Viable Nephite colonies

[notHagoth7]

Demonstrating a viability does not equate to establishing and actuality.

Agreed. You're assuming I've said otherwise?

therefore you have overturned nothing.

Well, to be honest, I can think of two assertions that were overturned in the last 24 hours or so.

One by ebay regarding iron. Another today with the M'ikmaq.

When you can establish their one-time existence as an actuality (or even highly probably), then you have something. You're not there yet, are you.

Probably not. Although that is a subjective question that will differ for each person who answers it.

It doesn't lead in a direction that's of any interest to me whatsoever. It's not because I'm avoiding any evidence, requests, or issues.

Understood. Have a great week.

[wenglund]

I'd recommend this webpage.

demotic > Tironian > Mi'kmaq makes for an extremely interesting vector worth exploration.

For starters, Mi'kmaq is a native American script.

And it does appear to have favorable overlap with the Anthon characters.

I appreciate the link.

You may be pleased to know that a number of the good folks at postmormon(dot)org have been watching this thread with great interest (I just happened on the related thread there while Googling "Tironian Notes"). As might be expected, they have set up a cheering section for Arc, and they are in full mockery and scoff mode, and have already surmized Stout's article as something of a silver bullet that mortally wounds Mormonism--proving, to their facile minds that Joseph was undoubtably a fraud. And, they view you as not only patronizing, but certifiably crazy. But, at least you now have an audience that expands beyond this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff_Ricks]

Agreed. You're assuming I've said otherwise?

No, I'm simply saying that you've not done anything significant yet. It's on the order of writing a fiction that's based on some facts. The imagination can create lots of viable scenarios that are even based on facts. You leave it to others to take it further, which is, in my opinion, relying on others to take the first step beyond the starting blocks of possibilities.

Well, to be honest, I can think of two assertions that were overturned in the last 24 hours or so.

One by ebay regarding iron. Another today with the M'ikmaq.

You're taking my statement out of context. You know full well that my statement of overturning applies to overturning the general conclusion that the Book of Mormon isn't credible. It does not apply to overturning individual assertions about specific issues. Please stop taking my statements out of context. This isn't the first time you've done it.

[notHagoth7]

And, they view you as not only patronizing

I'll give that some thought.

Gary said something similar awhile back - so let me chew on that for a bit.

Thanks for the feedback.

but certifiably crazy.

Sanity is highly over rated.

But, at least you now have an audience that expands beyond this board.

:::waves:::

[Jeff_Ricks]

I appreciate the link.

You may be pleased to know that a number of the good folks at postmormon(dot)org have been watching this thread with great interest (I just happened on the related thread there while Googling "Tironian Notes"). As might be expected, they have set up a cheering section for Arc, and they are in full mockery and scoff mode, and have already surmized Stout's article as something of a silver bullet that mortally wounds Mormonism--proving, to their facile minds that Joseph was undoubtably a fraud. And, they view you as not only patronizing, but certifiably crazy. But, at least you now have an audience that expands beyond this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm...can you provide a link to this thread? I can't seem to find it on PostMo. The only one I see that speaks of this discussion was last updated two days ago. Is there another one?

[notHagoth7]

You're taking my statement out of context.

Not intentionally. It was understood within the context of the term "overturning", as used in this thread in the last couple of hours.

Look back a few posts and you'll see what I mean.

If it didn't precisely match your intended meaning...my bad. Misunderstanding happen some time.

It was not an intentional attempt to distort your meaning.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Not intentionally. It was understood within the context of the term "overturning", as used in this thread in the last couple of hours.

Look back a few posts and you'll see what I mean.

Here's where I think I made it pretty darn clear where I said:

"This is my statement: When your evidence has the potential of overturning (now, today, not at some hypothetical time in the future) the evidence-based conclusion of the many who have determined that the Book of Mormon is not credible, then I'm interested."

Clearly I'm not talking about overturning assertions individuals make about specific sub-issues.

[wenglund]

Hmmm...can you provide a link to this thread? I can't seem to find it on PostMo. The only one I see that speaks of this discussion was last updated two days ago. Is there another one?

It is a thread started by Dr. W titled: "'Reformed Egyptian' Identified as a Real Language - Nephites Populate Ireland"

If you are looking for substantive responses to what is being said here, then that postmo thread will be a complete waste of your time. However, if you are looking for moral support, it will serve you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here's where I think I made it pretty darn clear where I said:

"This is my statement: When your evidence has the potential of overturning (now, today, not at some hypothetical time in the future) the evidence-based conclusion of the many who have determined that the Book of Mormon is not credible, then I'm interested."

Clearly I'm not talking about overturning assertions individuals make about specific sub-issues.

What if those so-called "sub-issue" are foundational to your negative faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

Clearly I'm not talking about overturning assertions individuals make about specific sub-issues.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Jeff_Ricks]

It is a thread started by Dr. W titled: "'Reformed Egyptian' Identified as a Real Language - Nephites Populate Ireland"

If you are looking for substantive responses to what is being said here, then that postmo thread will be a complete waste of your time. However, if you are looking for moral support, it will serve you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, that's the thread I found too. It's an old discussion. The commentary you provided is regarding earlier pages of this discussion, not where the discussion is now or even yesterday.

[Jeff_Ricks]

What if those so-called "sub-issue" are foundational to your negative faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In this case they're not, are they. In another context they might be. We're not in that other context, are we. "What if" doesn't matter unless you're writing fiction.

[ERayR]

Therefore, ERay and others who apparently aren't reading my posts before spouting off about me, THAT is why I'm not interested in devoting time to following NoHagoth's line of reason. It doesn't lead in a direction that's of any interest to me whatsoever. Establishing a viability does not interest me. Sorry, but I simply don't have time to do the homework to participate in such a discussion. The payoff is not interesting enough to me to cause me to commit that kind of time to it. It's not because I'm avoiding any evidence, requests, or issues. There, I've tried stating it in several different ways. I hope that's clear enough. Bottom line: not interested. When the anticipated payoff becomes greater then my interest increases.

OK OK already. However your actions don't conform to your words. Just color me skeptical because if I were as disinterested as you have claimed for the last half dozen posts I would not be in this thread. I would be gone.

[ERayR]

You're taking my statement out of context. You know full well that my statement of overturning applies to overturning the general conclusion that the Book of Mormon isn't credible. It does not apply to overturning individual assertions about specific issues. Please stop taking my statements out of context. This isn't the first time you've done it.

Jeff one correction here. Your general conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not credible is in and of itself not credible. You have produced nothing that makes it a credible assertion. To do that you would have to prove the message of the book itself was false. You have a long way to go.

[ERayR]

I'll give that some thought.

Gary said something similar awhile back - so let me chew on that for a bit.

Thanks for the feedback.

:::waves:::

Don't worry about it it only faintly shows when you are answereing those who have been patronizing toward you. I think it is the best way to handle it but thats me.

[notHagoth7]

Now here's what's odd about this whole exploration.

Two years before the Nephite record was published, why would the D&C foretell that the record would go, not just to Lamanites,

but to Nephites, and to Josephites, and to Jacobites? (Most LDS people today believe those tribes were destroyed.)

For those who are leaning towards the idea that Joseph was faking it, why would he claim such a bizarre thing?

In a similar vein, why would the Nephite record claim, more than once, that it would help us learn about our fathers?

Aren't such things extremely risky to prophesy?

Why risk that?

Yet we now have independent evidence of Semitic peoples in northern Europe.

Who claimed to come from the West.

And their descendants were among the ones to first receive the Book of Mormon.

But evidence to corroborate the long-since fulfilled prophecy didn't begin to surface until 150 years after his death?

What's the deal here?

My assertion:

He was precisely who the Book of Mormon said he would be.

[Gary@rics]

NotHagoth7, I appreciate the response. I'll be checking in from time to time to catch up. Thanks for replying to my ideas, especially about the sorts of things that I would consider to be meaningful evidence. I think that your hypothesis makes testable predictions like those. Testable predictions really do matter.

--Gary@rics

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff one correction here. Your general conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not credible is in and of itself not credible. You have produced nothing that makes it a credible assertion. To do that you would have to prove the message of the book itself was false. You have a long way to go.

Oh that's hilarious ERay. I don't have to disprove Book of Mormon claims because Mormonism has yet to establish those claims as credible in the first place! Outside of Mormon culture the Book of Mormon is a laughing stock. The burden on proof is on you my friend. If you don't understand how burden of proof works, please say so and I'll walk you through it. Or you can google it or wikipedia it.

[wenglund]

In this case they're not, are they.

I don't know, but I think it plausible. That is why I asked. Isn't it.

In another context they might be. We're not in that other context, are we.

I don't know, but I think it plausible. That is why I asked. Isn't it.

"What if" doesn't matter unless you're writing fiction.

"What if" is also a way of exploring plausible unkowns, as well as a way of raising questions for discussion about reality. In other words, it can matter for things other than fiction. Doesn't it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Oh that's hilarious ERay. I don't have to disprove Book of Mormon claims because Mormonism has yet to establish those claims as credible in the first place! Outside of Mormon culture the Book of Mormon is a laughing stock. The burden on proof is on you my friend. If you don't understand how burden of proof works, please say so and I'll walk you through it. Or you can google it or wikipedia it.

Whether the BoM is a laughing stock or not (mocking hyperbole such as this tends to be dubious at best to the critically minded), the burden rest with those who proactively take a given position. Had you simply said that you found the evidence in favor of the BoM to be unconvincing, then you would be correct about we LDS having the burden of proof, and having failed to meet that burden in your case.

However, since you went well beyond that point to actually staking out the position that the evidence weighes in favor of the BoM claims being false, then to the critical thinker, your assertion bears that burden of proof. And, dismissing the BoM as a supposed "laughing stock" can in no reasonable way be considered as shouldering that burden.

With that little misunderstanding now corrected, I don't know if the intent of the thread is to convince the Jeff Ricks of the world to regain their faith in the BoM and rejoin the Church. Rather, I suspect it is intended to promoted reasoned discussion that may chance enlightening all interested and open-minded parties. If that objective falls outside your personal plans, then I can't see anyone faulting you for graciously exiting stage left. If that is the case, and since you have lent precious little to the discussion, and since you aren't really known to have been a force in critical discussion on this issue (except perhaps to declare your disbelief on exmo boards), I don't know that you would be missed (nohagoth7 may think otherwise since he appears to be far more compassionate than me). I mention this so that you may no longer feel the need to repeatedly walk out on stage here to announce your intent to depart unless things go your way. You are free to go or stay, it matters little either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

I suspect it is intended to promoted reasoned discussion that may chance enlightening all interested and open-minded parties.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Had you simply said that you found the evidence in favor of the BoM to be unconvincing, then you would be correct about we LDS having the burden of proof, and having failed to meet that burden in your case.

Wade, that's exactly what I've been saying. NotHagoth has failed to establish his assertions as defined in the title and elsewhere in this thread of "Viable Nephite colonies" and "Evidence that corroborates the Book of Mormon" and he even has admitted as such. For example, look at his post at the top of page 11 of this thread. Here are some excerpts from it:

Jeff says: Demonstrating a viability does not equate to establishing and actuality.

NotHagoth responds: Agreed. You're assuming I've said otherwise?

Jeff says: When you can establish their one-time existence as an actuality (or even highly probably), then you have something. You're not there yet, are you.

NotHagoth responds with: Probably not. Although that is a subjective question that will differ for each person who answers it.

The burden of proof remains with him. The same extends to Mormonism in general. The world is not convinced that Mormonism has established the actuality of its incredible claims about the Book of Mormon. If it had the world would be beating down the doors of the Church to join. As it is, after 180 years Mormons still make up no more than 0.02% of the world. It doesn't matter that 0.02% of the world believe Mormonism's claims, the majority of the world, including me, is not convinced. Therefore, the burden of proof does not rest with me because Mormonism has failed to establish it's claims to begin with.

I came to this thread to hear NotHagoth out and learn how he has established viable Nephite colonies as suggested by the title. While establishing a viability might be interesting to some, he has admitted that he "probably [has] not" established the actuality of their existence, and therefore has not met Mormonism's burden to prove it's claims. No, he didn't claim to; my point is the burden of proof still lies in Mormonism's lap to deal with. When he, or anyone else does meet that the burden, to the degree that it convinces at least a significant number of interested and educated parties in the world (interested parties being: archeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc.) then I'm interested; you know where to find me. My continued participation since then has been responding to misrepresented or misunderstood claims regarding my participation here. So, unless someone else makes another such claim that I feel needs correcting, I'm gone.

[Daniel Peterson]

I must have missed the memo about Mormonism (or any other religious belief, or unbelief, for that matter) being obliged to prove its claims.

Did the memo clarify to whom those claims were to be proven?

Just checking in from Down Under.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I must have missed the memo about Mormonism (or any other religious belief, or unbelief, for that matter) being obliged to prove its claims.

Did the memo clarify to whom those claims were to be proven?

Just checking in from Down Under.

Well, Daniel, when Mormonism makes truth claims to the world, either in the form of missionaries making the claim that the Book of Mormon is an account of people's who once lived in actuality, or the Church launching ad campaigns where "Truth restored" is the slogan, then I think most definitely a burden of proof is required. Unless, of course, you're going to argue that religions can make any claim they want because they have a licence to lie because everyone knows that's what religions do.

I find your post interesting, Daniel, because taking the position that Mormonism is not "obliged to prove its claims" implies to me an admission that you acknowledge that it has failed to meet such a burden.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I must have missed the memo about Mormonism (or any other religious belief, or unbelief, for that matter) being obliged to prove its claims.

Did the memo clarify to whom those claims were to be proven?

Just checking in from Down Under.

Well, Daniel, when Mormonism makes truth claims to the world, either in the form of missionaries making the claim that the Book of Mormon is an account of people's who once lived in actuality, or the Church launching ad campaigns where "Truth restored" is the slogan, then I think most definitely a burden of proof is required. Unless, of course, you're going to argue that religions can make any claim they want because they have a licence to lie, because everyone knows that's what religions do.

I find your post interesting, Daniel, because taking the position that Mormonism is not "obliged to prove its claims" implies to me an acknowledgement that it has failed to meet such a burden.