From Idaho State Journal

[Guest Just Curious]

Suppose you lived in 1600 AD. At that time there was absolutely no corroborative evidence for the Bible. Should all people at that time have rejected the Bible?

Last time I checked we don't currently live in 1600 AD and there is significant archeological evidence available in the areas of biblical lands as well as the America's

There are still many places, people and events described in the Bible for which we have no corroborative evidence--the resurrection of Christ, for example. Should we therefore reject those parts of the Bible which cannot be corroborated? (If your response is that corroboration of one part of the Bible corroborates the whole, then I will respond that, by that logic, we should all worship Zeus because the city of Troy has been discovered, corroborating Homer's descriptions of Zeus and the Greek Gods.)

How many biblical cities or sites or towns or villiages or rivers or lakes or seas would you say have currently been found and identified. Also how may BoM cities, or sites, or towns, or villages or rivers or lakes or seas would you say have currently been found and identified?

[rabanes]

CI: You are quite hilarious. You just get done writing a whole tome to Dan in which you discuss in detail genetic

RA: Are you playing games? I don't have time for games

[Confidential Informant]

CI: You are quite hilarious. You just get done writing a whole tome to Dan in which you discuss in detail genetic

RA: Are you playing games? I don't have time for games—hilarious or otherwise. I've written what I have written. And sought, in good faith, to discuss issues hinestlyt and respectfully. Now you write unclear questions, then mock me for not understanding what you are tryiong to say. That's not very nice. Nor is it very productive.

RA

Fine, then let's discuss this issue of "evidence" v. "proof" as Prof. Hamblin has broached the subject.

It's funny that you quote Givens as supporting of your position. His whole book, By the Hand of Mormon, is dedicated to providing "evidence" of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and it does so quite well).

So, start w/ Bill's example. Nahom. B of M mentions it as a place name. It was virtually unknown in Smith time. How did he get right? Where did the info come from?

C.I.

Edited to add: BTW, Richard, if you are going to seek to discredit Nahom by showing that knowledge of the place did exist, please list all the sources and their locations so that we get an idea of what books Smith would have had to have had access to and how far and wide Smith would have had to travel to get them. (Also, an explanation of why no contemporary of Smith ever mentioned his vast library would be nice).

[Drevan]

It's funny that you quote Givens as supporting of your position. His whole book, By the Hand of Mormon, is dedicated to providing "evidence" of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and it does so quite well).

So, start w/ Bill's example. Nahom. B of M mentions it as a place name. It was virtually unknown in Smith time. How did he get right? Where did the info come from?

C.I.

YEAH PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT (just an expression don't really, smoking is against the WoW and bad for your health)

[rabanes]

BILL: But you ignored my other questions, which are more to the point. I really would like an answer. Every time I get into this type of discussion with an Evangelical, the discussion stalls at precisely this moment.

RA: yes, understood. and it is precisely at this moment that I, too, find myself in a great quandry. Allow me to explain. I have recently released, as you well know, "Becoming Gods," in which I sought to answer at least SOME of the newest arguments being raised by folks like you, DCP, and FARMS. Why? because i think they are worthy of consideration, thought, and response, even though I may ultimately disagree with you.

That book

[brugsch]

Richard,

Congratualtions on your new novel. I hope that it is as thoughtful as some of the responses you have put to the board. I too would like to see you answer Bill's question:

If all you need is faith, why do you need proof?

[raindancer]

BILL: But you ignored my other questions, which are more to the point. I really would like an answer. Every time I get into this type of discussion with an Evangelical, the discussion stalls at precisely this moment.

RA: yes, understood. and it is precisely at this moment that I, too, find myself in a great quandry. Allow me to explain. I have recently released, as you well know, "Becoming Gods," in which I sought to answer at least SOME of the newest arguments being raised by folks like you, DCP, and FARMS. Why? because i think they are worthy of consideration, thought, and response, even though I may ultimately disagree with you.

That book

[rabanes]

RAINDANCER: So if no one else says it or even cares, I appreciate your efforts, and they are helpful to me at least.

RA: you understand my heart. It's worth a lot. Thank YOU.

BRUG: If all you need is faith, why do you need proof?

RA: I think I answered this in a repsonse posted to Bill. Please check.

RA

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I really don't know how to proceed at this point. I am open to suggestions. And just so you know, it is not an issue of ignoring. I am, to be honest, overwhelmed

Your basic choice is to stay on the Board and answer the questions, or get off the Board altogether. I sympathize with your plight and will probably stop posting soon for precisely the types of reasons you discuss.

But here is the problem. Most of what happens on these Boards is a bunch of mind-numbing nonsense. Rarely does a discussion occur which gets to the meat of the issues. I think such issues are worth pursuing, but the price becomes prohibative if one must wade through endless nonsense and distractions and "noise".

Thus, it might be possible to limit the discussion to one or two participants on each side, and to a limited number of posts/words per day. In that way, attention can be focused and time spent limited.

As I said before, I have never had a discussion of these issues with an Evangelical that ends in any other way than the withdrawal of the Evangelical from the discussion at precisely this point, where the crux of the issue is raised. I do not know what the answer Evangelical might be. My suspicion is that there is not a good Evangelical response to these issues. If there is, I'd love to see it. Even the suggestion of a book to read that is on target, as opposed to tangentially related would be appreciated.

[Bill Hamblin]

BRUG: If all you need is faith, why do you need proof?

RA: I think I answered this in a repsonse posted to Bill. Please check.

The problem is: if God really wants faith alone, then the Evangelical quest for "proof" is a fundamental betrayal and manifestation of the lack of salvific faith.

[Daniel Peterson]

DCP: They [i.e, the plates], and the very powerful Witness testimonies confirming their existence, constitute an unswallowable lump in the throats of those who wish to explain the Book of Mormon as something merely spun out of the (dishonest or insane) mind of Joseph Smith.

RA: Of course, it was really only "powerful" because they were seen via spiritual second sight in a vision (per the words of such non-important Mormons like Martin Harris, David Whitmer, ya know, no one special). I'm afraid this means little to those of us who wish somebody other than Joseph would have actually seen them as you or I would see a chair, or a desk, or anything in the physical world of hard objects. I do think, however, that everyone physically saw the little closed box the plates were carried in, and most certain ly "hefted" something that was covered by a cloth. But goodness, Dan, anyone can see anything in a visionary state. So, I fail to see how the visionary experiences of the so-called "witnesses" do much of anything.

RA

The Witness experiences weren't merely visionary. That claim is false, and requires those who assert it to ignore or dismiss repeated statements from the Witnesses that they "saw with these eyes" and "handled with these hands." They were as explicit and direct on this point as they could possibly be.

[Drevan]

I find it hilarious that you've complained several times about not having enough time to reply to all of these posts due to personal time conflict, yet i've been off and on all day long, reading your posts and others on this thread and you've been on it all day long. Doesnt look like you've got much else to do if you've been here every time i've stopped in to read.

[rabanes]

DCP: The Witness experiences weren't merely visionary. That claim is false, and requires those who assert it to ignore or dismiss repeated statements from the Witnesses that they "saw with these eyes" and "handled with these hands."

RA:

"[W]hen I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument [that is, statement] for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins." (LDS apostle Stephen Burnett, letter to Lyman E.Johnson, April 15, 1838).

"Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses; has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from which the book purports to have been translated, except in vision; and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph not excepted." (August 11, 1838, letter,apostle Warren Parrish).

etc. etc. etc.

And what shall we say about James Strang, the former devotee of Smith

[rabanes]

DEV: I find it hilarious

RA: you are easily amused.

DEV: that you've complained several times

RA: complained?? that's your idea of complaining? yikes . . .

DEV: about not having enough time to reply to all of these posts due to personal time conflict, yet i've been off and on all day long,

RA: true. I can answer some things off the top of my head. and I am actually at my desk most of the time writing. I'm a workaholic, non-recovering. Right now my wife and I are watching TV and I am testing my new Wi-FI network

[Daniel Peterson]

DCP: (quoting me "this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc.") This is flatly untrue.

RA: Hi, Dan. . . .  I believe that to say my comment is "flatly" untrue is a bit of an overstatement.

No. It is absolutely true, and not overstated at all. The Limited Geography Theory (LGT) is neither new, nor contemporary, nor modern, nor a "spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc." Every element of your characterization of the LGT is false, and your characterization is, thus, altogether false. Hence, "flatly untrue."

From what I have seen and heard, admittedly as an outsider, nearly ALL Mormons I have ever spoken to, and just about every popular LDS book I have on my shelf, state that all Native Americans, as well as South Americans, and many Islanders are descended from Israelites and that these Israelites were the colonizers of the New World, and that they were the primary colonizers of the New World. I have been told numerous times by faithful LDS that the New World was originally colonized by Israelites, whose numbers reached untold millions upon millions upon millions and spread across the whole hemisphere

[kolobian]

This is an excellant thread. Not that the peanut gallery matters, but if you can only pick a few issues to respond to, Mr. Abanes, I would hope you choose this one. I echo the comment about being curious as to what the next move is.

[Daniel Peterson]

"[W]hen I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument [that is, statement] for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins." (LDS apostle Stephen Burnett, letter to Lyman E.Johnson, April 15, 1838).

"Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses; has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from which the book purports to have been translated, except in vision; and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph not excepted." (August 11, 1838, letter,apostle Warren Parrish).

etc. etc. etc.

And what shall we say about James Strang, the former devotee of Smith

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm familiar with the two statements you quote, from the non-apostle Stephen Burnett and the non-apostle Warren Parrish.

What is most unimpressive about these two statements is that they are second hand; neither of these men were actual witnesses. Furthermore, they are directly contradicted by numerous first-hand statements by the witnesses themselves.

[Guest Lux]

rabanes,

My .02 probably isn't worth much on this thread, and I'm sorry I don't have time to type a novel, but I have to point out . . .

If Harris, Cowdrey, and Whitmer believed in the God of the Bible (which I'm pretty sure they did), then why would they sign a statement in the name of the Lord if they knew it to be false? Not only that, but they died affirming their testimonies of their witness. Either they saw exactly what the statement says, or they *wanted* to go to Hell. To me it's that simple.

Until . . .

Lux

[Drevan]

DEV: I find it hilarious

RA: you are easily amused.

No amount of success in the world can make up for weakness in the home. I do not you, nor do I care to, but if you're really the workaholic you claim to be, i would suggest you concern yourself with your family. Your work is not important compared to your wife and children (if you have any).

Oh is the easily amused comment your lame way of trying to insult me? It didn't work. I could careless how "educated" you think you are. I could careless if you have degrees from havard,yale, or stanford. I could careless if you graduated top of your class. None of your "knowlege" of the world will do you any good if you don't accept the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and follow the Lord's Prophets and Apostles till the end. You're knowledge is of no importance if you have no testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church.

[Daniel Peterson]

ROPER: "Latter-day Saints have long been open to the idea that peoples not mentioned in the Book of Mormon may have migrated to the Americas either before, during, or after the events described in the Book of Mormon and that these various peoples intermingled with those of Israelite or Jaredite descent. The idea of other pre-Columbian migrations to the Americas has a long history and can be traced back to the earliest Latter-day Saints. In the 15 September 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons, the editor--Joseph Smith, according to the paper's masthead--cited favorably an account of Don Juan Torres, grandson of the last king of the Quich

[hooberus]

For there is no "proof" of the religiously vital claims of the Bible. Nobody disputes that the Bible is ancient, and that it reflects ancient cultures. (It would be miraculous if it didn't.) But there is plenty of dispute about the life, miracles, death, and resurrection of Jesus, to say nothing of his deity and his atoning sacrifice. The fact that, although you can't prove those, you can prove that there was an ancient Jerusalem and a Red Sea, doesn't seem all that impressive to me.

There is fairly substantial evidence that Jesus Christ lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is fairly substantial evidence that Jesus Christ lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

I'm inclined to agree. But then, I'm inclined to agree. Others would dispute it. However, relatively few atheists or agnostics deny that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified. That's really no very big deal. The huge questions are whether he was divine, whether he atoned for my sins, and whether he rose from the dead. And the evidence for those propositions (though I think it is stronger than many realize) falls far, far short of "proof."

Remember that we were talking about proof, which is not the same thing as mere "evidence."

[hooberus]

Its still nice to have evidence wherein the Bible and other historical sources touch.

[Matt Andrews]

Take the name Nahom, discovered at the correct time and place in Arabia, matching the BOM description. This is evidence supporting the BOM, is it not? It is not, however, proof of the BOM.

I agree that it isn't proof. Was it the 'correct' place, or a place that could be construed as being consistent with the BoM narrative? Did it 'match' the BoM description, or was it just the letters NHM, with the vowel sounds missing, so we have no idea if the word was the same or not?

(As a learned scholar of ancient languages, I believe it must have meant "Noham", refering to Hebraic Dietary laws. Insert smiley face here if that joke wasn't obvious.)

It is evidence, in that it appears to be consistent with the theory that the BoM is a literal history. So why does Richard find it uncompelling, but find evidence for the Bible compelling? Good question.

Maybe there is some standard of evidence that he thinks the Bible meets that the BoM does not. I'd like to know what that is, if he has time.