Critical Thinking And The Bom

[cdowis]

Scientists have investigated the non-supernatural aspects of the BoM and found them contradicting everything they know about the history of the Americas.

Really? That is a bold assertion, so let's see what you got.

Let's open a new thread and look at the following===>>>>

Please be specific, namely:

1. Give us a list of the archeologists or scientists who have read the Book of Mormon.... just one time.

2. Give us that short list of knowledgeable scientists who have made an extensive study of the BOM, publishing specific items which can be investigated. Give us a reference to that published/unpublished list so that we make sure it is complete.

Let me give you a few examples that need to be on that list:

written codices, the calendar, a knowledge of astronomy, human sacrifice, multiple wars, fortifications with trenches, towers used for religious purposes, cement cities (northward of the Nephites), multiple cities immersed under water, active volcanos, etc

3. We need to take that list, and show us how those things contradict what we find in mesoamerica.

No written records, no calendar, no wars, no cement cities, etc etc.

I think you are full of garbage, but let's see what you got.

Specifics.... please. That is what science is all about. Not wild-eyed assumptions and conclusions, but solid, knowledgeable scientific conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

Scientists have investigated the non-supernatural aspects of the BoM and found them contradicting everything they know about the history of the Americas.

Yokels have indeed investigated the non-supernatural aspects of the BofM and found them contradicting everything they know about the history of the Americas, but only because they known next to nothing about the history of the Americas.

Most actual scholars or scientists (with advanced degrees and extensive experience in their fields) who have investigated the Book of Mormon have found a vast array of evidence confirming the naturalistic claims (explicit and implicit) made therein -- both in an Old World and New World context. Most of those scholars and scientists are of course Mormon. Why would a non-Mormon scholar even give a second look at a document such as the Book of Mormon? Why waste their time carefully reading it and taking extensive notes? Why try to find anachronisms or solid parallels through detailed comparison with the ancient world? Scholars have the tools to apply to such an endeavor, while yokels do not.

Angels, plates, and seerstones do indeed constitute an "elephant in the room," just as the claims of alien bodies and alien spacecraft do from all those years ago near Rosewell, New Mexico. Yet the Bible is replete with angels and supernatural events. Why should it be given special privileges? Indeed, secular scholars regularly discount everything supernatural in the Bible, up to and including the Resurrection of Jesus and the First Vision of St. Paul. In the end, the Bible becomes nothing more than a magnificent historical novel. By this measure, it may have been written much longer ago than the Book of Mormon, but it is equally fictional. If you doubt this, simply examine the comments on the Patriarchs, the Exodus, and King David by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and other scholars HERE. Or take at gander at Prof. Bart Ehrman's reasons for leaving Christianity HERE.

Other scholars take a different view. My own arguments are available in a section on Moses and the Exodus HERE from my own Book of Abraham Commentary (forthcoming). The Bible is subject to attack in the same way that the Book of Mormon is subject to attack -- for the same reasons.

[ebeddoulos]

I don't know about the anti-Mormons, but here is what FARMS used to have as their Mission Statement:

Conclusion: Scriptures were written by Prophets of God

Evidence: Studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies

They've changed their name, but from what I can tell, that's still their methodology.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that anti-Mormons do the same thing starting with the opposite premise, but I would be surprised to hear that Mormons start with evidence before determining the conclusion.

You are incorrect just flat out wrong. In the example you use, you mistake a premise for a conclusion. They are not the same; they are different. A premise is a synonym for an hypothesis.

Once you understand the difference, I strongly suggest that you go back and re-read your material you provided and you will see that it is provided in a classic evidentiary format where the evidence is presented to support the premise and from that the conclusion is drawn. I’ll even help you out:

Hypothesis/Premise: The work of the Foundation rests on the premise that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were written by prophets of God.

Proposition/Evidence: Belief in this premise in the divinity of scripture is a matter of faith.

Inference/Evidence: Religious truths require divine witness to establish the faith of the believer.

Conclusion: While scholarly research cannot replace that witness, such studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies by fostering understanding and appreciation of the scriptures.

Get with it, Cinepro. This is not difficult; this is nothing more than is taught in your average basic high school debate class.

And in case you do not yet get it, my premise:

Anti-Mormon Philosophy: Here's the conclusion. What evidence should we ignore?

still stands.

[keith_brian]

A few years ago, I was asked to review a short documentary for a DVD for a well known film. On the DVD, the documentary was entitled "Original 1968 Production Featurette".

The studio claimed it had been made when the original film had been produced in 1968, and it consisted of behind the scenes footage and interviews with cast and crew members. Everything was very grainy and "aged"; it certainly looked like it was from 1968. But during one of the interviews, one of the crew members made reference to "Star Wars", and in the context, he seemed to be talking about the 1977 movie.

In spite of that fact, I compared the featurette with many other similar productions from the late 1960s. I examined the credits and technical specifications, and even tried to determine what kind of film stock it had been produced on. I approached this problem with the conviction that it had been produced in 1968, just as it claimed to be, and was determined to find every sort of evidence to support that claim.

From my investigation, I concluded, based on the similarities, that it had been produced in 1968, and the reference to "Star Wars" was probably a result of this crew member and George Lucas both having access to an earlier, original source for the name (I called this unknown source "SW"). I also suggested the possibility that the crew member had some sort of clairvoyance or supernatural ability to see the future and was referring to the as-yet unproduced "Star Wars" film knowing that future audiences would know what he was talking about. My client didn't buy either of these theories, so I suggested they "put their doubts on a shelf", firm in the knowledge that things would be cleared up at some later date. They simply had to believe in their paperwork that this documentary was, in fact, produced in 1968, even if it didn't seem to make sense at this time.

(Actually, based on the "Star Wars" comment, the client investigated further and determined the documentary had actually been made in 1978, and the title on the DVD was changed to reflect this).

I agree with your analysis, but I think that you neglected one important fact: we should also begin our analysis of the Star Wars film by assuming that the date of the film is true and that the film is, in fact, a work of antiquity. If the evidence doesn't seem to support this assertion, we can always fall back onto our supernatural experiences as to the age of the film, including the good feeling that we have in our hearts when we think about how old the film is. If other object to this, saying that this really isn't a form of proof or if others try to offer similar supernatural witnesses against the age of the film, we can simply ignore them. Better yet, we can simply ask them to watch the video, think about it carefully in their heads and hearts, and then seek their own supernatural experiences -- confident in the fact that either a) they will convert to our understanding of the video or b) they will suffer the punishments of the film's director for rejecting the knowledge he sent to them about the age of the film.

I actually leave you with my humble statement that the film is old. And thus it is.

[Chris Smith]

Most actual scholars or scientists (with advanced degrees and extensive experience in their fields) who have investigated the Book of Mormon have found a vast array of evidence confirming the naturalistic claims (explicit and implicit) made therein -- both in an Old World and New World context.

This is a pretty bold claim, and I rather doubt that it's accurate.

[Chris Smith]

A premise is a synonym for an hypothesis.

Not really. See my post above that explained the difference between the two. A premise is a "hard" or closed-ended assumption, whereas a hypothesis is a "soft" or open-ended one.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is a pretty bold claim, and I rather doubt that it's accurate.

The very next sentence conditions that statement, however, and it is very accurate. After all, what would you expect from Mormon scholars?

On the other hand, I welcome the efforts of non-Mormon scholars like yourself to examine the Mormon Canon in great detail. That would be a welcome change from all the nonsense which we have had to bear from non-scholars. No dialogue is even possible with them since the issues and conclusions are decided by them before the fact. At least among biblical scholars a lively and respectful debate goes on in earnest. I loved the two-hour debate I attended at UCLA some years back between Finkelstein and Larry Stager. The exchanges were frank and tough, but it was obvious that those guys were good friends. They hewed closely to the evidence as well as to its interpretation, and avoided ad hominems.

[ebeddoulos]

Not really. See my post above that explained the difference between the two. A premise is a "hard" or closed-ended assumption, whereas a hypothesis is a "soft" or open-ended one.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premise

I provided that link in my post. Somehow you managed to ignore it even though in your response you copied it. May I suggest that you click on the link, scroll down to the thesaurus and you will find:

premise

noun

assumption, proposition, thesis, ground, argument, hypothesis, assertion, postulate, supposition, presupposition, postulation the premise that men and women are on equal terms in this society

Just in case you need to be provided with a definition of "thesaurus": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thesaurus

the·sau·rus (th-sôrs)

n. pl. the·sau·ri (-sôr) or the·sau·rus·es

1. A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.

2. A book of selected words or concepts, such as a specialized vocabulary of a particular field, as of medicine or music.

I'll also give you assistance with "synonym": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synonym

syn·o·nym (sn-nm)

n.

1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.

3. Biology A scientific name of an organism or of a taxonomic group that has been superseded by another name at the same rank.

Whethor you agree with that or not, you should agree that a premise is not a conclusion, as Cinepro advocated.

[Chris Smith]

Thesauri tend to include inexact synonyms as well as exact ones.

But yes, I agree that a premise is different from a conclusion.

[Ariarates]

This yokel who's full of garbage anyway declines to continue participating in this thread. Have fun y'all!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just in case you need to be provided with a definition of "thesaurus": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thesaurus

Hahahaha, good laugh.