Bom Bull'sâ??eyes

[maklelan]

But if you argue that way, it seems that you are going to have to also claim that God is not inspiring, leading, opening up the intellects and understandings of the brilliant Jewish PHD wielding scholars... some of whom have even pulled apart verse by verse the Book of Mormon.

God inspires all people, but I'm interested to see what texts you can produce by Jewish scholars that pull apart the Book of Mormon verse by verse.

[cdowis]

Shall I quote you the hundreds of verses in the Qu'ran that state that you will be held responsible for your decision on the verdict of teh Qu'ran?

Did you actually read my post? "We will be held responsible on our decision on the Book of Mormon, as well as other books which claim to be the word of the Lord, ***ncluding the Koran***."

If you are not going to read what I have posted, I'm not going to waste my time responding.

[Noggin]

Did you actually read my post? "We will be held responsible on our decision on the Book of Mormon, as well as other books which claim to be the word of the Lord, ***ncluding the Koran***."

If you are not going to read what I have posted, I'm not going to waste my time responding.

Right, but what you wrote can be taken to mean that you believe the decision regarding the Qu'ran, with it's claim that Jesus is not Christ but merely a prophet... should be weighed and considered and dealt with in context of what your Book of Mormon teaches. And your Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is the Christ, redeemer of mankind... which is completely in conflict with the most basic premises of the Qu'ran.

Honestly, try not to get your hackles up so quickly.

Noggin

[Noggin]

God inspires all people, but I'm interested to see what texts you can produce by Jewish scholars that pull apart the Book of Mormon verse by verse.

"God inspires all people" immediately falls into precarious territory. If God inspires Mormons and Jews, yet the Jews are in grievous error pertaining to how a man's soul is saved... what is your Mormon God, who is supposed to be involved in his work and glory which comprises bringing to pass the immortality and eternal like of man, what is this Mormon God doing then? Why would he inspire billions of Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Eckists, Buddhists, you name it to believe errantly about him, putting their very souls in jeopardy of earning the highest form of Mormon heaven? It seems that the Mormon God, inspiring Muslims to be Muslims and Jews to be Jews is by default frustrating his divine purposes and reasons for existence.

Such a Mormon God is beginning to sound a little sketchy to me.

Can I deduce that you believe that God only inspires you and your Mormon congregations in a more pure and correct format?

As far as the Jewish scholars who have pulled apart the Book of Mormon verse by verse. Like I said, if you want to get the Jewish perspective on the Book of Mormon, you have to go looking. I am not interested in starting you on that path. You already have your pre conceived confirmation biases at hand and apparantly they do not allow you to become interested in how it is possible for others to read your Book of Mormon, perform serious scholarly research on it, and conclude that it is fiction.

Noggin

[maklelan]

"God inspires all people" immediately falls into precarious territory.

No, it doesn't.

If God inspires Mormons and Jews, yet the Jews are in grievous error pertaining to how a man's soul is saved... what is your Mormon God, who is supposed to be involved in his work and glory which comprises bringing to pass the immortality and eternal like of man, what is this Mormon God doing then?

Helping his children. No one will be condemned for failing to live laws of which they were completely unaware.

Why would he inspire billions of Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Eckists, Buddhists, you name it to believe errantly about him, putting their very souls in jeopardy of earning the highest form of Mormon heaven?

I'm not going to participate in this elementary school crap. I didn't say he inspires them to believe incorrectly. If you can't discuss this without making up your opponents arguments then you need to back out of this debate.

It seems that the Mormon God, inspiring Muslims to be Muslims and Jews to be Jews is by default frustrating his divine purposes and reasons for existence.

That's true, but no one is making that argument.

Such a Mormon God is beginning to sound a little sketchy to me.

Congratulations for inventing an argument that you can dismantle with so little trouble. Now, how about providing the reference I asked for?

Can I deduce that you believe that God only inspires you and your Mormon congregations in a more pure and correct format?

No you cannot.

As far as the Jewish scholars who have pulled apart the Book of Mormon verse by verse.

This isn't a complete sentence.

Like I said, if you want to get the Jewish perspective on the Book of Mormon, you have to go looking. I am not interested in starting you on that path.

So you assert that those texts are out there but you refuse to provide any citations because you think I need to experience the journey of discovery for myself. What a joke.

You already have your pre conceived confirmation biases at hand and apparantly they do not allow you to become interested in how it is possible for others to read your Book of Mormon, perform serious scholarly research on it, and conclude that it is fiction.

My career is biblical scholarship and I have never seen a single publication like the many you describe. I believe, with my years of experience behind me, that you're just making up facts. Either back up your assertion or quit making an unimaginable fool of yourself.

I am making a CFR. It is against board rules for you to refuse to provide it. Can you provide the texts you claim are extant or are you, as I suspect, just making up facts?

[Palador]

Like I said, if you want to get the Jewish perspective on the Book of Mormon, you have to go looking. I am not interested in starting you on that path.

I'm also going to have to CFR this too. Claiming something and refusing to cite anything is not good debate etiquette.

[Noggin]

And there we have it. The famous MAD Board "CFR" with the obligatory knit picking of sentence structure. That didn't take long.

To you, my posts are elementary school crap, and a joke. I didn't expect you to step outside of your pre conceived confirmation bias.

Do you believe that non Mormon theists with PHD's in theology have not taken the Book of Mormon seriously? Do you believe that no thorough investigation of the Book of Mormon claims has been done by Non Mormon PHD wielding theologians? Is that what you are trying to say? And before you accuse me of being flippant, I want to be clear that I am only asking for you to clearly state your position on it because I am surprised that you called for a reference on my claim that Jewish or Muslim or Christian scholars have done serious study and research on the Book of Mormon and then found it lacking.

Noggin

[Noggin]

My career is biblical scholarship and I have never seen a single publication like the many you describe. I believe, with my years of experience behind me, that you're just making up facts. Either back up your assertion or quit making an unimaginable fool of yourself.

I am making a CFR. It is against board rules for you to refuse to provide it. Can you provide the texts you claim are extant or are you, as I suspect, just making up facts?

A study of how the book of Mormon is not what it claims to be can only be valid if it is an article that is published somewhere? Is that what you are saying?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And there we have it. The famous MAD Board "CFR" with the obligatory knit picking of sentence structure. That didn't take long.

To you, my posts are elementary school crap, and a joke. I didn't expect you to step outside of your pre conceived confirmation bias.

Do you believe that non Mormon theists with PHD's in theology have not taken the Book of Mormon seriously? Do you believe that no thorough investigation of the Book of Mormon claims has been done by Non Mormon PHD wielding theologians? Is that what you are trying to say? And before you accuse me of being flippant, I want to be clear that I am only asking for you to clearly state your position on it because I am surprised that you called for a reference on my claim that Jewish or Muslim or Christian scholars have done serious study and research on the Book of Mormon and then found it lacking.

Noggin

Whoa!! Im not gonna be merman any more becuase Noggin asserted things that he cant or wont back up. :Yawn:.

You are loosing your credibility here.

[maklelan]

And there we have it. The famous MAD Board "CFR" with the obligatory knit picking of sentence structure. That didn't take long.

Forgive me, but when I enter a discussion with someone I expect them to respect normal debate protocol and the English language. If you're not up to it, you may bow out now.

To you, my posts are elementary school crap, and a joke.

That they are. Let me guess, you're now going to continue to refuse to support your assertion and instead make some silly reference to how you knew this was going to happen.

I didn't expect you to step outside of your pre conceived confirmation bias.

Zing!

Do you believe that non Mormon theists with PHD's in theology have not taken the Book of Mormon seriously?

Most of them have not, but some have, and they have important things to say. I recommend Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, which has presentations from David Winston, James H. Charlesworth, Abraham Kaplan, Jacob Milgrom, David Noel Freedman, and others. As one who has actually researched this topic, I recommend you actually look into it instead of just making uneducated guesses.

Do you believe that no thorough investigation of the Book of Mormon claims has been done by Non Mormon PHD wielding theologians?

Of one or two topics, yes, but a thorough investigation? No.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes. Can you prove me wrong?

And before you accuse me of being flippant, I want to be clear that I am only asking for you to clearly state your position on it because I am surprised that you called for a reference on my claim that Jewish or Muslim or Christian scholars have done serious study and research on the Book of Mormon and then found it lacking.

I am surprised that you're still trying to wriggle out of providing a reference while at the same time trying to posture your way into making me think you know what you're talking about.

A study of how the book of Mormon is not what it claims to be can only be valid if it is an article that is published somewhere? Is that what you are saying?

Yes. If it's not published then there's no way to read it.

[Noggin]

Here is a book I read recently. It's called Jews and Mormons, Two Houses of Israel. It's written by a Rabbi and a Mormon High Priest. It depicts two college roomates who over the span of decades decided to delve rather deeply into each other's religion. The book made several references that the book was written with the design to get Jews and Mormons towards a better understanding of each other's faith.

Neither the High Priest or the rabbi converted to Mormonism or Judaism.

There are several books like this that describe highly intelligent college educated PHD weilding persons of a different faith than Mormonism, performing a serious scrutiny on the Book of Mormon and the overall Mormon theology and concluding that Mormonism is not something the wish to pursue (i.e. abandon their faith and convert to Mormonism).

I still can't believe you called for a reference. Furthermore, I am surprised that you who claim to be a biblical scholar with a keen interest in both the Book of Mormon and Old Testament, seem to never have come into contact with a book such as Jews and Mormons, Two Houses of Israel... I am surprised that you, a biblical scholar, seem to believe that non Mormon theologians have not scrutinized the Book of Mormon.

Buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Jews-Mormons-2-House...5218&sr=1-1

link to an online portion of the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=mX_WFOdE7...result#PPR12,M1

Noggin

[maklelan]

Here is a book I read recently. It's called Jews and Mormons, Two Houses of Israel. It's written by a Rabbi and a Mormon High Priest. It depicts two college roomates who over the span of decades decided to delve rather deeply into each other's religion. The book made several references that the book was written with the design to get Jews and Mormons towards a better understanding of each other's faith.

Neither the High Priest or the rabbi converted to Mormonism or Judaism.

I own the book, and in no place does the rabbi ever explain that he's made any comprehensive (or verse by verse) investigation of the Book of Mormon.

There are several books like this that describe highly intelligent college educated PHD weilding persons of a different faith than Mormonism, performing a serious scrutiny on the Book of Mormon and the overall Mormon theology and concluding that Mormonism is not something the wish to pursue (i.e. abandon their faith and convert to Mormonism).

I'm still waiting for the first example of a "verse by verse" evaluation of the Book of Mormon.

I still can't believe you called for a reference.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one.

Furthermore, I am surprised that you who claim to be a biblical scholar with a keen interest in both the Book of Mormon and Old Testament, seem to never have come into contact with a book such as Jews and Mormons, Two Houses of Israel... I am surprised that you, a biblical scholar, seem to believe that non Mormon theologians have not scrutinized the Book of Mormon.

As is obvious, I am well aware of the book, but it does not even come close to satisfying the criteria of the claim that you made. You claimed the following:

you are going to have to also claim that God is not inspiring, leading, opening up the intellects and understandings of the brilliant Jewish PHD wielding scholars... some of whom have even pulled apart verse by verse the Book of Mormon.

You've yet to provide one example. Where is your Jewish scholar who has pulled apart every verse of the Book of Mormon?

[Noggin]

Makelan, while you posted, I was still writing my post and therefore missed what you had to add. If my last post does not address your points, that is why. I will try to review what you added after I get some work done around here.

Thanks for the book ref. I am very interested in this topic and will probably buy the book and read it. You seem to know what you are talking about and I appreciate that. I wish you would see what I am trying to say though. I apologize for not being clear... and for my sentence structure faults that seem to annoy you.

[Noggin]

I own the book, and in no place does the rabbi ever explain that he's made any comprehensive (or verse by verse) investigation of the Book of Mormon....

Where is your Jewish scholar who has pulled apart every verse of the Book of Mormon?

But the book is still a great read on the subject. The article I refer to is out there and I admit that every last verse is not even close to being picked apart by the Jewish scholar so you have my concession there. But key verses of the Book of Mormon pertaining to Mormon theological stances have been scrutinized and found lacking by several Jewish scholars. What I meant to argue was that intelligent, college educated Jews have read the book of Mormon... and have picked apart the Book of Mormon Messianic claims. To that, I did err and I apologize.

Noggin

[maklelan]

But the book is still a great read on the subject. The article I refer to is out there and I admit that every last verse is not even close to being picked apart by the Jewish scholar so you have my concession there. But key verses of the Book of Mormon pertaining to Mormon theological stances have been scrutinized and found lacking by several Jewish scholars. What I meant to argue was that intelligent, college educated Jews have read the book of Mormon... and have picked apart the Book of Mormon Messianic claims. To that, I did err and I apologize.

Noggin

Thank you for the concession. I recognize that isolated principles have been evaluated by scholars of various faiths, but I've yet to find a condemnation of any single principle of Mormonism that did not contain a significant amount of fallacy or misunderstanding about the nature of our doctrine. If you have a particular example of a Jewish scholar disagreeing with an LDS principle I'd be happy to look at it and show where I think the author is being mislead.

[Noggin]

Thank you for the concession. I recognize that isolated principles have been evaluated by scholars of various faiths, but I've yet to find a condemnation of any single principle of Mormonism that did not contain a significant amount of fallacy or misunderstanding about the nature of our doctrine. If you have a particular example of a Jewish scholar disagreeing with an LDS principle I'd be happy to look at it and show where I think the author is being mislead.

You know makelan I just might take you up on that.

About a year ago over on Samharris.org I met a devout Muslim who, like you, welcomed my disagreements with Muslim tenets of faith. He wanted to explain to me where I was being mislead. For every item I addressed, he had a very well written and logical counter-argument that explained how I was or the author I was quoting was wrong, misreading doctrine, not properly understanding the particular exegesis of the passage, reading the wrong point of view from the wrong Imam... the list was quite a thrill to experience. You don't happen to pose as a Muslim scholar on atheist online forums do you

Bottom line as I see it here is that academic apologetics are alive and well in the religions I have studied closely. Each has a cadre of brilliant scholars writing exhaustinng articles, essays, books and giving speeches that show the world unique evidences as to the veracity of their exclusivity claims. And what amuses me is how each one can run the other under the table proving how they are the only true religion approved by God and the others are not in compliance with God's stamp of approval (pertaining to salvation).

Thanks for the exchange

~Noggin

[maklelan]

You know makelan I just might take you up on that.

About a year ago over on Samharris.org I met a devout Muslim who, like you, welcomed my disagreements with Muslim tenets of faith. He wanted to explain to me where I was being mislead. For every item I addressed, he had a very well written and logical counter-argument that explained how I was or the author I was quoting was wrong, misreading doctrine, not properly understanding the particular exegesis of the passage, reading the wrong point of view from the wrong Imam... the list was quite a thrill to experience. You don't happen to pose as a Muslim scholar on atheist online forums do you

Not recently.

Bottom line as I see it here is that academic apologetics are alive and well in the religions I have studied closely. Each has a cadre of brilliant scholars writing exhaustinng articles, essays, books and giving speeches that show the world unique evidences as to the veracity of their exclusivity claims. And what amuses me is how each one can run the other under the table proving how they are the only true religion approved by God and the others are not in compliance with God's stamp of approval (pertaining to salvation).

I think you'll find very few of us invest time trying to tear down other religions. I think that's a significant difference.

[cdowis]

Noggin,

There are several of us, myself included, looking forward to your response on references on this detailed analysis.

Personally I think you are full of baloney, but we shall see what we shall see.

[Noggin]

I think you'll find very few of us invest time trying to tear down other religions. I think that's a significant difference.

Right. We covered that. Something to do with preconceived confirmation biases and all that. Like I said, why would any of you with testimonies in hand take the time to investigate another religion? You already have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

I chimed in on the thread because I saw some pretty amazing mental feats of strength going on with proving the Book of Mormon "true". I still don't get why I did not get any concession from any of you as to why you will hunt for the most far reaching proofs of Mormonism, yet seem to ignore that the same sort of "bullseye" proofs for the Qu'ran are being hammered away with equal fervor on Islam.net or whatever scholarly Muslim forum you choose to visit.

Some of you engaged in patting each other on the back for "such a great find" with bullseye X and whatnot.

What about the "bullseye" proofs for Catholicism? Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology? Some of these are doozies. Can't I get a concession from anyone that those bullseyes exist and serve, of all purposes, one of keeping each of them locked into their own religion, just like what I see happening on this thread?

The Catholic, the Muslim, the JW, the Scientologist also believe that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I bet anyone a milkshake that they are equally convinced as those on this thread egaged in back patting "good find!"... In fact if we go visit the Scientologist forum or Catholic forum we just might witness one of them patting the next one on the back with "Oh that's such a great find! It's so great to be in the only True Church".

Honestly, congratulations to all of you with testimonies. I do envy you in several small ways. It's admirable to be full of such faith and I sincerely mean that.

Preconceived confirmation bias... You just have to love it.

cdowis, thanks for the smarmy love fest. It oozes from you... looks quite smashing on you too.

[Kevin Christensen]

Noggin says:

I chimed in on the thread because I saw some pretty amazing mental feats of strength going on with proving the Book of Mormon "true".

What proof? All I see is people exploring the potentialities of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is what is purports to be. If you look you can find all sorts of writing by people like Hugh Nibley, John W. Welch, John Sorenson, Alan Goff, Louis Midgley, Daniel Peterson, William Hamblin, and even yours truely on the limits of proof. We all know that anyone can say "So what?" to be best material we come up with. No one can be coerced into belief against their will. Far from trying to prove the Book of Mormon, we are simply following up on the implications of our belief in the text, our testimonies. We are planting the seed and nourishing it to see what grows, and we we find things that we never would have seen had we not tried, we often get excited.

The bullseyes I listed, such as the NDE patterns in Alma for example, don't prove the Book of Mormon. To my mind, they are consistent with historicity. To my mind, they undermine claims that Alma's conversion is best explained as Joseph Smith's riff on Paul combined with revivalism. My asking which explanation is better does not compell anyone to answer as I do. It just exposes the arguments to comparison. It should raise questions for the opposition, although in practice it does not. Subsequent to the publication of my essay in JBMS 2/1 I have seen several publications by critics (Mark Thomas and Grant Palmer, for example) who should have addressed its implications in their books. But they don't.

We are asking for consideration of what strikes us as interesting. We are not offering proof.

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...8&chapid=60

From the Welch's essay:

"In an important sense, evidence makes belief possible. I am very impressed by the words of Austin Farrar in speaking about C. S. Lewis and quoted by Elder Maxwell on several occasions: "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."18"

Also this:

"Of course, we cannot "prove" that the Book of Mormon or any other ultimate tenet of religious faith is true. Hugh Nibley has said, "The evidence that will prove or disprove the Book of Mormon does not exist."39 Our desire is not to become some grand inquisitor, wanting to put other people over a barrel by producing undeniable reasons for belief that will convince the whole world and compel everyone to believe.40"

I still don't get why I did not get any concession from any of you as to why you will hunt for the most far reaching proofs of Mormonism, yet seem to ignore that the same sort of "bullseye" proofs for the Qu'ran are being hammered away with equal fervor on Islam.net or whatever scholarly Muslim forum you choose to visit.

For starters, I begin with a testimony of the Book of Mormon, going back to my third reading in 1973, just before my LDS mission. And personally, considering that the Qu'ran does not purport to be a history, but is rather a collection of suras, what ever moral and spiritual truths contained in them has no bearing whatsoever on the claims of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, Alma 29 declares that God speaks to all nations and gives them all the light that he sees fit for them to have. And if the Qu'ran does not recognize Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, if ever I decided that Jesus is not who and what the Book of Mormon declares him to be, I can look there for light.

The Book of Mormon describes Central Asian Culture and a great migration to the New World. It also describes pre-exilic Israelite religion, a migration across the Arabian penninsula to a land Bountiful, and another migration, continuing its lineage history in the New World. The Qu'ran does nothing of the sort.

Noggin says:

The Catholic, the Muslim, the JW, the Scientologist also believe that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Really? We don't. See D&C 1.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

According to this, the LDS don't have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But we are on path, and connected to the source. We don't have to claim that others are not connected at all to embrace what we have connected with. Indeed, the best LDS scholars have been those who have searched the most widely for truth, following Joseph Smith's insistence that we accept truth from whatever source, or we will not come out true Mormons. Scholars such as Nibley, Peterson, Ricks, Sorenson, Clark, Gardner, Goff, McGuire, and others, have done exactly this.

Noggin says:

Preconceived confirmation bias... You just have to love it.

Simply painting over our bullseyes with the convenient "confirmation bias" label is not at all the same thing as providing a critical response. Rather, it is a rhetorical trick to avoid dealing with them. Most scientists and scholars would agree, I think, that the answer to confirmation bias is criticism and ongoing dialogue. If you think, for example, that Alma's conversion is best explained as following a four step revival pattern (Metcalfe and Palmer, via Metcalfe), then let's have a direct comparison with my reading, and a demonstration that the four step pattern is more accurate, more comprehensive and coherent, simplier and more beautiful, more fruitful, and more promising for future research.

Uncritically labeling the phenomenon as "confirmation bias" is, ironicially enough, nothing more then skeptical confirmation bias taking a shortcut.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Sargon]

I regret having to follow K. Christensen's wonderful last post with my amateur comments. I feel that this point ought to be made however.

Bottom line as I see it here is that academic apologetics are alive and well in the religions I have studied closely. Each has a cadre of brilliant scholars writing exhaustinng articles, essays, books and giving speeches that show the world unique evidences as to the veracity of their exclusivity claims. And what amuses me is how each one can run the other under the table proving how they are the only true religion approved by God and the others are not in compliance with God's stamp of approval (pertaining to salvation).

It seems a bit strange to me that you can reject our peculiar methodology for discovering truth (via the Holy Spirit) while simultaneously admitting that there are severe limitations to pure rational inquiry as a path for discovering truth.

Instead of simply dismissing our approach as "confirmation bias", consider the words recently spoken by Elder Dallin H. Oaks on this topic:

What do we mean when we testify and say that we know the gospel is true? Contrast that kind of knowledge with â??I know it is cold outsideâ? or â??I know I love my wife.â? These are three different kinds of knowledge, each learned in a different way. Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important. The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence is simply untrue.

While there are some â??evidencesâ? for gospel truths (for example, see Psalm 19:1; Helaman 8:24), scientific methods will not yield spiritual knowledge.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5...-851-10,00.html

I agree with Oaks, providing a clarification of terms. A man receiving spiritual knowledge is indeed a subjective experience in that it cannot be observed by anyone else. It is not 'scientific' in the sense that the modern "scientific method" can be administered, which calls for the ability to duplicate the experience so that others can objectively observe and experience it as well.

Nonetheless, it is scientific in that the experience can be evaluated objectively by that individual. The experiment can be done over and over and over, with the same single witness to the event each and every time. The fact that an experience is held by a particular individual that cannot be duplicated for observation by others is not to be so casually dismissed as "confirmation bias."

In a court of law, a witness is entitled to testify of that which they have seen, heard, or experienced. Sometimes the event which was witnessed cannot be duplicated or proven. All we have is the word of the witness. The testimony ought to be considered, but is not to be held as "proof" or even strong evidence for anyone else except for the witness.

I would appreciate other's thoughts on the matter.

[Uncertain]

Nonetheless, it is scientific in that the experience can be evaluated objectively by that individual. The experiment can be done over and over and over, with the same single witness to the event each and every time. The fact that an experience is held by a particular individual that cannot be duplicated for observation by others is not to be so casually dismissed as "confirmation bias."

In a court of law, a witness is entitled to testify of that which they have seen, heard, or experienced. Sometimes the event which was witnessed cannot be duplicated or proven. All we have is the word of the witness. The testimony ought to be considered, but is not to be held as "proof" or even strong evidence for anyone else except for the witness.

I would appreciate other's thoughts on the matter.

Hi Sargon,

The problem is that a personal spiritual experience is said to produce knowledge that is universal. When a person states they love their wife they are proclaiming knowledge that is internal to themselves. Hence the knowledge gained is applicable only to the person involved. On the other hand when a person claims on the basis of a personal spiritual experience that the afterlife consists of three degrees of glory. This is a claim that is universal in nature in other words the afterlife for everyone consists of three degrees of glory. For propositions of this type it is appropriate to ask if this claim can be duplicated by others since the claim is universal in nature true not only for you but for everyone. And it is reasonable that a truth that is universal in scope can be experienced by others.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

Uncertain (not Noggin... I stand corrected) says of the Vision of the Three degrees of glory:

For propositions of this type it is appropriate to ask if this claim can be duplicated by others since the claim is universal in nature true not only for you but for everyone. And it is reasonable that a truth that is universal in scope can be experienced by others.

As I recall, the vision was in fact, also experienced by Sidney Ridgon.

Craig Miller made a comparison of Swedenborg's teachings with those of Joseph Smith.

http://craigwmiller.tripod.com/

Also to the point, in addressing the truth claims of Joseph Smith, is this really the best place to start? It is central, foundational, the beginning point from which all other claims spring? Or is it secondary, peripheral, and a bit esoteric?

And while it is reasonable to observe that a truth universal in scope can be experienced by others, it is not too much to notice that when, how, and why in this instance might reasonably be deferred. While death may be a universal experience, I'm not dead yet. Nor are most people of my acquaintence. Indeed, dead people seem to be exceptional cases when measured by my personal subjective experience. Yet, I do not think it out of line to generalize from such cases, and arrive at certain compelling general truths, which I have not personally experienced.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Uncertain]

Noggin says of the Vision of the Three degrees of glory:

Hi Kevin,

There appears to be some confusion it is my post not Noggins that you were responding to.

As I recall, the vision was in fact, also experienced by Sidney Ridgon.

Craig Miller made a comparison of Swedenborg's teachings with those of Joseph Smith.

http://craigwmiller.tripod.com/

Also to the point, in addressing the truth claims of Joseph Smith, is this really the best place to start? It is central, foundational, the beginning point from which all other claims spring? Or is it secondary, peripheral, and a bit esoteric?

I think you may have missed the point a little bit. Sargons post seemed to be arguing that the knowledge gained by spiritual experiences is subjective like a mans love for his wife is subjective. Hence we should not expect the experience to be duplicated like we would expect in say an empirical based experiment. I was attempting to point out that there is an important difference between internal knowledge like love for a wife and external knowledge like claiming the afterlife consists of three degrees of glory. For claims that are universal in scope like say claims about the afterlife it is reasonable to suppose others can also replicate a set of findings. I am simply making a distinction I have made no attempt to argue one way or another concerning the truth claims of JS based on that distinction. Now I think an argument can be made but in this thread I have not made one.

And while it is reasonable to observe that a truth universal in scope can be experienced by others, it is not too much to notice that when, how, and why in this instance might reasonably be deferred. While death may be a universal experience, I'm not dead yet. Nor are most people of my acquaintence. Indeed, dead people seem to be exceptional cases when measured by my personal subjective experience. Yet, I do not think it out of line to generalize from such cases, and arrive at certain compelling general truths, which I have not personally experienced.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I am not sure what you are getting at here. If a claim x is universal and person y supports that claim through a set of observations z. It is not unreasonable to suppose others can make the same set of observations and also observe z. Arguing that at some future time others will do so and observe z is interesting but does nothing to support the claim x until someone actually makes the set of observations and observes z.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Confidential Informant]

Getting back to the OP:

1) I find the NHM discovery to be highly probative, but placed in context with the discovery of a plausible "Valley of Lemuel" w/ accompanying "River of Laman" and also a highly plausible "Bountiful" location, IMO it's a very important "bullseye."

2) Brant Gardner's discussion of the story of Ammon and it's mesoamerican context is incredibly important.

C.I.