Not so easy?

[Dan Vogel]

Bill, I have several objections to your challenge. First, it is based on a false analogy since you are not required to find a pre-Columbian religious sect. The Nephites are not to the New World what pre-Diocletian Christians were to the Old. Rather, the Nephites were to the New World what the Romans were to the Old. Second, it is a version of the fallacy of proof by analogy; let

[Mighty Curelom]

Loved your book Dan. Keep up the good work.

[kolobian]

In reply to Mr. Vogel:

Its not clear to me what your view of "burden of proof" is. It seems the challenge is intended to forward the argument that a lack of supporting archeological evidence is not a reason to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon. To say that a certain argument against a position is bad is not to say that the position is true, of course. The exceptional claim is that the Book of Mormon is true. The claim that a lack of evidence is not a reason to reject that antecedant claim is not logically identitical to that claim--and in fact it is much more limited, I think. If Dr. Hamblin's challenge had the upshot of "those who cannot meet this challenge must apply for baptism," you would be right about burdens of proof. If his claim is only that those unable to meet the challenge must reconsider one reason to reject an opposing claim, that is a different matter.

Also, your other reasons are obscure to me. Would we agree that we cannot pressupose a view to be false when testing it? If so, what difference does it make whether opponents accept or reject limited geography theory, for instance? Theirs is not the position we are considering?

Pardon my intrusion into this thread

[Beowulf]

Dan,

You plainly have no concept of how historical validation is done, or you woudn't make such a facetious comment as Bill Hamblin's challenge being a "desperate" one.

It is not "desperate" to point out that archeological evidence backing up historical claims are rare indeed. We know precious little about the Christians pre-Diocletian. But since your objection is that the Nephites are more similar to the Roman Empire than to the secretive early Christians, then lets shift the challenge slightly...

Instead of Christians, let's substitute Hittites, a nation that is mentioned in passing several times in the Old Testament.

We know where they lived, now (in Anatolia). But a century ago, it was the consensus among (skeptical (note that!)) Biblical scholars that the Hittites had been made up by the writers of the OT, because there was ZERO evidence of their existence. Even though they were one of the most prominent nations of the Mideast for half a millennium. And the remains of their cities were there for all to see, but no one recognized them as such.

Does this sound like the Nephites?

How about China? Ancient Chinese literature talks about the great dynasties, beginning with the Xia and then moving on to the Shang and the Zhou (at which time, we finally arrive at the writings of Confucius and others). But a century ago, wise (and skeptical) Western scholars were condescendingly telling their Chinese counterparts that the Xia and Shang had never existed. There was NO evidence for their existence, despite their prominence in the Chinese classics, which state that they existed for the more part of a millenium.

Does this sound like the Nephites?

Then some momentous discoveries were made of Shang cities, including the earliest examples of Chinese writing, and suddenly the Shang were part of history. And while no definitive discoveries of the Xia have yet been made, no self-respecting historian of China today (west or east) doubts that they did not exist, and that the evidence will eventually be forthcoming.

What other major civilizations can we expect to suddenly come into view around the world? How can we know, since they are lost, by definition.

No, I don't think that Dr. Hamblin's challenge is particularly "desperate."

Perhaps you are being a little hasty in trying to drive the final nail into our coffin? Are you perhaps "desperate" instead that we won't roll over and play dead for you?

Beowulf

[Dan Vogel]

Curelom, thanks for your kind words.

Beowulf, I have a few comments. I assure you that I have no need to be

[Confidential Informant]

Ah the eminent Dan Vogel makes an appearance. Just what out little list needed, another self-appointed expert on all things mormonism.

Just once I'd like to find a real "expert" on Mormonism who didn't work in a grocery store.

Tell me Dan, what am I thinking right now, and what are my internal motivations for thinking it?

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

Confidential Informant: I don

[Ray Agostini]

Kolobian, you are right that a lack of evidence does not prove the BofM false for the simple reason you cannot prove a negative. It is equally difficult to prove Big Foot does not exist (although Jeffery Meldrum believes there is evidence). That

[Tetraforce]

Course these things wouldn't be hard to respond to should Dan Vogel be agnostic. Yet otherwise, that is some pressing questions that would surely either make him retract his argument or he'll be creating a double standard.

[John Russell]

Dan Vogel said:

I would note, however, the examples you have given differ from the BofM in at least one important way: the lost civilizations in the Old World were mentioned in historical documents of undisputed authenticity. True, the accuracy of the documents was in contention, but not the documents themselves.

Just out of curiosity, how extensive is the authentic pre-Columbian documentation of civilizations in the Americas? And how does this compare quantitatively with contemporaneous documentation of and by civilizations from the Old World?

[Confidential Informant]

Confidential Informant: I don’t claim to be an “expert” in anything.

And yet not one paragraph later you firmly assert your expertise in the area of Joseph Smith. So, I guess you do indeed claim to be an expert in at least one thing.

That is a determination I’ll leave to others.

Probably the most intelligent decision you'll make on this board.

And who is not “self-appointed”? Who appointed you the anonymous defender of all things Mormon?

Oh didn't your hear? Dan Peterson, El Rey, El Jefe, the Big Cheese, gave me that appointment. However, I usually claim it based on descendency and divine right. A few month ago we had an election and I wond handily basedon the Evil Overlord's (DCP) endorsement.

You would be surprised who you find in grocery stores.

No I wouldn't. I spent 4 years of my life working in a grocery store and it was actually one of the most enjoyable jobs I ever had.

I know a lot of Ph.D.s working in the oddest places

Which I would take to mean that they should have chosen their area of study a bit more closely. Still, it would add some weight to your work if your were an actual Ph.D working in a grocery store.

You will probably be surprised to find a prophet working on a farm;

Not in the least. In fact, I'd almost expect it. The prophets I would have been suspicious would have been those like Isaiah who appear to have come from privilege and held high office.

or the savior of the world working as a carpenter.

Interesting, since it's my understanding that you don't believe in the Savior of the world.

I’m not drawing a comparison between myself and these other men you perhaps aver, but I do not think my work can be dismissed so easily.

I certainly didn't take it that way. As to the dismissal of your work, nobody ever thinks their own work should be dismissed so quickly. The problem is that your credentials, or lack thereof, don't lend themselves to the initial presumption that your work should be taken as seriously as that which comes from someone who has actually received training in the various disciplines they deign to work in.

As to divining your thoughts and motivations, you obviously don’t know the difference between psychological analysis and mind-reading.

Having read your book, I'm not convinced you know the difference either. That being said, what training/background/education do you have that would qualify you to engage in a psychological analysis of a living person, let alone one whose been dead for more than 160 years?

I would be in a better position to fulfill your challenge if I knew as much about you as I do about Joseph Smith.

Well, I could tell you all about myself, let you read my journals, let you see the journals of those whom I love and trust and those who love and trust me, but based on what I've seen Dan, you wouldn't believe a word of it and you'd opt to just make up your version.

Nevertheless, if I were to guess based on what you have revealed about yourself so far, I would say that you are thinking: “I really don’t have anything of substance to say here, so I’ll try personal insult instead.”

Really? So you think calling someone's credentials into question is a personal attack? Gory, I guess I'd have to disagree. You see, I'm an attorney (you haven't been here long, so I assume you didn't know that) and I deal with specialized and expert testimony on a daily basis and scrutinizing someone's qualifications is the very first thing I do when presented with a supposed expert witness. Unfortunately, you'll also find that I'm quite sharp-tongued and, quite frankly, long ago gave up the idea of acting "Christ-like" on this board. In fact, I believe I've developed quite a reputation for meanness, (though certainly nothing like Dan, Bill or Juliann). Dunamis struggles mightly to keep me in line. However, I'm also smart enough to avoid conversations which I am unqualified to participate in.

I would guess that your motivations are primarily driven by a fear of being wrong,

Wrong about what? Wrong about Joseph Smith and the LDS Church? Why should I fear being wrong about that? Golly, my life would be so much easier without the Church. I'd have more money, more time and more options. Being wrong might be a blessing. On the other hand, rather than fear, there's always the possibility that I just very little patience for inanity.

anger towards anyone threatening your world-view,

I'd be a very angry person then, since there are lots of people who disagree with my world view. I don't feel angry...well, unless my favorite sports teams lose, then I get really mad and tend to beat my wife mercilessly because obviously it was here fault. Other than that, i tend to be a fairly mellow fellow.

and a need to compensate for a low self-esteem by making personal attacks on others.

What is it with arm-chair psychologists and psychobabble about "self esteem?" What, exactly, is my "self esteem?" Would that how I "feel" about myself? Well, I'm fat, balding (bald) and according to all the emails I keep getting my penis is, apparently, too small. (Apparently I'm in dire need of cheap software, a new home mortgage and sexual arousal cream, but that's a different discussion).

On the other hand, I have four beautiful children, a job, my presidential candidate just won, my favorite football team is showing sign of life, I have a wife who is far hotter than anything I deserve, I have a roof over my head, I lost 10 pounds in one week, I have the respect of peer and superiors and I've even got a couple of bucks in my pocket that I can use to buy a burger later on. All in all, I'm feeling pretty good about life, thus I fail to see what I'd gain from mocking a man I don't even know. Surely I'd gain more psychological satisfaction by kicking that danged cat that keeps pooping in my back yard.

Cheers,

C.I.

[Beowulf]

Dan, I consider myself a natural skeptic.

I do not rush to stories about Atlantis, the Hollow Earth, or visitations by UFOs (of any stripe). I do not believe the Bat Creek Stone to be real, either.

However, there is another kind of skeptic that habitually dismisses EVERYTHING from the past as fables and myths. These are the ones that failed to spot the Hittites and the Shang, even though the evidence was right in front of their faces. And I emphasized their condescending skepticism in my previous note because their attitude was the standard I-know-better-than-you-because [fill in the blank]. Their pinnacle was reached near the end of the 19th century, as represented by such stalwarts as Albert Schweitzer and Sigmun Freud, who thought that they had seen the past, and it was completely mundane, just like the present.

Their modern equivalents can be spotted in the Jesus Seminar and the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer (both of which I read avidly), among others.

Returning to the subject of the BofM... Granted, it is a unique document that was disclosed to the world in a unique way. What I was trying to show, and Bill, as well, is that there are many examples of nations and civilizations that the world has known nothing about, yet fluorished for centuries and even millenia. There is, in other words, plenty of room for unknowns to exist in the far corners of this planet (and even nearby, in plain view, yet unrecognized).

Is this an argument in favor of the BofM. No, it isn't. It only shows that the anti-BofM arguments based on lack of archeological evidence are weaker than they look.

And it does no good to compare the BofM instead to the LOTR world of Middle Earth (plainly fictional) or to Atlantis or Mu (wildly speculative). It stands on its own, with a text that is not in the least fictional or fantasized, but plods forward with practical seriousness.

In other words, the text itself is the evidence (as we have long known). Read carefully, it reveals all sorts of things about itself. The apologists at FARMS and elsewhere are doing nothing more than examining the text, without the wild speculations seen by the Atlantis believers, etc.

Beowulf

PS While I try to refrain from name-calling, sarcasm about skeptics may slip through at times. Please forgive the tone, in that case.

Note: Bill Hamblin has informed me via e-mail that this board sucks away too much time (don't I know it!) and will therefore probably not be coming back.

[cinepro]

Beowulf, you seem to be making huge assumptions.

And it does no good to compare the BofM instead to the LOTR world of Middle Earth (plainly fictional)

How so? What in the text indicates this? If a scholar (or prophet) were to find the text of the book 2,000 years from now, how would they know it was fictional?

or to Atlantis or Mu (wildly speculative).

In what ways are the claims of the Atlantis and Mu believers more speculative than the claims of the believers in the Book of Mormon?

It stands on its own, with a text that is not in the least fictional or fantasized, but plods forward with practical seriousness.

What are the indicators of a "fictional" or "fantasized" text that I should use to determine whether it is either of the two?

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are even apologists who view some claims of the Book of Mormon (i.e. 4 Nephi's claim that "all" were converted to Christ) as "fantastic" devices used by the ancient authors. So I'll need you to also suggest methodologies that allow me to distinguish between 19th century literary devices pretending to be ancient, and authentically ancient ones.

In other words, the text itself is the evidence (as we have long known). Read carefully, it reveals all sorts of things about itself.

Unfortunately, a careful reading also supplies plenty of reason not to believe.

The apologists at FARMS and elsewhere are doing nothing more than examining the text, without the wild speculations seen by the Atlantis believers, etc.

But remember, this examination is founded on a belief in its historicity to begin with. Isn't it weird how sometimes you can find what you're looking for, especially if you don't know what you're looking for to begin with?

[Dan Vogel]

Ray A,

I will try to participate as much as my schedule permits. You have raised some legitimate issues to which you have asked my opinion. I will try to respond.

You ask me if I think Joseph Smith had the ability to write/dictate something like the BofM. Yes, I do. I can

[Ray Agostini]

Ray A,

I will try to participate as much as my schedule permits. You have raised some legitimate issues to which you have asked my opinion. I will try to respond.

You ask me if I think Joseph Smith had the ability to write/dictate something like the BofM. Yes, I do. I can

[brugsch]

Dan,

I have several objections to your objections.

First, it is based on a false analogy since you are not required to find a pre-Columbian religious sect. The Nephites are not to the New World what pre-Diocletian Christians were to the Old. Rather, the Nephites were to the New World what the Romans were to the Old.

You are begging the question here. A careful reading of the text does not support your assumptions. However you may wish to avoid the analogy.

Second, it is a version of the fallacy of proof by analogy; let

[Mighty Curelom]

Dan-

I agree with your comments 100%. Time and time again I've seen apologists paint a picture of Joseph Smith as ignorant and unintelligent. However, anyone who has studied Smith's writings (that is, the writings he admits are his own) knows that Smith had a flair for language and storytelling. Also evident by looking at the historical account of Smith's life is a voracious appetite for learning, even though Smith occasionally expressed derision toward those who are "learned". Evidence of this penchant for education includes the so-called "School of the Prophets", as well as Smith's interest and efforts studying various foreign languages.

I also agree with your analysis of the book of Mormon being less than the intricate literary achievement Mormons believe it to be. Chloroform in print, as they say. As far as such a work being written by a 23 year old, let's put this in perspective. The discovery of the double helical structure of DNA was made by a 23 year old man. Einstein was 23 when he advanced his special theory of relativity. To say that great works of intellect are impossible at a relatively young age is just plain wrong.

It's also evident to anyone reading the Book of Mormon with a knowledge of Mormon doctrine (whatever it happens to be at the time) that the BoM doesn't contain much of the basic theological foundation which the church is built on. In fact, at times it directly contradicts church doctrine. There are numerous verses which plainly indicate that Jesus and God are the same person. There is also a chapter which calls polygamy an abomination. According to a naturalistic interpretation of the BoM, this interesting phenomena is easy to explain; in fact, it's exactly what we'd expect to see in an early work of an evolving theological system. The BoM is much more in line with orthodox christianity because that's what Smith was raised on. He hadn't come up with many of the less orthodox concepts at the time he wrote the BoM.

By the way; it's unfortunate that the response you've received on this board has been so negative, but I suppose it's only human nature to lash out at those who pose a threat to a group's worldview, especially one so precariously at odds with reality. Nevertheless, your contribution is appreciated by at least one person.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Russell:

I

[Guest Just Curious]

In conclusion, you still have not responded to Professor Hamblin's challenge, that is to provide a reconstruction of pre-Constantinian Christianity based solely on pre-Constantinian Roman inscriptions and archaeology. The funny thing is that I have actually seen this done, by atheists. So if they can do it, why can't you?

At the risk of being obvious, one has to ask the question...ok if it has been done then why does it have to be done again....does the phrase "reinventing the wheel" come to mind? Just curious....(pun intended)

[Guest Just Curious]

" If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

I guess its a good thing old BY didn't know my ancestors...otherwise I wouldn't be around today !!!! Sheesh...did he really say that?

[Bob Crockett]

As far as such a work being written by a 23 year old, let's put this in perspective. The discovery of the double helical structure of DNA was made by a 23 year old man. Einstein was 23 when he advanced his special theory of relativity.

Great analogy. I don't know about the DNA research. Einstein may have been a patent clerk at the time, but he was also a doctoral candidate or had received his doctorate. So, young Albert had spent countless hours in the finest laboratories of Europe. Joseph Smith had few books at his disposal.

The BoM is much more in line with orthodox christianity because that's what Smith was raised on.

The Book of Mormon's soteriology was heterodoxy, conflicting with Augustine, Luther and Calvin. It was Pelagian, or similiar to it, and thus heresy to the Christian world. I doubt very much Joseph Smith knew Pelagius.

The Book of Mormon's concept of the nature of God was also heterodox. Although much is made of the Book of Mormon's putative modalism, the fact remains that the Book of Mormon plainly identifies God as a man.

So, on two major points, soteriology and the nature of God, the Book of Mormon is far from orthodox.

[Tetraforce]

I guess its a good thing old BY didn't know my ancestors...otherwise I wouldn't be around today !!!! Sheesh...did he really say that?

If you read the next page, you'd know that if any priest who sexually abused a black female slave, that priest is spiritually dead to God.

You don't have any record of anyone getting killed for an interacial relationship, do you? I rest my case, unless you refute the next page.

[Ray Agostini]

I also agree with your analysis of the book of Mormon being less than the intricate literary achievement Mormons believe it to be.  Chloroform in print, as they say.  As far as such a work being written by a 23 year old, let's put this in perspective.  The discovery of the double helical structure of DNA was made by a 23 year old man.  Einstein was 23 when he advanced his special theory of relativity.  To say that great works of intellect are impossible at a relatively young age is just plain wrong.

The comparison is interesting, but it doesn't carry a great deal of weight. Newton was the same, and Mozart, but we now know that Mozart's genius was not so extraordinary at all, when you understand his family background. I suppose Dan is arguing the same for Joseph Smith, but this is an idea that is going to have to be thoroughly expored. You can't just say that because Einstein was a physics genius at 23 that this explains Joseph Smith. This is a very superficial comparison. You're also going to have to explain how Joseph Smith apparently got the internal consistency of the BoM right, how he managed to produce it so spontaneously, without reading from notes, in so short a time, leaving a string of witnesses who were convinced that no fraud or concoction was involved, who in fact turned against him yet were admanant that what he did came from God.

I'd really like at some future stage also to explore this concept that Dan has about "pious fraud".

[Mighty Curelom]

Great analogy. I don't know about the DNA research. Einstein may have been a patent clerk at the time, but he was also a doctoral candidate or had received his doctorate. So, young Albert had spent countless hours in the finest laboratories of Europe. Joseph Smith had few books at his disposal.

Storytelling differs qualitatively from physics in that physics requires formal educationl. Making up stories only requires an active imagination, which Smith had in spades.

The comparison was intended to demonstrate that intelligence, even genius, often occurs in young individuals. Could an uneducated but intelligent person make significant advances in DNA theory, or come up with a revolutionary theory in physics? Not likely. Could an uneducated but intelligent person write an interesting yet historically inaccurate story? Certainly, especially considering the topic of the story relates to what limited education the individual DID possess. The one source of education which we know with absolute certainty Smith had access to was the bible. It is no surprise then that we find entire chapters of the bible included (some would say plagiarized) in the Book of Mormon.

You're also going to have to explain how Joseph Smith apparently got the internal consistency of the BoM right, how he managed to produce it so spontaneously, without reading from notes, in so short a time, leaving a string of witnesses who were convinced that no fraud or concoction was involved, who in fact turned against him yet were admanant that what he did came from God.

All of this has been done by people far more informed on the subject than I. Unfortunately, these issues are addressed in "anti-mormon" websites and publications, so you probably haven't been exposed to them, given the proclivity among members to avoid such material. Having said that, I suggest you might wish to start with an informative and thorough book by an author named Dan Vogel called "Joseph Smith- the Making of a Prophet"

Fawn Brodie's biography of Smith also addresses these issues.

[Guest Just Curious]

If you read the next page, you'd know that if any priest who sexually abused a black female slave, that priest is spiritually dead to God.

I'm sorry where is that in the bible again? Who said anything about sexual abuse of a black female slave? Do you have any clue about what you are saying?