Probability and NHM

[juliann]

Now please suggest to us exactly what we are looking for to verify that it is a Nephite city.

It goes back to the problem of equal footing. When the scholarship of religion is leveling the playing ground the defense can only be elimination of data. To let it in at all is to give it equal footing (in MC's words). Then one becomes a hypocrite rather than a critic.

Modernity, rather than being regarded as the norm for human society toward which all history has been aiming and into which all societies should be ushered

[cdowis]

Japanguy,

Are you observing what is going on here ==>

Asking a couple of basic questions.

Making a few observations.

Pointing out the obvious.

Waiting patiently for a response.

[cdowis]

Japanguy, here's the deal.

The new antimormon is now disguishing himself as "open minded and objective." The epitimy of the scientific mindset.

He makes a simple request -- "Just find Zarahemla, discover a few significant artifacts, and you have proven the BOM."

Sounds pretty reasonable, nicht wahr?

Just one tiny thing. I ask them, "Exactly what artifact are we looking for? The records have been destroyed, so what do we need to find to satisfy you."

The answer is a deep and profound.... silence.

Of course. They are making a phoney request, and they know it. The best they can come with is the usual shopping list of various animal bones, hebrew writing, etc. The BOM tells us that there were alot of false religions, and false religions give us artifacts -- wall murals of their phoney gods. True Christianity is in the heart.

[japanguy]

Cdowis,

Why do you keep being contentious? I have not attacked anyone. And I have not said that you are wrong. Far from it. I just was stating that we are all different with different world views. Some had stated that they could not understand why Dan Vogel could not say that NHM was evidence. I gave a reason why. His world view is that the BofM is a fraud. And unless the NHM discovery were to change that opinion then it is not evidence to him. As his "evidence" that the BofM is a fraud is not real evidence to you. That is my point and all I was trying to get across. But what happened. I got accussed of being foolish and lacking in critical thinking skills. All you have really done is to prove my point that you have your own world view and any "evidence" against it is not "evidence" to you.

And lastly, I do know how science works. I love the sciences and often read about recent discovers etc. You could say studying science is a hobby of mine. So I am well aware of how it works. I do not need your hand to hold. I am offended by your posts. I have not attacked you or anyone else. But you treat me as if I were a fool and you are here to lead. Are you a christian? Do you understand love, charity, sympathy, kindness, and so on?

Japanguy

P.S. I will agree that some anti mormons cherry pick from science in an attempt to prove their points but so do some of the apolagists. So I think it is pretty even.

[japanguy]

Cdowis said

"Just one tiny thing. I ask them, "Exactly what artifact are we looking for? The records have been destroyed, so what do we need to find to satisfy you."

Well maybe the reason you have received no answer is because there is no simple answer. Let me ask you a question. Exactly what archelogical artifact would convince you the BofM is not true? What exactly are we looking for? Your question seems simple but the answer is quite complex. There are various things to analyze and consider before a change in worldview occurs. There is not a simple one sentence answer to your question or to mine. So stop being to proud of yourself for stumping Dan Vogel. It is all in your mind.

Japanguy

[charity]

japanguy, this is not an attack on your, but the question you ask, "What archeological artificact would convince you that the Book of Mormon is not true?"

That is an impossible question. It may be very difficult to find something that proves a group consistent with the Book of Mormon account was here. But that kind of artifact is conceivable. Some stone carving with the name Lehi in Hebrew characters dated to the proper time, for instance.

But how do you prove somebody wasn't here? If you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it.

[japanguy]

Yes it is a very difficult question. But so is the question asked by Cdowis. You say there is no answer but what if a comprehensive history of the meso american area was found and it gave details of the history and they did not jive with the BofM? Or what if some old gold plates were found in New York which were obviously made in the 19th century and they had on them what appeared to be reformed Egyptian??? There are answers to both questions. The answers though are complex. And almost unanswerable. So as you stated very well. "That is an impossible question." This type of question is asked only when one is trying to best someone in a match of words but have nothing really to say. So the question is worthless. These are both worthless questions.

And it goes back to what I was saying about worldview. Nothing can be found in Dans view because the BofM is a fraud. So how can you prove something that didn't exist?

[charity]

japanguy, here is the problem. If there is a meso-american history found that does not mention the Nephites, then the answer is that the meso-american area isn't where the Nephites, etc. were. They were somewhere else.

And about world views. While world view might help us understand why someone believes the way they do, this is not a universal pass. There is a truth out there. There was or there was not a set of gold plates. There was or was not an immigrant group whose father was Lehi. Etc. Dan may operate from a world view that does not allow gold plates, Lehites, etc. LDS apologists operate from a world view that accepts those as facts.

Dan is in a bad place, scientifically speaking, because his view does not accept evidence to contradict his world view. Science cannot refuse to accept evidence because they don't like it. LDS apologists aren't in the same bad place, scientificially, because there can be no direct proof that there were no plates or Lehites.

So Dan can have a different world view, but it has to be seen that his world view is unscientific and illogical. "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up."

[Moon Quaker]

28 pages?! Good grief! I think the moderators here should emulate RfM and close threads after they get to be too long to follow anything from the start to the end. Just my two cents.

[japanguy]

Charity said

"So Dan can have a different world view, but it has to be seen that his world view is unscientific and illogical. "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up."

Japanguy says- make sure you check the beam in your own eye. And yes I know that there is truth out there, but neither side has proven its point. And so we still don't know. You claim that Dan just ignores all the science and says "My mind is made up". But I hear you saying the same thing. If science is backing you up and proving your point well let's see it. You may be able to show some interesting correlations such as NHM, but you can not show any real evidence other than some speculative finds and interpetations. If your case is so strong why is it not upheld by anyone other than mormons(there may be a few non members I grant). But over all you can not prove your case any better than Dan. You are both only pointing out your interpetation of the so called "evidence". But you both don't have anything contrete. Nothing better than theories. So while I personally do side closer to Dan than I do to you, I do acknowledge that I could be wrong. I don't go around making fun of you for saying that you believe the BofM is true. I don't say you have no critical thinking abilities, that you are unscientific and illogical. I listen to your case or Dans' and make up my mind whether or not I feel that you have enough of a case for me to incorporate that into my world view. And once again I may be right(true) or wrong(false). But I don't go around criticizing you for your beliefs and then cut you down and denigrate you for them.

That is what I am often tired of seeing on many of these boards but FAIR in particular.

It is fine to critic the message but why do we have to attack the messenger and try to make then seem studid or foolish.

Japanguy

[charity]

japanguy, I think what is disturbing about Dan Vogel's position, but not about the apologist position, is the presumption of the mantle he assumes as being objective. Apologists readily admit they are not objective.

"I'm just here to find the truth," he says. But that isn't really his position. He should be willing to state, "I am here to support the apolgoist position that Joseph Smith and Mormonism is a fraud. I won't accept any evidence as supporting him, and anything I do find, I will try to discredit or explain away." Then he is being intellectually honest.

It isn't a matter of apologists telling the world that science has proven their point. They are saying, there are "evidences." Vogel won't admit that.

[cdowis]

> I am offended by your posts.

I understand your anger, your hysterial reaction to my posts.

I really do.

I will continue to respond to the antimormons. To point out the factual errors, the flawed logic, the unfounded assumptions.

And you will continue to get angry over my posts.

[StBalthasar]

Has anyone noticed that Hanahpu and Xbalague (Mayan heroes - National Geographic did a story about the Mayan myth a couple of years ago) seem close to the names "Nephi" and "Shiblon"?

Remember in Hebrew there are no written vowels; so we have: hnhp & shblg* (X = sh in Mayan)

*Xblague is also transliterated "Ixbalanga" or "Ixblanque" and variations of those; the "ng" could be considered a shift from "n" so we have shbln.

Ha is the Hebrew definite article, so we have: h-nhp and shbln

P unvoiced is F, so we have: h-nf (ignoring the silent "h") and shbln

So putting Joseph's vowels back into the roots we get: ha-Nefi and Shiblon.

Is that a stretch? Is that a coincidence? It is a correlation?

[Dan Vogel]

Don Bradley,

I define "evidence" as any information that makes a given hypothesis more or less likely. On this definition, the NHM find would constitute evidence, since such a find would be given a greater probability on the hypothesis of Book of Mormon historicity than it would on the "null hypothesis."

I have heard this definition, but it is still a subjective one. It depends on what you think moves the hypothesis toward being

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

In your worldview, is it within the realm of possibility that angels -- messangers from a Divinity -- could exist. Specifically is it in any means or manner possible that an angel could have delivered a message, could have delivered a physical object to anyone on this planet earth?

My worldview doesn

[Dan Vogel]

Dr. Peterson,

It

[Dan Vogel]

Bob Bennett,

I guess we'll just go on being astounded at each other. I'm 'entrenched' in my paradigm and apparently so are you in yours. What continues to be astounding to me is that you are unwilling to admit that there is ANY evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I could much more easily understand, and would not be astounded, if you'd said that you've looked at the evidence on both sides and feel that the naturalistic evidence outweighs the supernaturalistic. But to say that ALL of the evidence points to a naturalistic origin and NONE points to historcity? Yes, I am still astounded that anyone who looked at the issue could see it that cut and dried. I am certainly willing to accept that there is evidence in favor of a naturalistic origin for the Book of Mormon. I don't believe that it is the preponderence (sp?) of evidence, but certainly one could and has made the argument, for example, that there are doctrinal themes in the BofM that were common in the 19th century and this constitutes 'evidence' in favor of the naturalistic position. To me, my position that there is 'evidence' both for and against the naturalistic and supernaturalistic origin of the Book of Mormon seems immently less 'entrenched' in a particular paradigm than one that refuses to admit that anything in the large body of Book of Mormon scholarship constitutes evidence in favor of its historicity. The fact is that I find the evidence in favor of Book of Mormon historicity, which evidence includes my own personal spiritual experiences, more persuasive than the evidence against it. How exactly this entrenches me in a paradigm so deeply that my astonishment that someone could look at all the arguments and see NOTHING that constitutes evidence for historicity is itself cause for astonishment in that person escapes me.

See my posts for Don Bradley and Dr. Peterson.

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogael:

"As I interpret the BOM, which is within the hemispheric geographic paradigm, there is no way it can be historical."

You are laboring under a misconception. Toss out the Hemispheric Model pardigm and the Book of Mormon makes perfect sense as a historical religious book.

[charity]

Dan, glad to see you are here. I just finished reading Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Three Witnesses" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vo. 14, #1, 2005.

He states that you write from 15 accounts of John Whitmer, while there are 23 extant accounts. Is there a reason why you neglected to include all the available material? Thanks.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Let's assume that we have already found Zarahemla. Let's suppose, for example, that it is called Santa Rosa today.

Well, Dan, there it is. An authentic Nephite city.

Now please suggest to us exactly what we are looking for to verify that it is a Nephite city. The written records have all been destroyed by our friends the Catholic priests. Should we look for "Christian" artifacts? Crosses in each home, the portrait of Mary?

We find a jade necklace. How do we know whether it is NEPHITE artifact or not.

Pleeze tell us Dan, what to look for now that we have an authentic Nephite city under our feet, so that you will be satisfied that we have actually discovered Zarahemla? What will it take, dear fellow?

How about an altar with ZRHML written on it in Hebrew script? Or, better, Corantumr

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

Dan, glad to see you are here. I just finished reading Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Three Witnesses" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vo. 14, #1, 2005.

He states that you write from 15 accounts of John Whitmer, while there are 23 extant accounts. Is there a reason why you neglected to include all the available material? Thanks.

I don

[gtaggart]

Tag,

I don't know about the probability of a direct hit on NHM, but how about the probability of Helaman nailing Dan Vogel?

Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites, and began to depend upon their aown strength and upon their own wisdom, saying:

Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken. Helaman 16: 15-16 (emphasis mine)

I don

[Confidential Informant]

I would expect some kind of evidence specific to Israelites to show up if the Nephites were as dominant in the area as the BOM claims. We can see evidence for the Mayan culture.

I still fail to see the logic in this assertion. My neighbors are second generation Mexian immigrants. If they were wiped out, their house moved into, their possession taken over, etc., then why would I expect evidence of their Latino heritage to be preserved? Mexican pottery? Nay, they're using tuperware. Langugage? Nope they all speak English.

Just what, exactly, are you looking for and why would you expect to find it when they were participating in a more dominant culture.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

I would expect some kind of evidence specific to Israelites to show up if the Nephites were as dominant in the area as the BOM claims. We can see evidence for the Mayan culture.

I still fail to see the logic in this assertion. My neighbors are second generation Mexian immigrants. If they were wiped out, their house moved into, their possession taken over, etc., then why would I expect evidence of their Latino heritage to be preserved? Mexican pottery? Nay, they're using tuperware. Langugage? Nope they all speak English.

Just what, exactly, are you looking for and why would you expect to find it when they were participating in a more dominant culture.

You are reading the BOM exactly opposite from the way I read it. Notice I said the Nephites were the dominant group and you described them as immigrant minorities. You don

[Mighty Curelom]

Dan (Vogel)--

What is your opinion on the Great Lakes Region theory of BoM geography? I, like many others, was taught under the hemispheric model in Sunday School, but in my recent readings of the BoM, I have found the GLR model to be more appropriate. The BoM makes several references to a "land of many waters," and even more frequent references to a "narrow neck of land" between the two "seas." This seems to me an obvious reference to the Great Lakes region. What would the narrow neck of land be in the hemispheric model? Doesn't the BoM say something about the narrow neck of land being traveled in a day, or several days?

There's also the fact that Joseph lived in New York--near the Great Lakes--and his tendency to include his own environment in his narrative. I don't think it's coincidental that the BoM describes an environment so geographically near and familiar to Joseph.