Viable Nephite colonies

[Jeff_Ricks]

Please go back and reread wengland's post about continum decision making. Who gets to decide for me or wengland or notHagoth7 or anyone else at what point on the continum it can be claimed as truth in our lives. There may be ample evidence of its truth claims for one and not for another. Just because you have not reached a point where you can accept those claims does not invalidate the claims. Real life decisions are rarely reached on complete evidence. Real life policies in business and government and I dare say in science are rarely implemented on complete evidence. Very importand decisions and policies are undertaken daily with less than complete and perfect information.

On the flip side I may very well be in error when I make my decisions and should have waited for more complete evidence. That is the problem with decision making. The question is how long can I wait for more information and at what point I go with the information I have. If I am in error I am accountable for my error and for the harm it has caused. It's called accountability.

What exactly is your point, relative to my post that you include in your post? I'm not quite sure. Of course decisions are made from probabilities. Tell me something I don't already know. What we're discussing here is burden of proof. When it's not been met that means the probability of the truth of the claim is low. People are free to accept the claim as true but that's usually considered a foolish thing to do. Daniel has acknowledged that Mormonism has not met the burden of proof required to legitimize its truth claims, therefore, I don't think it should be allowed to make a claim of truth when pitching their wares to the public anymore than, say, the representatives of the Enron corporation should be allowed to make unfounded claims to the public. For some reason, even though money is likewise involved in both cases (i.e. 10% of one's income) religion gets a bye and the corporate leaders of Enron go to prison. Why is that?

[free thinker]

For fun, there is a scene from Tolkein's Two Towers that comes to mind.

A defense of a seemingly indefensible position. Against a supposedly overwhelming invading army.

Before that invading army arrives, torches appear on the horizon, and march up to the gate, which swings open. Theoden steps forward to welcome them.

Elven reinforcements. Like the 2,000 stripling warriors.

Th

[notHagoth7]

Quite a bold statement by Smith. Did he make this before or after....

If that interests you, launch a thread to discuss it.

In the meantime, do you have a more substantive and relevant thought to contribute to this thread of discussion?

[free thinker]

If that interests you, launch a thread to discuss it.

In the meantime, do you have a more substantive and relevant thought to contribute to this thread of discussion?

I did not see how your Smith quote was relevant to the Idea of Irish Nephites. It seemed to me to be what I call Testimony Posturing. Kinda throwing in a bold quote from Smith in the midst of what seemed like your floundering on the original topic. Doing this to somehow buttress what seems like a weak argument on your part.

So I figured if you were gonna throw this mighty quote of Smith in , it certainly would be worth seeing if he was marginalized by his personal behavior. You know. Being a Prophet of God and all.

So I would like to be part of the discussion and will ask that you lay off the Mighty quotes and I will try to be more relevant. Now how about let's get back to Irish Nephites?

ft

[ERayR]

What exactly is your point, relative to my post that you include in your post? I'm not quite sure. Of course decisions are made from probabilities. Tell me something I don't already know. What we're discussing here is burden of proof. When it's not been met that means the probability of the truth of the claim is low.

Who sets that burden of proof, you, me, Dan Peterson? It is set by each individual for themselves. If it doesn't meet your threshold then move on. Don't try and force your standard on everybody else. You can deride them if you want, call them foolsh, even call them stupid but don't try and force your standards on them.

People are free to accept the claim as true but that's usually considered a foolish thing to do. Daniel has acknowledged that Mormonism has not met the burden of proof required to legitimize its truth claims, therefore, I don't think it should be allowed to make a claim of truth when pitching their wares to the public anymore than, say, the representatives of the Enron corporation should be allowed to make unfounded claims to the public. For some reason, even though money is likewise involved in both cases (i.e. 10% of one's income) religion gets a bye and the corporate leaders of Enron go to prison. Why is that?

Again it may be considered foolish but here's a news flash for you, Not everybody considers you as the font of wisdom.

What Dan admited was that it doesn't meet your burden of proof. You are the one who is extrapolating that to everyone else.

From his post #226

"I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so. But acknowledging an absence of proof is not the same thing as asknowledging an absence of evidence. I think there's substantial evidence, quite enough to make the decision to exercise faith a reasonable one -- but not enough (at least in terms of publicly available and "objective" evidence) to make such a decision supererogatory."

You see what he actually said is some different than what you are claiming he said. If you are going to quote him at least do so in context. Bad Form not to.

[wenglund]

Wade, from a previous post on mine (#232):

"Regarding truth in advertising, I don't think we should force religions to prove their faith-based claims before promoting them to the public, but I do think we should require religions to represent them as what they in fact are: faith-based hypotheses. Then I'm satisfied that they are meeting the moral ethical standards, relative to truth in advertising that we require of all other types of organizations who pitch their offerings to the public. Mormonism would then be required to take down their "Truth Restored" advertising and replace it with, 'A Really Neat Hypothesis to Consider.'"

I'm all for a free market of ideas, where everyone's free to choose, as long as everyone promoting their ideas are held to the same moral and ethical standards regarding truth in advertising. I don't think religion should get a bye on that, do you??? If it's truth call it truth. If it's merely an hypothesis, then calling it truth is deceptive and unethical (by normal standards). Deception is something I have a problem with, for some reason, but that's just me I guess.

Actually, I think your problem is you have an overly simplistic and errant understanding of "truth" and "deception", if not also morals and ethics in relation to truth in advertising.

You need to understand that there are objective/deductive "truths" (like the average gas mileage in town for a given make of car) and subjective/inductive "truths" (like whether a certain candidate is the best person for the political job). In other words, there are matters of fact vs. matters of opinion. The former "truths" are definitively determinate, whereas the later are not. And, while the later may include hypothesis, they may also included non-definitively determined "truths".

With that fouundational understanding in mind, then in regards to "truths" in advertising, the morals and ethics simply demand that one tells the "truth" as one understands it. As long as they do so, and as long as one's truth-claims cannot be demonstrated as false, they cannot rightly be considered as deceptive.

As the Church views things, they are stating a subjective/inductive "truth" when claiming the "Truth is Restored". They are not stating a fact, nor are they claiming to state a fact, but rather they are honestly stating their belief of the "truth" as they understand it. Since they do honestly believe the "truth" is restored, they then have met the general moral and ethical requirements for truth in advertising, and cannot reasonably be considered as deceptive.

So, no, Mormons would not be required to take down their "Truth is Restored" advertising.

Me thinks I should be charging for these lessons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Quite a bold statement by Smith. Did he make this before or after he married 14 year old Helen Kimball?

ft

It's called bomb throwing. Check board rules and refrain or the mods may visit you.

[free thinker]

Actually, I think your problem is you have an overly simplistic and errant understanding of "truth" and "deception", if not also morals and ethics in relation to truth in advertising.

You need to understand that there are objective/deductive "truths" (like the average gas mileage in town for a given make of car) and subjective/inductive "truths" (like whether a certain candidate is the best person for the political job). In other words, there are matters of fact vs. matters of opinion. The former "truths" are definitively determinate, whereas the later are not. And, while the later may include hypothesis, they may also included non-definitively determined "truths".

With that fouundational understanding in mind, then in regards to "truths" in advertising, the morals and ethics simply demand that one tells the "truth" as one understands it. As long as they do so, and as long as one's truth-claims cannot be demonstrated as false, they cannot rightly be considered as deceptive.

As the Church views things, they are stating a subjective/inductive "truth" when claiming the "Truth is Restored". They are not stating a fact, nor are they claiming to state a fact, but rather they are honestly stating their belief of the "truth" as they understand it. Since they do honestly believe the "truth" is restored, they then have met the general moral and ethical requirements for truth in advertising, and cannot reasonably be considered as deceptive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you apply this single standard above to all aspects of your life? Also would you consider Ricks approach naive, or overly simplistic, or both? Do you see any value in his approach?

ft

[Jeff_Ricks]

What Dan admited was that it doesn't meet your burden of proof. You are the one who is extrapolating that to everyone else.

Absolutely false. Read his statement again. There is no reference to me. He states it as a general fact and he even says he routinely acknowledges it (not just when I'm around and he's speaking of me). He states: "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims."

[notHagoth7]

I did not see how your Smith quote was relevant to the Idea of Irish Nephites.

Via people like the seafaring Shield, Nephites are forefathers of Vikings.

If so, Viking views on freedom and gov't descend, at least in part, from Captain Moroni's generation

(Hagoth's exodus began the year after the good captain's death.)

Joseph's views on gov't thereby maintain that continuity of thought.

Freedom. True principles. And letting people govern themselves.

...what seemed like your floundering on the original topic.

Tolkien doesn't seem relevant to a discussion of the European manuscript evidence?

Take a gander at some of his comments on European manuscripts some day. You just might see how relevant he is.

Doing this to somehow butress what seems like a weak argument on your part.

Which part seems weak to you?

So I figured if you were gonna throw this mighty quote of Smith in , it certainly would be worth seeing if he was marginalized by his personal behavior.

Should we also cast dispersion on your forefathers who engaged in the practice you wish to disparage?

Honoring one's father and mother -it's an injunction which arguably reaches back into their heritage as well.

You know. Being a Prophet of God and all.

Yes. Like Abraham.

So I would like to be part of the discussion

Welcome aboard.

and will ask that you lay off the Mighty quotes

It's a polite request. But I see no reason to comply.

Now how about let's get back to Irish Nephites?

But you misunderstand.

Per this premise, they're in France. And Italy. And Scandinavia. And all of the british isles. And the Americas, Australia, New Zealand. Germany. etc., etc.

Oh...and probably in your house.

[Jeff_Ricks]

They are not stating a fact, nor are they claiming to state a fact, but rather they are honestly stating their belief of the "truth" as they understand it. Since they do honestly believe the "truth" is restored, they then have met the general moral and ethical requirements for truth in advertising, and cannot reasonably be considered as deceptive.

Hmmmm... so when someone misrepresents the value of a stock, then they too should get a bye if they "honestly believe" their claim of value is the truth??

You see, Wade, my question is why the double standard? Corporations have to tell the truth, and religions get a bye. Why is that?

[ERayR]

Absolutely false. Read his statement again. There is no reference to me. He states it as a general fact and he even says he routinely acknowledges it (not just when I'm around and he's speaking of me). He states: "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims."

I quotes his post in my post so that you might get the context. Just above the part I quoted is this:

"I think you don't understand my position, Jeff. The two options are not "Prove your claim" or "Acknowledge that you're lying." Suggesting that those are the two available alternatives is merely silly."

He is clearly addressing your notion of an either or situation.

By the way for a guy who has professed a lack of interest you are certainly taking an interest.

[free thinker]

It's called bomb throwing. Check board rules and refrain or the mods may visit you.

Oops! Ok I will be a good boy.

ft

[notHagoth7]

It's called bomb throwing. Check board rules and refrain or the mods may visit you.

If one leaves cookies and milk out for them, will they leave gifts under the tree?

[free thinker]

Via people like the seafaring Shield, Nephites are forefathers of Vikings.

If so, Viking views on freedom and gov't descend, at least in part, from Captain Moroni's generation

(Hagoth's exodus began the year after the good captain's death.)

Joseph's views on gov't thereby maintain that continuity of thought.

Freedom. True principles. And letting people govern themselves.

Tolkein doesn't seem relevant to a discussion of the European manuscript evidence?

Take a gander at some of his comments on European manuscripts some day. You just might see how relevant he is.

Which part seems weak to you?

Should we also cast dispersion on your forefathers who engaged in the practice you wish to disparage?

Honoring one's father and mother -it's an injunction which arguably reaches back into their heritage as well.

Yes. Like Abraham.

Welcome aboard.

It's a polite request. But I see no reason to comply.

But you misunderstand.

Per this premise, they're in France. And Italy. And Scandinavia. And all of the british isles. And the Americas, Australia, New Zealand. Germany. etc., etc.

Oh...and probably in your house.

Nephites in my house ????? Ahhhhh. Just havin fun.

I suppose the whole premise of there ever being a man named Moroni and etc. would be a better place for me to start.

I gotta buy that there were Nephites before I can dig into the concept of Irish Nephites.

ft

[wenglund]

Hmmmm... so when someone misrepresents the value of a stock, then they too should get a bye if they "honestly believe" their claim of value is the truth??

Again, you fail to grasp the important difference between objective and subjective "truths". There are objective measurements for valuing stock. The same is not true for evaluating religious truth-claims.

Did you get it that time?

You see, Wade, my question is why the double standard? Corporations have to tell the truth, and religions get a bye. Why is that?

Your question is based, ironically, on a false presupposition that I have already corrected. Both corporations and religions are required, morally and ethically, to tell the truth. And, both may be deemed as deceptive if their claims can be demonstrated as factually false.

Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff_Ricks]

I quotes his post in my post so that you might get the context. Just above the part I quoted is this:

"I think you don't understand my position, Jeff. The two options are not "Prove your claim" or "Acknowledge that you're lying." Suggesting that those are the two available alternatives is merely silly."

He is clearly addressing your notion of an either or situation.

Then please tell me what he's referring to when he routinely says "that Mormonism has not proven its claims."???? That means he says it regularly. He can't be thinking of my claims when routinely does this, can he. Again, he states: "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims."

By the way for a guy who has professed a lack of interest you are certainly taking an interest.

Notice too that the subject we're discussing now is not the one I said I have no interest in.

[free thinker]

Again, you fail to grasp the important difference between objective and subjective "truths". There are objective measurements for valuing stock. The same is not true for evaluating religious truth-claims.

Did you get it that time?

Your question is based, ironically, on a false presupposition that I have already corrected. Both corporations and religions are required, morally and ethically, to tell the truth. And, both may be deemed as deceptive if their claims can be demonstrated as factually false.

Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is condescending. Since you are an intelligent man I am sure you get the nuance of what Jeff is saying. If I were saying it I would say it like this.

Religions can pretty much claim whatever they want because they cannot have the claim falsified. Hey wait a minute. That's exactly what they do.

I think what bothers Mr. Ricks is that he sees this as somewhat unethical and dishonest. Considering these organizations continually use the word Truth as a hallmark, it can become frustrating. Cheapens the word a bit in my opinion.

ft

[Jeff_Ricks]

Again, you fail to grasp the important difference between objective and subjective "truths". There are objective measurements for valuing stock. The same is not true for evaluating religious truth-claims.

Hmmm....when Daniel says, "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims," that determination was derived objectively, was it not? I don't think that's a subjective determination, do you? You see, there are plenty of opportunities for objectively evaluating truth claims of a religion. For example, did Joseph Smith talk with God? If he can't meet the burden of proof to establish such a fantastic claim then we objectively determine that he probably did not talk with God.

Your question is based, ironically, on a false presupposition that I have already corrected. Both corporations and religions are required, morally and ethically, to tell the truth. And, both may be deemed as deceptive if their claims can be demonstrated as factually false.

Wade, there are plenty of claims that Mormonism has made and now makes that can be demonstrated are factually false, and others they make that can be demonstrated have a high probability are false. So why then does Mormonism get a bye on the requirement to be ethical when they represent those demonstrably false claims as true?

[notHagoth7]

Nephites in my house ????? Ahhhhh. Just havin fun.

Then I'll respond in kind.

Nephites are supposedly the opposite of vampires.

The latter supposedly cannot be seen in a mirror.

But rumor has it that looking for a Nephite in the mirror is one of the most recommended ways to detect one.

(Same thing for elves.)

Some day, let us know how it goes.

I suppose the whole premise of there ever being a man named Moroni and etc. would be a better place for me to start.

Yep. I seriously recommend a thoughtful reading of the Book of Mormon.

I gotta buy that there were Nephites before I can dig into the concept of Irish Nephites.

That works.

[ERayR]

Nephites are supposedly the opposite of vampires.

The latter supposedly cannot be seen in a mirror.

But rumor has it that looking for a Nephite in the mirror is one of the most recommended ways to detect one.

(Same thing for elves.)

Some day, let us know how it goes.

Yep. I seriously recommend a thoughtful reading of the Book of Mormon.

That works.

NotHagoth7 is it possble to get back on track with this thread? Jeff_Ricks and freethinker seem to have derailed it. How about back to Nephites in Europe?

[Gary@rics]

I'm still reading.

There's a cognitive bias that often leads people astray in their thinking. It's the representativeness heuristic: a tendency to increase our belief in something as the actual probabilities go down. This thread started on the topic of Nephite in Europe as a counterargument to Stout's claim that the Anthon characters are evidence of Joseph Smith faking. I'm going to stay focused on that.

For the sake of illustration, I'm going to assume that each yes/no probability is 50%. That's totally arbitrary, of course.

The problem: we have Anthon characters the look suspiciously like Tironian script. We have an important question to settle: were they genuine Nephite characters (the LDS stand) or pilfered (Stout's claim)?

For Stout's argument to hold sway, we start with 50% probability. But there are added requirements: the Detroit manuscript actually contained these characters (we can guess, but not know, since it's missing). Call that a 50% chance. And then Joseph's uncle must have had access, another 50% probability. And finally, Joseph must have had access: 50% chance. That totals to 6.25%, or 1 in 16 chance.

The alternative hypothesis advanced by NotHagoth7 is that the characters are genuine Nephite script. We start at 50% probability. In order for that to bring us around to explaining why the Anthon characters resemble Tironian, we need a few other things to happen. (And this is assuming that the Book of Mormon is true.) Hagoth or someone in the boats must have known the method of writing: 50%. They must have reached northern Europe somewhere: 50%. At least one boat made it back and led Hagoth back to Europe: 50%. The Nephites were incorporated into the local culture: 50%. One of them who knew the writing system was captured and taken back to Rome: 50%. And became Cicero's slave: 50%. Taught other's this advanced shorthand: 50%. The method spread throughout Europe, evolving over time. (This part is 100%, since it's not in dispute.) The lineage of Nephite shorthand evolved into an Irish script in Europe and the eventual script used in the final compilation of the Book of Mormon: 50%. That totals to 0.3%, 1 in 512. Using this arbitrary probability, it produces a scenario that is 32 times more far-fetched.

When we ignore cumulative probabilities, our tendency is to simply consider, "Could that happen?" If so, our emotional reaction is to move toward credence. String together a bunch of those possibilities and we can become enamored of the tantalizing hypothesis: Wow! Wouldn't that be something? Well, yes, but each extra link in the chain actually requires more evidence, not less.

Another way to see this: on one of the trails I hike there is a creek that I have to cross. This time of year I cross at a wide, shallow place, using stepping stones. Each stepping stone increases my risk of falling and getting wet. Let's say I have a 95% probability of succeeding at each step. Sounds easy enough. If there is only one stepping stone, I'm going to make it successfully 19 out of 20 crossings. It's surprising how fast the improbability creeps in. If there are 14 stepping stones, I'm more likely than not to fall in, even though it's an obvious path and I'm pretty sure-footed.

This brings us back to NotHagoth7's alternative hypothesis. He acknowledges that his hypothesis has not been demonstrated to be probable, but that it is a domain of possibility. Many of might agree with this, although we would assign different total probabilities to it. But as we add more and more possibilities to the hypothesis, the chances of it being right actually crumble away. Each step is another potential fatal flaw.

Stout's hypothesis is that Smith fudged. If so, there ought to be some evidence, which he summarizes nicely. The script had to be in New York some time before the Book of Mormon was translated. There is evidence of that. There had to be a plausible chain leading to Joseph Smith. There is evidence of that, too: the discoverer of the Detroit Manuscript was a business associate of Joseph Smith's maternal uncle. Finally, the characters purported to be in the manuscript must resemble the Anthon characters. There is speculative evidence, based on puportedly related texts. At the points where we might expect to see evidence, there is. It would be a more compelling case, of course, if Stout had shown that the uncle shared the characters with Joseph, we had the original Detroit Manuscript to see if it had characters like those delivered to Anthon. We don't have those. So we have some solid stepping stones and some that are pretty slippery.

NotHagoth7's hypothesis makes testable predictions, too. I have listed some of them and there would certainly be others. What do we find when we look for that evidence? At each stepping stone we can conclude that there is a possibility, but nothing suggesting probability. In my view, every one of his stepping stones is very slippery, each requiring a significant leap of faith.

Does NotHagoth7's hypothesis outcompete Stout's in terms of probabilities? Not even close. Is it absolutely ruled out? No. It fits well in the domain of fiction. In fact, some of the presented evidence is itself fiction. I find that telling.

The debate isn't over, of course. But I'm putting my money on Stout.

--Gary@rics

[ERayR]

Then please tell me what he's referring to when he routinely says "that Mormonism has not proven its claims."???? That means he says it regularly. He can't be thinking of my claims when routinely does this, can he. Again, he states: "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims."

Notice too that the subject we're discussing now is not the one I said I have no interest in.

From Dan Petersons Quote:

"I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so.

Read it in context. He said it hasn't proven its claims but he doesn't think it has to. Therefore he is rejecting your claim that it has failed to do something it doesn't have to do.

You do not have to accept it if it doesn't meet your criteria. Just walk away nobody is keeping you except yourself.

This is my last post on this in this thread I would like to get back on track of the OP.

[ERayR]

Wade, there are plenty of claims that Mormonism has made and now makes that can be demonstrated are factually false, and others they make that can be demonstrated have a high probability are false. So why then does Mormonism get a bye on the requirement to be ethical when they represent those demonstrably false claims as true?

Now you are the one making claims that I say are false. The burden of proof lies with you but do it in another thread.

[notHagoth7]

I'm still reading.

There's a cognitive bias that often leads people astray in their thinking. It's the representativeness heuristic: a tendency to increase our belief in something as the actual probabilities go down. This thread started on the topic of Nephite in Europe as a counterargument to Stout's claim that the Anthon characters are evidence of Joseph Smith faking. I'm going to stay focused on that.

For the sake of illustration, I'm going to assume that each yes/no probability is 50%. That's totally arbitrary, of course.

Then why base an entire logical construct on a total arbitrary metric?

If it's inaccurate, it compounds error, upon error, upon error. And skews your "findings" exponentially.

Are you sure your construct itself isn't the result of a false heuristic?

And that it compounds the representative heuristic you intended to warn us about?

(I'll respond to the rest of your post a bit later.)