty tobacco habit of mine so I can dunk ya!

The phrase that pays is, "Cumulative Case." People who think that the truth-claims of Catholicism or Mormonism are clearly, demonstravely true as misled as people who think that they're clearly, demonstratively false. When I come to believe that the cumulative case in favor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being what it claims to be is equal to or stronger than the case against that truth-claim, I would be able to take Moroni's test. Of course, I'm biased insofar as I love being Catholic (and drinking coffee), so the ratio would probably be, like, 60-40, but I'll only know that through hindsight...

I smoke too, and I hate it. Of course, if I thought that it would bar me from Exaltation, I'd probably be a lot more motivated to quit. The "inevitable early, lingering, painful death" thing doesn't seem to be sufficient, though... :P

Link to comment
Unfortunately, the Nephites do not fall into the category of early Christians within the Roman Empire. The Nephites fall into the category of the Roman Empire itself, since they were the overwhelmingly dominant political, religious, and racial group in their sphere of influence.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then finding evidence of the Nephites in Mesoamerica should be no more difficult than finding evidence of the Roman Empire in Italy.

Except that the Roman Empire was historically the dominant force in the Mediterranean, well beyond the strict borders of Italy, whereas there is no evidence of which I am aware, that the Nephites were comparably dominant on such a scale. Indeed, the Lamanites had them outnumbered on a consistent basis, and there is no indication of the size of other groups in neighboring areas. Further, the cultural continuity of the Roman Empire and its descendants makes the task of locating it much easier than is the case for poorly-documented and fragmented cultures like those of the Americas. Face it, the cultural history of the Americas is miserably spotty compared with European and Mediterranean history. And to locate specific groups within that spotty history becomes all the more difficult.

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
Yes 8th grade and into high school even!!!! Yes I know it is hard to believe, but it is true. Now in regards to your alleged theology degree from Cult State University..........

Awesome...congratulations for getting into high school...did we make it all the way thru...now as far as being a cultist..so you think I am a cultist? Really???

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
And yes, in much the same way that EV/BACs want to say the LDS are a cult, I would argue that it is truly the EV?BACs in their 'mass confusion' that are the cult members.

Whew...(wiping sweat off brow) I thought you was gonna say all us LDS was culties !!!! :P<_<

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
You tried to initiate a serious and substantive discussion with this thread. That cannot be taken away from you, no matter how bad the thread actually turns out to be.

Cordially,

Professor Peterson

Actually for a change the latter half of the thread had turned out to be fun and non-argumentative.....until somebody came in and pulled his own string....unfortunately he thinks sly insults is the same as humor...

Link to comment

okay, I must have missed something here. Maybe it is time I used that h.s. and half-way college education here and did some history into your posts and intro if you posted one JC. If not EV/BAC are you one of those interesting curiousities(sic?) they call an apostate?

What a truly terrible waste if this is the case.

Hah! A poet and I didn't even know it!

Link to comment
okay, I must have missed something here. Maybe it is time I used that h.s. and half-way college education here and did some history into your posts and intro if you posted one JC. If not EV/BAC are you one of those interesting curiousities(sic?) they call an apostate?

What a truly terrible waste if this is the case.

Hah! A poet and I didn't even know it!

az,

Just so you know, Just Curious is a Latter-day Saint. Hard to believe, I know, but it is true.

T-Shirt

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
If not EV/BAC are you one of those interesting curiousities(sic?) they call an apostate?

What a truly terrible waste if this is the case.

No I still have my prostate ....oohhhh apostate...not sure what that means but I tell you what I will ask stake pres Sat or Sun at stake conference (he's a good friend of mine) if I am one of whatever that was you said and I will let you know what he tells me ok...deal?

Link to comment

I only pick up things such as sly insults for humor from the best. Much the same way you turn on Boss Peterson and Boss Hamblin every time they put you on the ropes. And no I'm not on the ropes, rather as badly as I hate to admit it I did go on the offensive here. Oh well. I'll live.

Link to comment
Professor Hamblin:

You tried to initiate a serious and substantive discussion with this thread. That cannot be taken away from you, no matter how bad the thread actually turns out to be.

Cordially,

Professor Peterson

I still have high hopes for this thread. Though I think the fact that no one yet has been able seriously to answer Professor Hamblin's challenge is, in itself, telling.

Link to comment
You tried to initiate a serious and substantive discussion with this thread. That cannot be taken away from you, no matter how bad the thread actually turns out to be.

Dr. Peterson, do you really feel that the situation of the Jaredites/Lehites/and Mulekites, when put into the context of the claims of the Book of Mormon, is analogous to the status of the pre-Constantine Christians?

Do you feel that everyone who believes in the existence of Christianity 33-300AD is basing their belief on a faith similar to that required to believe the Book of Mormon?

Do you feel the question at the start of this thread is a good excercise to understand the current status (and struggles) of Book of Mormon researchers?

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
Boss Peterson and Boss Hamblin every time they put you on the ropes

Call it what you will, but more often than not it is either of them that starts the unpleasntries...I will strike back if stricken at...sorry just how I am..

Link to comment
Obviously not. Nor does Professor Hamblin.

You might want to re-read his question.

Well, I'm stumped. Since I know absolutely nothing about the state of early Christian archaeology, I can't "answer" the question. Nor can I determine if it is even a good analogy.

Can you help me out Dr. Peterson?

Can you explain to me how the early Christians, living in the Roman Empire, were similar to the Book of Mormon peoples?

Can you explain why I should expect their "evidences" to be similar?

Can you explain why so many people believe that one group existed, but not the other?

Link to comment
You tried to initiate a serious and substantive discussion with this thread. That cannot be taken away from you, no matter how bad the thread actually turns out to be.

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Amid all the chaotic chatter I've quite forgotten what the point was.

Oh yes, now I remember, it was that ... no that wasn't it either.

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

Link to comment
Can you explain to me how the early Christians, living in the Roman Empire, were similar to the Book of Mormon peoples?

That's not the issue. The issue is that the methodological problems in the hypothetical test I proposed are broadly analogous. The fact that it is difficult, if not impossible to "discover" first through third century Christians through archaeological evidence and Roman imperial inscriptions alone should give anti-Mormon critics pause in their claims against the BOM. Should, but undoubtedly won't.

This simple test demonstrates that it is quite possible for a religion, especially an aniconic religion, to simply disappear from the archaeological record. Despite the fact that there were several million Christians in the Roman empire in the late third century, it is very difficult to discovery almost anything of substance about them from archaeology alone.

Link to comment
Anti-Mormons frequently claim it should be easy to identify Nephite artifacts in Mesoamerica.

When has an anti-mormon or critic ever said it should be "easy"? I would agree that, based on the claims of the book, it should be possible, but not easy.

Although, it seemed to be a lot easier back when Nephite fortifications dotted the American frontier,, and Lamanite skeletons to be dug up in America,, and the bones of dead Nephites in America as well.

It only seems to get harder as we learn more about American history, not easier.

Who cares about the plates?

I do.

There is absolutely no reason for all the physical evidence Joseph Smith had to disappear, (with the only remaining artifact of the translation being the seer stone, which just happens to have a good 19th century explanation for its existence.)

The existence of physical evidence would not affect the faith required to believe Joseph Smith's claims. In fact, it would probably only increase it. (See: "Joseph Smith Papyri")

I have made a shocking new discovery. After extensive and intensive observation I find that it is impossible to have a coherent, serious and informed discussion on the FAIR Message Board.

A conversation involves two-way dialog. You have been posting questions that, to me, don't appear to be analogous to the claims of the Book of Mormon (or its supporters and critics). You are also phrasing "challenges" (1&3) that are narrowly focused on specific areas of knowledge, and then hypothetically limited to try and make a point.

I think the obvious answers to these and future similar challenges would be that the evidence for Book of Mormon peoples is not sufficient to support the claims of the book (or the Churches that believe in the book). Also, I would doubt the existence of any other supposed similar civilization that has similarly scant evidence.

But as they are presented, your challenges 1&3 make too many assumptions. If we could first discuss those assumptions, especially the points of similarity between Christianity 33-300AD, and pre-Babylonian (i.e. pre-587 BC) Canaanites and Israelites to the Book of Mormon peoples, that would be great.

I'm especially interested in your basis for believing in the existence of these supposed "early Christians", as well as these "pre-Babylonian Canaanites and Israelites". Are you basing your belief in the existence of these people on divine revelation, or is there something more? Does that go for all scholars who believe in the existence of these groups?

For example, Hamblin says:

That's not the issue. The issue is that the methodological problems in the hypothetical test I proposed are broadly analogous.

I need you to explain, very clearly and plainly, how you see the claims of the Book of Mormon to be analogous to the situation of the early Christians. Especially in population size, and their relationship to the any existing populations. For example, were the early Christians you are referring to kings, judges and rulers over the indigenous peoples? Did they wage battles against the non-Christians, fighting wars of extinction? If so, how many soldiers were involved?

Please draw clearly draw the analogy, and let me know about the interpretations you are applying to Book of Mormon claims that would validate your analogy.

A good example of a meaningless response is this one:

I asked:

Do you feel that everyone who believes in the existence of Christianity 33-300AD is basing their belief on a faith similar to that required to believe the Book of Mormon? 

And Dr. Peterson replies:

Obviously not. Nor does Professor Hamblin.

You might want to re-read his question.

This suggestion doesn't help me understand where Dr. Peterson thinks I went wrong. Instead of asking me to re-read the question, he should point out specifically where he thinks I went wrong. It does no good to anyone for me to have to guess what he is talking about. And it's just too easy to try and deflect a response by implying someone has "misunderstood", and therefore you won't respond, but not helping them understand.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...