When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Jeff K.]

BTW, some people here seem to be focusing on what is happening and express their predictions on what is going to happen... I don't care about that that much.

I'm focusing on what SHOULD happen and how supposed evidence for the BoM SHOULD be approached and used by both skeptics and believers.

"Should happen"? That is a subjective statement. To YOU it might be a "should" happen. The arrogance of your posts aside (giving you the self imposed responsibility of omniscience), might seem a natural word to use. Some of us prefer to see the consist rising of the sun and speculate at what will probably happen. Just as you are probably going to say "you don't understand".

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

"Should happen"? That is a subjective statement. To YOU it might be a "should" happen. The arrogance of your posts aside (giving you the self imposed responsibility of omniscience), might seem a natural word to use. Some of us prefer to see the consist rising of the sun and speculate at what will probably happen. Just as you are probably going to say "you don't understand".

I meant "should" in the sense that how we should approach the issue, Jeff, not in what should happen in the future. You have the sad ability to poorly characterize what I say pretty fast.

[Jeff K.]

Then you have created a false dichotomy between the probability of might and should and the idea of prediction.

[Jeff K.]

I meant "should" in the sense that how we should approach the issue, Jeff, not in what should happen in the future. You have the sad ability to poorly characterize what I say pretty fast.

If you speak and write clearly, mischaracterization is difficult. If however you write and speak poorly, your words will of course be easily mischaracterized. While I appreciate your self critique, until you take active steps to improve on your ability to "articulate" you will continue to daydream and use the escape clause... "you don't understand".

[elguanteloko]

I expect minimum mental effort, Jeff. Every relatively intelligent person I've met can understand what I'm saying...

Address the issue or if you don't get it just leave the thread. Your comments resemble more spam than discussion.

[Gervin]

I'm focusing on what SHOULD happen and how supposed evidence for the BoM SHOULD be approached and used by both skeptics and believers.

One bridge between skeptics and believers should be BYU. Here is an institution both of higher learning and religious focus. The University staff are academically credentialed in the areas of anthropology, history, archaeology, etc. and uniquely qualified to make the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

What textbooks do they use on the subject of the Book of Mormon setting? What do their curriculums look like? Beyond this, they should be pioneering a viewpoint for the historicity of the Book of Mormon among the world of secular academicians, researchers, and fellow-professionals. In what journals are they publishing and what secular conferences do they attend and present papers? If the best and brightest at the church’s university aren’t comfortable challenging the secular world with a claim for Book of Mormon historicity then there isn’t much hope for any breakthroughs at the lay-level.

[Jeff K.]

I expect minimum mental effort, Jeff. Every relatively intelligent person I've met can understand what I'm saying...

You have always achieved your expectations. You put forth a minimum of mental effort and then when you find your minimal effort is inconsistent and incorrect, you tell people "they don't understand what you are saying". If it were one person, it might be considered plausible that perhaps they don't have that capacity. But when you say it to everyone about almost everything... well, that shows a dim bulb in the marquee, you may want to up your wattage capacity.

Address the issue or if you don't get it just leave the thread. Your comments resemble more spam than discussion.

I would almost think that was new, but I have heard you use that one a time or two before also. Let us call that "glove response number 16". You can just call me number 6

[Zakuska]

One bridge between skeptics and believers should be BYU. Here is an institution both of higher learning and religious focus. The University staff are academically credentialed in the areas of anthropology, history, archaeology, etc. and uniquely qualified to make the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

What textbooks do they use on the subject of the Book of Mormon setting? What do their curriculums look like? Beyond this, they should be pioneering a viewpoint for the historicity of the Book of Mormon among the world of secular academicians, researchers, and fellow-professionals. In what journals are they publishing and what secular conferences do they attend and present papers? If the best and brightest at the church’s university aren’t comfortable challenging the secular world with a claim for Book of Mormon historicity then there isn’t much hope for any breakthroughs at the lay-level.

Well there are several of those who you mention (some even post here) and they are published with oxford press IIRC.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[elguanteloko]

One bridge between skeptics and believers should be BYU. Here is an institution both of higher learning and religious focus. The University staff are academically credentialed in the areas of anthropology, history, archaeology, etc. and uniquely qualified to make the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

What textbooks do they use on the subject of the Book of Mormon setting? What do their curriculums look like? Beyond this, they should be pioneering a viewpoint for the historicity of the Book of Mormon among the world of secular academicians, researchers, and fellow-professionals. In what journals are they publishing and what secular conferences do they attend and present papers? If the best and brightest at the church’s university aren’t comfortable challenging the secular world with a claim for Book of Mormon historicity then there isn’t much hope for any breakthroughs at the lay-level.

Why the need to "make a case for the historicity of the BoM" when, I would imagine, the evidence should speak for itself in favor of it being an historically accurate document that can be widely recognized? If the evidence suggests that such civilizations like the ones described in the BoM are very likely to have existed, why the need to form a "case for the historicity of the BoM" by BYU?

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

More responses from you that don't address the issue of the thread will be considered off-topic, Jeff. You've done enough trolling already.

[elguanteloko]

Then you have created a false dichotomy between the probability of might and should and the idea of prediction.

it's not a dichotomy, it's called a distinction. dichotomies leave other options aside, what I said didn't.

[jo1952]

More responses from you that don't address the issue of the thread will be considered off-topic, Jeff. You've done enough trolling already.

It appears you are ignoring the answers that the LDS posters have given you. Perhaps you have ignored them because you don't like the answers we give. This phenomenon is very well explained by Paul:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You are insisting on a secular answer concerning something God is controlling.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 8, 2011 by jo1952

[Gervin]

Why the need to "make a case for the historicity of the BoM" when, I would imagine, the evidence should speak for itself in favor of it being an historically accurate document that can be widely recognized? If the evidence suggests that such civilizations like the ones described in the BoM are very likely to have existed, why the need to form a "case for the historicity of the BoM" by BYU?

A small scale example: there is an ongoing debate about the location and extent for the City of David in Jerusalem. The contention lies in one prominent archaeologist using the Bible as a guide for where to dig, while another prominent archaeologist says that you need an additional source to triangulate the location; that simply using the Bible makes finding the City a fait accompli (something will obviously be found and it will be called the City of David). It's a lively debate further fueled by the fact that there is much being found in the ground.

For the Book of Mormon, the evidence doesn't speak for itself; there is no robust Book of Mormon archaeological record. That's part of the problem. Many people here may tell you otherwise, but for the most part they are extrapolating from very limited information. The case would be made using evidence and, from there, what the evidence suggests.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Gervin

[elguanteloko]

It appears you are ignoring the answers that the LDS posters have given you. Perhaps you have ignored them because you don't like the answers we give. This phenomenon is very well explained by Paul:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You are insisting on a secular answer concerning something God is controlling.

Regards,

jo

...you can read my responses to other users, you know?

[elguanteloko]

A small scale example: there is an ongoing debate about the location and extent for the City of David in Jerusalem. The contention lies in one prominent archaeologist using the Bible as a guide for where to dig, while another prominent archaeologist says that you need an additional source to triangulate the location; that simply using the Bible makes finding the City a fait accompli (something will obviously be found and it will be called the City of David). It's a lively debate further fueled by the fact that there is much being found in the ground.

For the Book of Mormon, the evidence doesn't speak for itself; there is no robust Book of Mormon archaeological record. That's part of the problem. Many people here may tell you otherwise, but for the most part they are extrapolating from very limited information. The case would be made using evidence and, from there, what the evidence suggests.

Then you would agree with me that using Archaeological evidence as if it positively supported the veracity of the BoM is a big and unnecessary stretch, correct?

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[jo1952]

...you can read my responses to other users, you know?

We see you for who you are - someone stuck in the physical world. You believe that the world should be able to supply you with the answers to your questions. As a man you are looking for physical evidence which is acceptable in accordance with the parameters you have established. Inasmuch as the Creation was not made by man, you will only be able to truly understand your physical world once you allow the Creator of our world to guide you to the answers to your questions.

For being such a self-proclaimed "thinker", one would "think" you would have figured this out by now. You continually start threads, or participate in threads, with the same pre-conceived angels which you have already established in your mind. Until you see this with your spiritual eyes, you will remain blinded to your own blindness. I believe we are all blind to some degree. Those who recognize they are blind try harder to keep their minds open to the unknown. Those who do not realize they are blind usually stay that way unless some major event in their life causes them to begin to "see". So be it.

Meanwhile, you will remain unsatisfied with our answers, as you do not have any similar experiences you can identify with when we give you our answers.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 8, 2011 by jo1952

[elguanteloko]

jo

thanks for your psychological and spiritual assessment of my self... Now, can you please get on-topic?

[jo1952]

jo

thanks for your psychological and spiritual assessment of my self... Now, can you please get on-topic?

Thank you for manifesting confirmation of my comments which were made to assist you in understanding why you will never believe that we HAVE already answered your OP....sigh....

Regards,

jo

[elguanteloko]

Thank you for manifesting confirmation of my comments which were made to assist you in understanding why you will never believe that we HAVE already answered your OP....sigh....

Regards,

jo

I've read all the comments. Some have, you haven't. For a second time, please get on-topic.

[Gervin]

Then you would agree with me that using Archaeological evidence as if it positively supported the veracity of the BoM is a big and unnecessary stretch, correct?

What is Veracity? (ha)

There is no archaeological evidence to support the setting, culture, or any events described in the Book of Mormon. The same cannot be said for the Bible. There is no archaeological evidence to support any miraculous claim, prophecy or revelation in either the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

[Zakuska]

What is Veracity? (ha)

There is no archaeological evidence to support the setting, culture, or any events described in the Book of Mormon. The same cannot be said for the Bible. There is no archaeological evidence to support any miraculous claim, prophecy or revelation in either the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

Correction. There is alot of evidence. Now wether people accept that is subjective. (eg Nahom)

[elguanteloko]

What is Veracity? (ha)

That it really is an ancient historical document.

[elguanteloko]

Correction. There is alot of evidence. Now wether people accept that is subjective. (eg Nahom)

"Accept it" is too general. Accepted as indicating that what, exactly? Anyone can agree with what appear to be the facts (which, as far as I've seen, don't even indicate the more likely name is Nahom for NHM, IIRC) but the interpretation of them is what is in question most of the time.

[Jeff K.]

jo1952, on 08 August 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

It appears you are ignoring the answers that the LDS posters have given you. Perhaps you have ignored them because you don't like the answers we give. This phenomenon is very well explained by Paul:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You are insisting on a secular answer concerning something God is controlling.

Regards,

jo

...you can read my responses to other users, you know?

Seems to me the troll self identifies. Please answer clearly and fully when asked and stop using the typical escape hatches.

Jo raises a good point. You insist, without any kind of compelling argument, that the spiritual be ignored, you want "your" parameters, and you present those parameters without any real articulation. You shoule reread your posts.... and correct them.

[elguanteloko]

Seems to me the troll self identifies. Please answer clearly and fully when asked and stop using the typical escape hatches.

Jo raises a good point. You insist, without any kind of compelling argument, that the spiritual be ignored, you want "your" parameters, and you present those parameters without any real articulation. You shoule reread your posts.... and correct them.

We are talking about how we should approach BoM archaeological and historical evidences, not about the 'spiritual'. Once again you are off-topic. Can mods do something about it? This isn't the first time.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko