Not so easy?

[noel00]

I imagine Bushman's book will rely on the flawed work of Milton Backman on the revival question. Strange that Backman did not cite Walter's article when his book came out. He refused to respond to Walter's inquiry about a certain footnote. I heard he did not want to draw attention to Walter's paper.

[Mighty Curelom]

I have no idea what's in Bushman's upcoming work. Unlike one charlatan who shall remain nameless, I make no claims at prophetic abilities. I'm of course refering to Bushman's currently available work.

[Daniel Peterson]

I imagine Bushman's book will rely on the flawed work of Milton Backman  on the revival question. Strange that Backman did not cite Walter's article when his book came out. He refused to respond to Walter's inquiry about a certain footnote. I heard he did not want to draw attention to Walter's paper.

It's d

[William the Conqueror]

That's certainly one possible understanding of the situation. And I've considered it.

I simply don't find it persuasive. Perhaps I'm lacking your strong faith.

Well I detect some (strong/strang) sarcasm in that last sentence. However that is OK. I certainly don't have to have the last (penultimate) word.

I always think it is good to have some sense of self deprecating humor.

It reminds me of Abraham Lincoln when Staunton, his Secretary of War, said Lincoln looked and thought like a gorilla.

Lincoln's reply: "Well if Mr. Staunton said it, it must be true, for he is right in everything he says (not sic)."

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Confidential Informant:

When I said to Juliann (aka Ms Populum):

I wonder what Ann Taves, Professor of the History of Christianity and American Religion at Claremont, thought about such conclusions since her book Fits, Trances, and Visions does broach naturalistic explanations for spiritual phenomenon. I suppose you know that she endorsed by book, saying among other things:

[religiously free]

Dan Vogel posted quotes:

Religiously Free:

[Daniel Peterson]

You've got the authors of the introduction wrong, garbled the DNA issue, and misrepresented Alma 5.

[YH8]

I will say that if I did read it now I would have a much greater appreciation than if I had read it 4 years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing about mormonism. So putting it off imo has been a good thing. But I do not take any religious group's supernatural claims seriously, of course including mormonism. The supernatural claims of a religion is not all that interests me or how I personally evaluate a religion. I like to appreciate whether or not at the core of a religion it is a loving one and whether it encourages good mental health, rational thinking, the ability to separate fantasy from reality, skeptical thinking. Mormonism I do not believe does so. With all its crazy beliefs which is central to it' belief system, I believe it is causing people to think non rationally, not be able to separate fantasy from reality. It actually is scary to me. In the past witches were believed to exist, products of the devil and many highly religious people believed thi. I equate the irrational belief in witches that people were capable of believing in the past..to the irrational belief of mormonism that a devil exists, and non believers are of the devil. (as per what I read from what RAy A posted to me from Alma 5.) I'm not saying that Mormons will end up torturing or killing non believers, all I am saying is that both beliefs are equally irrational.

I guess only religious people are/were/will be the ones committing atrocities in the world, huh? What about all those atheists like Castro, Stalin, etc.? Maybe the issue isn't religion being irrational, but people being irrational? People come up with religion, you say? Don't people "come up with" all belief systems? Is it possible that because people do crazy things in the name of God that this does not disprove the existence of God? If someone claims authority of God does that mean they actually have it? The definition of deity does not allow for deity to be subject to humans, does it?

[YH8]

Using Occam's razar, . . .

Here's a twist on Occam's razar. Do you think it is worth thinking about?

First a definition, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: Ock

[Daniel Peterson]

Occam's (or, as I prefer, Ockham's) Razor doesn't merely say that the simplest explanation is to be preferred, but, rather, that the simplest explanation that adequately accounts for all the data is to be preferred.

It's that all the data part where our factually free friend tends to fall down.

[noel00]

What I find so ludicrous about the Book of Mormon story was its so called method of translation. First it was with some magic spectacles the Urim and Thummim. Then Martin Harris lost the 116 pages and these spectacles were taken away. Next we have the seer stone in a hat method where Smith looks into a hat to translate the plates which were somewhere else. The plates were not used in the translating process and often were not even in sight during the translation. His Father in Law Isaac Hale, stated in an 1834 affidavit: "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." And people with PHds believe this rubbish.

[Daniel Peterson]

"noel00," hissed Peterson, "the stories of the Bible seem at least as ludicrous to those disposed to disbelieve them. Floating axe heads? Seas that part so that thousands of people can cross on dry land (rather than sea-bottom muck)? Corpses coming back to life? Water changing into wine? The sun standing still? Fish and loaves of bread magically multiplying? People walking on water? Chariots going up into the sky? Talking snakes? Talking donkeys?"

"And you believe this 'rubbish,'" Peterson snarled. "Those who live in glass houses should perhaps think twice before hurling petrified cow pies."

[YH8]

What I find so ludicrous about the Book of Mormon story was its so called method of translation. First it was with some magic spectacles the Urim and Thummim. Then Martin Harris lost the 116 pages and these spectacles were taken away. Next we have the seer stone in a hat method where Smith looks into a hat to translate the plates which were somewhere else. The plates were not used in the translating process and often were not even in sight during the translation. His Father in Law Isaac Hale, stated in an 1834 affidavit: "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." And people with PHds believe this rubbish.

Magic spectacles? By saying that you sound like you aren't open to reasonable discussion. Why didn't you call the seer stone a "peep stone?" Are all affidavits true and accurate?

Why stop at the translation process being ludicrous? The content of the Book of Mormon is ludicrous too, right? Do you fall in the too similar to the Bible or too dissimilar to the Bible camp? Joseph Smith himself was ludicrous too, right? I mean he was so ridiculous and dangerous that he deserved being killed, right? And all them Marminz deserved being exterminated, right? And all religion is ludicrous, right? I mean really, just look at all of their histories and their ludicrous claims, right? What about all those non-religionists and all their atrocities they are ludicrous too, right? Maybe us humans should exterminate ourselves. At least that way we'd be more consistent with the rest of the universe. After all we haven't found any life anywhere else, so we are a fluke, in fact since life hasn't been replicated anywhere else in the universe, by the scientific method we don't really exist, right?

Oh wait, it's not all about "you" is it?

[noel00]

Y8 can you really look at me with a straight face and say that Smith used a stone in a hat (which he unsuccessfully used to find treasure) translating something that was sitting in a room elsewhere? Smith had made a transition from the occult practice of the stone for treasure to a spiritual revelation of translating the gold plates? The 1826 court record says that "he (Smith)had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania. " Now that is a bit further than the next room!

[YH8]

Y8 can you really look at me with a straight face and say that Smith used a stone in a hat (which he unsuccessfully used to find treasure) translating something that was sitting in a room elsewhere? Smith had made a transition from the occult practice of the stone for treasure to a spiritual revelation of translating the gold plates? The 1826 court record says that "he (Smith)had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania. " Now that is a bit further than the next room!

Do you expect me to take the "court record's" word for anything? You don't know much about lawyers if you take what they say for granted.

I will look at you with a straight face and tell you that I believe whatever Joseph Smith said about how he translated the Book of Mormon. I will also tell you that I believe that he translated it by the power of God and that it is the word of God.

Belief systems are a funny thing. I, just like all those other espousers of theistic, atheistic, and non-theistic belief systems (you included), sure have to take alot on faith, don't I/we? In other words, we may not have a perfect understanding of everything, but we still believe (for a variety of reasons).

So, do you easily cast aside all other things, as I alluded to in my previous post? If not, why not? Particulalry if you happen to believe in some other religious belief system?

[Confidential Informant]

Y8 can you really look at me with a straight face and say that Smith used a stone in a hat (which he unsuccessfully used to find treasure) translating something that was sitting in a room elsewhere? Smith had made a transition from the occult practice of the stone for treasure to a spiritual revelation of translating the gold plates? The 1826 court record says that "he (Smith)had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania. " Now that is a bit further than the next room!

Noel,

What I find hard to believe is that Joseph of Egypt really thought he could take a silver cup, fill it with water drop a few gems in it and see the future.

Then again, that's exactly what the Bible says he did.

Go figure.

In fact, it appears that all forms of augery have been quite common over the years, even among the prophets of God.

See Hydromancy

Just another opportunity to show some double standards I suppose.

C.I.

[Daniel Peterson]

Y8 can you really look at me with a straight face and say . . .

"It isn't necessary, noel00, to embrace brazen double standards in order to be a Pentecostal Christian. You can surrender them and still hope for salvation," hissed Peterson, nastily. "If you don't, though, you'll have a hard time mocking the implausiblity of Joseph's translation method without, at the same time, drawing attention to your own continued belief in magical healing handkerchiefs, battles that are won because some old guy's arms were held up in the air, bushes that burn without burning up, long hair that gives a man superhuman strength, rivers turning to blood, virginal conceptions, and boxes that cause massive plagues of hemorrhoids."

[Tanyan]

Don't forget Joshua's Long Day.

[cinepro]

You've got the authors of the introduction wrong

Who, exactly, did author the Book of Mormon introduction?

[Daniel Peterson]

You've got the authors of the introduction wrong

Who, exactly, did author the Book of Mormon introduction?

My understanding is that Bruce R. McConkie was a principal author, along with other members of a committee.

Not, contrary to poor RF, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer.

[Mighty Curelom]

Noel- I don't know how you can believe such rubbish

DP- YOU believe in silly things too. So you have no right to call my beliefs silly.

Is that really a valid argument? "You believe in an absurdity, so logically you cannot criticize my belief in an absurdity."

Rather than actually deal with the criticism, DP just sticks out his tongue and says "People in glass houses....nyah!"

Maybe I should become an apologist....I'm good at acting childish.

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually, MC, pointing out that the assumptions used by an opponent in a debate would, if applied consistently, invalidate the opponent's own position as well as his target's is an entirely legitimate response.

However, in noting that noel00's professed standard of judgment would condemn his own beliefs as ridiculous, I did not commit myself to accepting noel00's standard of judgment. That, poor MC, is the point of the exercise.

I'm good at acting childish.

I'm quite willing, by contrast, to accept your judgment, above.

[religiously free]

I guess only religious people are/were/will be the ones committing atrocities in the world, huh? What about all those atheists like Castro, Stalin, etc.? Maybe the issue isn't religion being irrational, but people being irrational? People come up with religion, you say? Don't people "come up with" all belief systems? Is it possible that because people do crazy things in the name of God that this does not disprove the existence of God? If someone claims authority of God does that mean they actually have it? The definition of deity does not allow for deity to be subject to humans, does it?

I guess only religious people are/were/will be the ones committing atrocities in the world, huh? What about all those atheists like Castro, Stalin, etc.? Maybe the issue isn't religion being irrational, but people being irrational?

Atheism is not a belief system. People do not get indoctrinated at a young age into atheism. But you bring up a good point maybe the issue that I'm concerned about is about being rational. Yes I'm willing to say that is the bigger picture, the true crux of the matter.

People come up with religion, you say? Don't people "come up with" all belief systems? Is it possible that because people do crazy things in the name of God that this does not disprove the existence of God?

Yes, exactly..nothing people do proves god doesn't exist. It doesn't bother me whether god exists or not or whether someone believes in a god or not. But where do most authoritities and leaders of religions get their power? Through divine connection. Christians turned Jesus into a god...and Paul through divine connection was given authority. The pope gets authority through divine connection. Don't all the general authorities in the mormon church have power through divine connection. BTW I've never said on here there is no god. I believe there is no god or there is no reason for me to believe there is a god. But I certainly would never argue there is no god. You may have been reading Daniel Peterson's post or perhaps Ray A to me in which both of them accused me of saying that. For the record I didn't. I think belief in god is rather harmless to mankind. I don't like beliefs in a hell, the devil, sins..I think these beliefs are used often times by religious groups to manipulate followers through fear. If it is true that mormonism teaches that non believers of the christian/mormon god are of the devil and wicked, what does that say about a believer's attitude to non believers..based solely on belief systems one has.

If someone claims authority of God does that mean they actually have it? The definition of deity does not allow for deity to be subject to humans, does it?

If it's only about claiming authority of god, they have it if the follower is a strong believer and quite willing to relinguish responsibity of thinking, and oneself over to the authority due to the authority being divinely connected.

[religiously free]

"noel00," hissed Peterson, "the stories of the Bible seem at least as ludicrous to those disposed to disbelieve them. Floating axe heads? Seas that part so that thousands of people can cross on dry land (rather than sea-bottom muck)? Corpses coming back to life? Water changing into wine? The sun standing still? Fish and loaves of bread magically multiplying? People walking on water? Chariots going up into the sky? Talking snakes? Talking donkeys?"

"And you believe this 'rubbish,'" Peterson snarled. "Those who live in glass houses should perhaps think twice before hurling petrified cow pies."

It's nice to see that you can appreciate when someone else beliefs are rubbish..it's just too bad you can't fully comprehend how other see you and your beliefs.

[juliann]

Atheism is not a belief system. People do not get indoctrinated at a young age into atheism.

This ranks right up there with the flat earth society.