Fair

[cinepro]

You mean Jaredites were Olmecs....much like the Nephites were embedded into the civilization around them, instead of being the civilization, they were a part of it.

You mean other than being their rulers and introducing the dominant religion of the people, keeping their records, and introducing an enmity against neighboring tribes that would result in their eventual annihilation, the Nephites just kind of blended in?

[cinepro]

Once again, Mariner, it is not called "Reformed Egyptian." The "R" is not capitalized. And they don't look like Mayan or Olmec glyphs because they were not either of those. Many scholars believe them, as I said, to be a "mash-up" of Egyptian and Hebrew.

CFR that "many scholars believe them to be a mash-up of Egyptian and Hebrew".

This is an interesting analysis in the context of other scripts of mysterious origins:

In summary, probably the least controversial inference you can draw from the lettershapes [of the Anthon caractors] is their post-1650 dating: the embellished “H” shape and the probable links with Rich-family shorthand letter-shapes indicate that this is in no way ancient.

In the absence of any other credible information, the most likely story I can reconstruct is that the “caractors” in the Anthon Transcript were copied in no particular order from a shorthand Bible (or possibly a shorthand diary), with various other letter-shapes added to make the overall alphabet look more ‘exotic’, or even ”hieroglyphic” (even though, to our modern eyes, these singularly fail to have the desired effect).

Edited November 14, 2011 by cinepro

[Pahoran]

There are, in fact, a number of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that address directly the falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and the faith promoting spin put on these truth claims by organizations such as FAIR and the MI.

Problem is that, without exception (as far as I can tell), findings in these relevant papers directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures.

Thank you for bearing your un-testimony. I'm certain it's worth, well, nothing at all.

In looking into this issue, I (and I am sure others) have come up with lists of such papers. In contrast, I could come up with none that directly support key falsifiable LDS truth claims based on the Book of Mormon or on the Book of Abraham, for example.

Since you have already "come up with lists," then I'm sure you won't mind sharing them with us.

That's right; this is a CFR.

Oh, and a wave of the hand to a bibliography will not suffice. It is for you to demonstrate that said papers actually "directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures," and not merely read that way due to your anti-Mormon confirmation bias.

If you could come up with mainstream academic papers that directly support key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon, I would be very interested to read them.

Which looks a lot like an attempt to shift the burden of proof from where I sit.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

CFR that "many scholars believe them to be a mash-up of Egyptian and Hebrew".

This is an interesting analysis in the context of other scripts of mysterious origins:

Interesting. Tironian notes characters, which can be mapped in a one-to-one correspondence to most of the Anthon "Caractors" were an early form of shorthand used by the Catholic clergy, especially in Ireland, where they were mixed with Ogham code and old Gaelic, examples of which also show up in the Anthon "Caractors".

[Mariner]

Thank you for bearing your un-testimony. I'm certain it's worth, well, nothing at all.

Since you have already "come up with lists," then I'm sure you won't mind sharing them with us.

That's right; this is a CFR.

Oh, and a wave of the hand to a bibliography will not suffice. It is for you to demonstrate that said papers actually "directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures," and not merely read that way due to your anti-Mormon confirmation bias.

Which looks a lot like an attempt to shift the burden of proof from where I sit.

Regards,

Pahoran

You certainly come across as an angry individual. If you would have read the thread, you would have seen that I have already responded to a CFR identical to yours and the responses are being discussed.

In fact, Altersteve has just declared victory, and I am tempted to simply let his post #69 stand as a prime example of Mormon apologetics on the matter.

What with the implied denial that Professor Anthon wrote and signed a statement that completely contradicted Martin Harris's self-serving story concerning the events of their meeting, the declaration that reformed Egyptian was used exclusively for the creation of the Book of Mormon and can therefore conveniently be expected to be found nowhere else in among the vast corpus of pre-Columbian inscriptions, and that the Olmecs were really Jaredites, and all of this without a scrap of credible physical evidence; one could not hope for a better illustration of LDS apologetics.

So, Pahoran, I think I will leave those interested to consider Altersteve's post # 69 for what it is, and for what it represents. Have a good evening (or in your case, I guess it should be, "Have a good day").

Edited November 15, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

You certainly come across as an angry individual. If you would have read the thread, you would have seen that I have already responded to a CFR identical to yours and the responses are being discussed.

In fact, Altersteve has just declared victory, and I am tempted to simply let his post #69 stand as a prime example of Mormon apologetics on the matter.

What with the implied denial that Professor Anthon wrote and signed a statement that completely contradicted Martin Harris's self-serving story concerning the events of their meeting, the declaration that reformed Egyptian was used exclusively for the creation of the Book of Mormon and can therefore conveniently be expected to be found nowhere else in among the vast corpus of pre-Columbian inscriptions, and that the Olmecs were really Jaredites, and all of this without a scrap of credible physical evidence; one could not hope for a better illustration of LDS apologetics.

So, Pahoran, I think I will leave those interested to consider Altersteve's post # 69 for what it is, and for what it represents. Have a good evening (or in your case, I guess it should be, "Have a good day").

If you're not going to respond to anything I said, then yes, I am going to "declare victory." I was hoping this would be a good discussion, but unfortunately I was wrong. You're not even going to respond to what I said about the Book of Abraham, it seems. If you want to respond intelligently, then fine, we'll continue our discussion, and I'll give you the reasons for the things I said. But if not, then yeah, have a good evening.

Edited November 15, 2011 by altersteve

[Brant Gardner]

Interesting. Tironian notes characters, which can be mapped in a one-to-one correspondence to most of the Anthon "Caractors" were an early form of shorthand used by the Catholic clergy, especially in Ireland, where they were mixed with Ogham code and old Gaelic, examples of which also show up in the Anthon "Caractors".

It appears that you didn't read the link that was provided. Your statement that there is a "one-to-one correspondence to most" of the script is hyperbole. I found five or six, and the referenced link notes that there isn't anything beyond chance. I do seem to remember some web site that is probably the source of the "most" reference, but that simply suggests that only looking at a few sites on the Internet doesn't qualify as research.

[Pahoran]

You certainly come across as an angry individual.

I admit that I don't have much patience for brazen dishonesty.

If you would have read the thread, you would have seen that I have already responded to a CFR identical to yours and the responses are being discussed.

In fact, Altersteve has just declared victory, and I am tempted to simply let his post #69 stand as a prime example of Mormon apologetics on the matter.

What with the implied denial that Professor Anthon wrote and signed a statement that completely contradicted Martin Harris's self-serving story concerning the events of their meeting, the declaration that reformed Egyptian was used exclusively for the creation of the Book of Mormon and can therefore conveniently be expected to be found nowhere else in among the vast corpus of pre-Columbian inscriptions, and that the Olmecs were really Jaredites, and all of this without a scrap of credible physical evidence; one could not hope for a better illustration of LDS apologetics.

You really love your straw men, don't you?

Of course Anthon contradicted Martin Harris' account of their meeting. Unfortunately, he also contradicted his own contradiction. Tell us, Mariner: relying upon Anthon alone, did he give Harris a written statement, or didn't he?

And it is characteristically dishonest well-poisoning to call Martin's account "self-serving." Martin went to New York with doubts and came back convinced. Whatever he experienced there that convinced him, it wasn't what Anthon said happened; in either version.

And yes, since the Book of Mormon very explicitly says that the Nephites had "reformed" their Egyptian script for their own purposes over a thousand years of separation from its source, the anti-Mormon who ridicules that undisputed fact is showing himself to have no facts and a paucity of arguments.

So, Pahoran, I think I will leave those interested to consider Altersteve's post # 69 for what it is, and for what it represents. Have a good evening (or in your case, I guess it should be, "Have a good day").

Oh, I will have a very good day. Considering that "those interested" will have started off expecting you to have some wonderful list of papers that "directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures," and find instead that all you have is a bunch of discredited anti-Mormon chestnuts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

You mean Jaredites were Olmecs....much like the Nephites were embedded into the civilization around them, instead of being the civilization, they were a part of it.

Yes, thank you.

CFR that "many scholars believe them to be a mash-up of Egyptian and Hebrew".

This is an interesting analysis in the context of other scripts of mysterious origins:

That was something I thought I read somewhere awhile ago, but I don't remember where. I could have been wrong of course. I haven't studied this topic too much. But I know there are some scholars who hold to that view.

[Mariner]

If you're not going to respond to anything I said, then yes, I am going to "declare victory." I was hoping this would be a good discussion, but unfortunately I was wrong. You're not even going to respond to what I said about the Book of Abraham, it seems. If you want to respond intelligently, then fine, we'll continue our discussion, and I'll give you the reasons for the things I said. But if not, then yeah, have a good evening.

Altersteve,

You seem like a sincere individual, and I certainly do not mean to slight your efforts. But do you not realize how fantastical (not to mention convenient) is sounds when you claim that reformed Egyptian was used ONLY for writing the Book of Mormon and for absolutely nothing else?

Where did you get this idea? Do you have any evidence for it besides that of some apologist who suggests a "nuanced" (required) re-interpretation of the Book of Mormon text? Does horse really mean tapir in your world?

Can you cite one other instance where there was found a single extensive manuscript that was the record of an entire civilization, which was written in a language (or using a "Caractor" set) that was found nowhere else on Earth, ever?

Your statement to the effect that "every LDS member knows" about the Anthon incident rings hollow when, in fact, everyone who looks at all of the evidence knows that Anthon refuted Harris' story, in writing (on two separate occasions I believe). Your FAIR Mormon apologetic excuses for all of the Book of Mormon anachronisms are probably, again, something that "every LDS member knows" and nobody outside the LDS Church believes.

So far, it appears that you will be able to come up with some unsupported apologetic theory as a counter argument to every scientific finding or fact that I cite. Therefore, I guess I agree with you. There is really no use to carry on with the discussion, unless one is interested in finding out about the latest apologetic excuses and theories to address intractable problems in fact.

If any of these apologetic theories have credible evidence behind them, or really are the best explanation for a data set, the let them be subject to peer review in the open mainstream scientific literature. If they cannot stand open and unbiased peer review, then they should not be taken seriously - faith promoting or not.

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

You seem like a sincere individual, and I certainly do not mean to slight your efforts. But do you not realize how fantastical (not to mention convenient) is sounds when you claim that reformed Egyptian was used ONLY for writing the Book of Mormon and for absolutely nothing else?

The Book of Mormon says reformed Egyptian is a script that the Nephites used for writing "this record." Why should I believe it was used for anything else when it never says so, and since no other examples of reformed Egyptian are (yet) to be found? If we do find reformed Egyptian somewhere (which, of course, is possible), then fine, but I have no reason to believe that it was used for anything other than the scriptures, going by what the Book of Mormon itself reports.

Where did you get this idea? Do you have any evidence for it besides that of some apologist who suggests a "nuanced" (required) re-interpretation of the Book of Mormon text?

It's my own reading of the Book of Mormon. I read what the text actually says, and I believe it, because I know the book is true.

Does horse really mean tapir in your world?

No. Based on evidence that I am aware of, I don't accept the idea that there were no horses in pre-Columbian America.

Can you cite one other instance where there was found a single extensive manuscript that was the record of an entire civilization, which was written in a language (or using a "Caractor" set) that was found nowhere else on Earth, ever?

Nope. I'm not an expert with these things. I'm sure someone who is can help you out, though.

Your statement to the effect that "every LDS member knows" about the Anthon incident rings hollow when, in fact, everyone who looks at all of the evidence knows that Anthon refuted Harris' story, in writing (on two separate occasions I believe).

I have looked at all the evidence and I strongly disagree that Anthon refuted Harris' story. Contradicted it, yes. Refuted, no. So I'll need a reference for your claim here, because in reality, Anthon's two written accounts contradict one another: in one, Anthon wrote that he refused to give Martin his opinion, and in the second he wrote that he gave Martin his written opinion "without any hesitation" (see Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Knopf, 2005], 64–66; I highly recommend that you read that book if you haven't). That doesn't sound like a refutation to me.

Your FAIR Mormon apologetic excuses for all of the Book of Mormon anachronisms are probably, again, something that "every LDS member knows" and nobody outside the LDS Church believes.

I don't claim that. And I don't believe they're simply excuses.

So far, it appears that you will be able to come up with some unsupported apologetic theory as a counter argument to every scientific finding or fact that I cite. Therefore, I guess I agree with you. There is really no use to carry on with the discussion, unless one is interested in finding out about the latest apologetic excuses and theories to address intractable problems in fact.

The apologetic theories I suggest and cite are not unsupported. If you read the sources I show you, you'll notice that.

If any of these apologetic theories have credible evidence behind them, or really are the best explanation for a data set, the let them be subject to peer review in the open mainstream scientific literature. If they cannot stand open and unbiased peer review, then they should not be taken seriously - faith promoting or not.

And by "open mainstream scientific literature," you mean any scientific literature that is not affiliated in any way, officially or unofficially, with the Church or its members, right? Awesome.

So anyway, are you going to actually respond to my statements on the last page or just keep dancing around the opportunity to do so? I'm still waiting. Consider my statements on the last page (regarding the Book of Abraham as well) official calls for references.

Edited November 15, 2011 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

Well, seeing as how you made it an official CFR, I suppose I have no choice. So I will go back and have a look at your statements regarding the Book of Abraham and then provide a response.

[Scott Lloyd]

[Mariner, on 11 November 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

If you could come up with mainstream academic papers that directly support key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon, I would be very interested to read them.]

Which looks a lot like an attempt to shift the burden of proof from where I sit.

It looks that way from my seat as well.

It is the last desperate resort of one who cannot support a contention or assertion to demand that his challenger prove the contrary. At that point, the challenger has already won the argument and might just as well declare victory.

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

Well, seeing as how you made it an official CFR, I suppose I have no choice. So I will go back and have a look at your statements regarding the Book of Abraham and then provide a response.

That's okay, you've failed to respond to several other CFRs throughout the thread, anyway. So unless you don't plan on answering them (in which case the moderators will be reported), then you have a lot of catching up to do in this discussion.

[CQUIRK]

Archeologically, there is some evidence that many Native Americans (North, Central & South America) have geneological roots from Asia... & are believed to have crossed the Berring straight. I was reading up on some ancient civilizations in South America who kept records by knotted cords, similar to Ancient Chinese.

So? There's plenty of evidence that many tribes and races existed upon the American continent long before Christ came. The Nephites and Lamanites are but a mere footprint upon the stomping ground.

Remember also that Lehi's family was not of pure Israelite blood either, and I'm very sure that both the Nephites and Lamanites intermixed with the other races and tribes that inhabited the continent at the time, which further diluted their Hebrew DNA.

And we're also talking about other races that came over from the same continent too.

Think about it.

We also know that parts of the Book of Mormon are quoted from the Bible - with King James Version errors & all.

What errors? And by what, or whose standard, are we judging them as errors? Please explain.

Edited November 16, 2011 by CQUIRK

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

If you find this response disturbing, please first keep in mind that it is based on fact and not faith. Also please remember that while I initially declined the offer to respond, you insisted that I do so by way of an official CFR.

I stated:

Kolob Cosmology: In the Book of Abraham, the sun is said to derive its light from Kolob. It should be common knowledge that this truth claim is utter nonsense. I trust that I need not cite scientific papers to show that this falsifiable claim has, in fact, been falsified.

You responded:

Your claim that the Book of Mormon says that "the sun is said to derive its light from Kolob" is completely false and is probably the result of a sloppy reading of what it actually says. What it actually says is the following:

Facsimile 2, Figure 5 said:

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Read this carefully. This celestial body, it explains, "is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun." It is also said, "by the Egyptians," that the sun "borrows [not derives] its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power." This could clearly be symbolic of how we "borrow" our light from God through the medium of Jesus Christ, who is the highest "governing power" in the universe besides His Father. In other words, the sun and all other stars and planets are "governed" by Kolob "through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash," in the same way that we and all other things are governed by God through the medium of His Son. Interestingly, as the Book of Abraham indicates, Kolob is the most powerful governing body in the universe (besides God). Many of the astronomical things described in the Book of Abraham are symbolic of our relationship to our Heavenly Father. The same sorts of things are taught in the temple endowment ceremony.

The point, though, is that since the existence of such a celestial body cannot be proven true or false at this point thanks to the current limits of science, we can't address this any further than saying that your interpretation of this is not a very intelligent one.

The explanation you provided appears as a weak attempt to explain away what is nonsense with more nonsense.

To start with, Enish-go-on-dosh is not an Egyptian word. It is not a word in any language. It is gibberish. Apologists have tried to come up with some explanation for this gibberish, and have failed.

The offending passage in the Book of Abraham says what it says. If Joseph Smith wanted to tell us about the light of Christ, why not use the terms such as, well, "light of Christ"?

Does it make any sense that the sun would borrow the "light of Christ" from a star?

Did the Egyptians really say that the sun borrows its light from Kolob?

If the Egyptian word for Kolob is Oliblish (as stated by Joseph Smith elsewhere in the Book of Abraham), why not just use Oliblish?

Do you know that the word "Oliblish" is not found anywhere in the Egyptian language?

Did you know that a star with the attributes ascribed to Kolob could not even exist?

Again, rather than blindly accept the latest unfounded apologetic faith promoting (or in this case hopefully faith preserving) explanation, why not look for an explanation that makes some sense, and does not require one to suspend all rational belief?

If you really want to know where Joseph Smith got all of this fractured cosmology, just look to common beliefs of his time. It turns that these kinds of astronomical concepts were the subject of published works and believed by many in the early 19th Century.

In 1816 Thomas Taylor published a two-volume work called The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. Volume 2 (pp. 140-146) contains phrases and ideas similar to the astronomical concepts in Abraham 3 and Facsimile No. 2. In these six pages, Taylor calls the planets "governors" and uses the terms "fixed stars and planets" and "grand key." Both works refer to the sun as a planet receiving its light and power from a higher sphere rather than generating its own light through hydrogen-helium fusion (cf. Fac. 2, fig. 5). LDS scholar R. Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of the University of Colorado Observatory, has written, "At the time that the Book of Abraham was translated ... the energy source of the sun was unknown," and "the concept of one star influencing another was also a common concept of the time."

These are only a few of the problems with the truth claims of the LDS Church regarding the Book of Abraham. Each on its own would be sufficient for a reasonable person to judge the work as a likely fraud. Taken as a whole, the serious problems leave no doubt.

Serious problems with the Book of Abraham could themselves go a long way towards filling a book - and they have. Although such books are factual, with references to real data (such as the reference above to the work of Thomas Taylor) instead of circular reference to the work of other LDS apologists as LDS apologists are wont to do, they would no doubt be considered anti-Mormon, and so will not be listed here.

Finally and most significantly, I am sure you know that the LDS apologists and Egyptologist John Gee has implied that the Book of Abraham is not all that important to the LDS canon. Many believe that this kind of talk from apologists is intended to pave the way for the Book of Abraham to be essentially dropped from the canon of the LDS Church as it has been from that of the Reorganized LDS Church (Community of Christ).

Consider these published statements by Brother Gee from a recent address.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

"While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves."

Then there is this:

"Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,"

And this:

"I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures."

Sounds to me as if someone is getting ready to throw in the towel on the Book of Abraham. With the increased media attention being paid to the strange beliefs of Mormonism, it couldn't happen a minute too soon. As the LDS Church spends millions on a national media campaign to convince the electorate that Mormons are not really that different from anyone else, continued defense of the Book of Abraham seems counterproductive.

[Mariner]

That's okay, you've failed to respond to several other CFRs throughout the thread, anyway. So unless you don't plan on answering them (in which case the moderators will be reported), then you have a lot of catching up to do in this discussion.

Altersteve,

As reflected in my post #87, it is my intent to respond to all of the applicable CFRs. If you are referring to Pahoran's CFR, Pahoran was late to the game and I had already responded to a CFR that was essentially identical to his and stated as much. If you believe that I have not responded to a CFR, please be specific as to which one.

Thank you.

[Mariner]

And by "open mainstream scientific literature," you mean any scientific literature that is not affiliated in any way, officially or unofficially, with the Church or its members, right?

No. By open mainstream scientific literature, I mean just that. If a member of the Church can get his or her data, and / or interpretations of the data, published in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature, then it should be considered a legitimate and worthy of serious consideration by those interested in the science.

When one can only get their work published by FAIR or the MI, and are unable to get the same or similar work published in the mainstream scientific literature, then it should not be taken seriously by those interested in science.

Publications by FAIR and MI may be valuable for promoting faith among members, but so are articles in the Ensign. Should Ensign articles be considered as contributions to science?

[Mariner]

It appears that you didn't read the link that was provided. Your statement that there is a "one-to-one correspondence to most" of the script is hyperbole. I found five or six, and the referenced link notes that there isn't anything beyond chance. I do seem to remember some web site that is probably the source of the "most" reference, but that simply suggests that only looking at a few sites on the Internet doesn't qualify as research.

You are correct. I did not read the link provided. I was referring to work which showed that most of the "Anthon Caractors" could be mapped to one or more non-ancient character sets available to Joseph Smith, including Tironian notes, Ogham code and Old Gaelic.

[Brant Gardner]

You are correct. I did not read the link provided. I was referring to work which showed that most of the "Anthon Caractors" could be mapped to one or more non-ancient character sets available to Joseph Smith, including Tironian notes, Ogham code and Old Gaelic.

And still haven't read the link? Random association fits much better that the idea that Joseph had access to a library of old codes from which he arbitrarily selected samples.

[Mariner]

Random association fits much better that the idea that Joseph had access to a library of old codes from which he arbitrarily selected samples.

You said it, I didn't.

[Brant Gardner]

You said it, I didn't.

Then you missed the meaning.

[jskains]

No. By open mainstream scientific literature, I mean just that. If a member of the Church can get his or her data, and / or interpretations of the data, published in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature, then it should be considered a legitimate and worthy of serious consideration by those interested in the science.

When one can only get their work published by FAIR or the MI, and are unable to get the same or similar work published in the mainstream scientific literature, then it should not be taken seriously by those interested in science.

Publications by FAIR and MI may be valuable for promoting faith among members, but so are articles in the Ensign. Should Ensign articles be considered as contributions to science?

Aww, science worship.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55606/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html

Science does not believe in the supernatural. Yet, I and many others have had supernatural experiences. FAIR deals with events of a supernatural nature, which operates outside the scope of a scientists's world view. So comparing the two is not relavent.

JMS

[altersteve]

Science does not believe in the supernatural. Yet, I and many others have had supernatural experiences. FAIR deals with events of a supernatural nature, which operates outside the scope of a scientists's world view. So comparing the two is not relavent.

Haha.

Sorry.

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

As the supernatural is untestable by natural means it is not a matter of belief or disbelief (I simply can not put God into my test tube). But what is testable using the Scientific Method. Individual scientists of course are free to believe or not believe as is their personal desire.