7 "evidences" I Find Compelling

[Chris Smith]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

[soren]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

I'm also impressed by the chiasmus, not because it is particularly Hebraic, but because it is very skillful both in technical execution and in elegance.

What is a mopologist anyway?

[Obiwan]

That's a real good start.... Especially given that you recognize the significance of all the various Witnesses. We give our own witness that there is a TON more, just as good.

Read http://www.nephiproject.com "81 evidences" book, for more on some of those that you like.

Though, it's actually "81 Points" from the Book of Mormon they use to discover the hundreds of evidences, related to Lehi's entire journey in the old world. So much matches, that it's beyond human possibility.

[Sargon]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

Thanks Chris!! I always enjoy your honesty.

Sargon

[John Williams]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

That's a pretty good list, and one I would also consider "compelling," though not so much so to counter the evidence to the contrary. But as long as the discovering hasn't all been done, we have something we can discuss.

Don't look now, but I've been called to a countermopologist disciplinary council.

[MAsh]

What is a mopologist anyway?

See http://www.mormonfortress.com/gloss1.html

[cdowis]

Sheum

Pahoran, Paanchi

Bountiful == twelve points of correspondence, including the presence of iron ore

[John Williams]

Sheum

Pahoran, Paanchi

Bountiful == twelve points of correspondence, including the presence of iron ore

It would be interesting to ask what "countermo" arguments the mopologists find compelling.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

You said you have answers...we have debated before. What answer do you have for #2...witnesses. "in the mouth of two or more...shall be established"

Pa Pa

[Doctor Steuss]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

You're a good egg Chris. I'm wondering about this "Mulek" dilly though (I'm pretty sure I've read something one it, but could you refresh my memory)?

Two that I find compelling are the Lihyanites and also this.

[Doctor Steuss]

It would be interesting to ask what "countermo" arguments the mopologists find compelling.

Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.

[John Williams]

Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.

Years ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher was Alan Goff, whom many here might know. He spent some time on that issue, and he basically said it was problematic. The Book of Mormon's rather obvious textual dependency on the KJV is I think a big problem, but that would be a different thread.

[Paul Ray]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

I would understand you better if I understood what your questions are on those issues.

Please explain what it would take to really satisfy you.

[John Williams]

I would understand you better if I understood what your questions are on those issues.

Please explain what it would take to really satisfy you.

It's fascinating that even when critics concede evidence, some people still don't think they're satisfied.

[phaedrus ut]

I don't share the same list at Chris but I'll add a few.

1.) The success and growth of the church.

2.) The earnestness of most of the members.

3.) LDS Polytheistic beliefs closer in line with Canaanite polytheism than Trinitarian Christianity.

Phaedrus

[Chris Smith]

Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.

I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.

[Chris Smith]

Pa Pa,

My answer for the witnesses is basically that other religious traditions have similar miraculous support for their beliefs. So as powerful as the Mormon witness accounts are, I'm reluctant to take them as proof of anything.

Steuss,

You're a good egg Chris. I'm wondering about this "Mulek" dilly though (I'm pretty sure I've read something one it, but could you refresh my memory)?

Basically, a seal has been found bearing the name Malachiah, son of Zedekiah. A hypocorism of this name might be "Melek". The BoM reports that Mulek was a son of Zedekiah.

-Chris

[Dale]

With Chiasmus I doubt Joseph Smith could have done it without a carefully worked out pre-existent manuscript. Since he dictated to scribes he would have had to have a fantastic photo-graphic memory. To remember the elements of a Chiasmus in the correct order is most impressive.

[phaedrus ut]

I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.

That would modify your reason #3 on the original list. It clear that the KJV text was used yet the claim is made that the composition was achieved without outside materials.

Phaedrus

[soren]

I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.

Really? Why would there be a problem with Smith using the KJV? I don't think the BOM's use of that source is questionable on any level that could not also be applied to the New Testament's use the LXX. I personally abandoned KJV-based criticism long ago for that reason. Misunderstandings of verses cited, sometimes resulting from the KJV translation, cam make for a valid line of questioning, but certainly not the use of the KJV as such.

[John Williams]

Really? Why would there be a problem with Smith using the KJV? I don't think the BOM's use of that source is questionable on any level that could not also be applied to the New Testament's use the LXX. I personally abandoned KJV-based criticism long ago for that reason. Misunderstandings of verses cited, sometimes resulting from the KJV translation, cam make for a valid line of questioning, but certainly not the use of the KJV as such.

It's not Joseph Smith using the KJV that's the problem. It's BofM prophets using the KJV and expounding upon ideas and scriptures that, at least chronologically, they shouldn't have had access to. See, for example, the Second Isaiah stuff mentioned above.

[soren]

It's not Joseph Smith using the KJV that's the problem. It's BofM prophets using the KJV and expounding upon ideas and scriptures that, at least chronologically, they shouldn't have had access to. See, for example, the Second Isaiah stuff mentioned above.

How do you know the BoM prophets used the KJV? How do you know they weren't just inspired with the same words the the Old World prophets were, and were therefore translated into English in a way that matched?

[John Williams]

How do you know the BoM prophets used the KJV? How do you know they weren't just inspired with the same words the the Old World prophets were, and were therefore translated into English in a way that matched?

It seems unlikely that a New World prophet would take a particular phrase or cue from the KJV and then expound on it in ways that only make sense from an English translation of those phrases or cues. Textual dependency means a lot more than just using the same words. But, no, I don't "know" what happened. I just find it extremely unlikely that what you describe happened.

[cinepro]

Hey Chris, have you heard about those horse bones they dug up in San Diego? Definitely #8 for your list.

[soren]

It seems unlikely that a New World prophet would take a particular phrase or cue from the KJV and then expound on it in ways that only make sense from an English translation of those phrases or cues. Textual dependency means a lot more than just using the same words.

In that case I agree, strongly in fact. My objection was solely against criticizing the mere use of the KJV. Interpretations based on misunderstanding the KJV are a genuine problem.

But, no, I don't "know" what happened. I just find it extremely unlikely that what you describe happened.

But unlikelihood isn't a very good argument if you are talking about a faith proposition.