Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[Buzzard]

Wade,

You can't "reasonably believe" the BOM is authentic based on the book itself.

I don't know about Mr. Englund, to whom this question is addressed, but my conviction of the truthfulness BOM is based-at least the non-spiritual side-largely on..(drum roll)...the book itself. Am I automatically to be dismissed as unreasonable?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This discussion is a waste of time.

You just barely figured that out? Lol.

[thesometimesaint]

Buzzard:

"Am I automatically to be dismissed as unreasonable"?

Yes, by definition.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard:

"Am I automatically to be dismissed as unreasonable"?

Yes, by definition.

Thanks for helping me understand that....

[Jaybear]

I don't know about Mr. Englund, to whom this question is addressed, but my conviction of the truthfulness BOM is based-at least the non-spiritual side-largely on..(drum roll)...the book itself. Am I automatically to be dismissed as unreasonable?

You are off track for two reasons.

First, the point made was that the belief is unreasonable, not the person harboring the belief. That is an important distinction, because reasonable of a belief is an objective statement.

Reasonable people can have beliefs which are not based on reason.

Second, at issues is not whether the BOM is "truthful" but whether its genuine ... ie an accurate translation of a genuine ancient artifact. That you would use the word truthful, suggest to me that you can't readily discern the secular vs. spiritual basis for your belief that the BOM is true/genuine.

This raises the obvious question, if you have a spiritual belief that the BOM is true, whatever that means, does it really matter to you if your belief is not objectively reasonable to those without such a testimony? I really don't understand why some of you take these secular discussion of the evidence so personal. To be honest, those that do take personal offense, strike me as incredibly insecure in their faith.

[thesometimesaint]

Depends on how "reasonable" is used. Is it "reasonable" for some to claim that any unsubstantiated belief, no matter how mundane or personal, is the equivalent of belief in a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? That that person is somehow less intelligent , or worthy of belittling or condemnation?

Edited March 21, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jaybear]

Depends on how "reasonable" is used. Is it "reasonable" for some to claim that any unsubstantiated belief, no matter how mundane or personal, is the equivalent of belief in a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? That that person is somehow less intelligent , or worthy of belittling or condemnation?

Why does that matter? Are you only willing to believe in those things which are objectively reasonable, or in those things which will not subject you to public ridicule?

[Buzzard]

You are off track for two reasons.

First, the point made was that the belief is unreasonable, not the person harboring the belief. That is an important distinction, because reasonable of a belief is an objective statement.

Reasonable people can have beliefs which are not based on reason.

Second, at issues is not whether the BOM is "truthful" but whether its genuine ... ie an accurate translation of a genuine ancient artifact. That you would use the word truthful, suggest to me that you can't readily discern the secular vs. spiritual basis for your belief that the BOM is true/genuine.

This raises the obvious question, if you have a spiritual belief that the BOM is true, whatever that means, does it really matter to you if your belief is not objectively reasonable to those without such a testimony? I really don't understand why some of you take these secular discussion of the evidence so personal. To be honest, those that do take personal offense, strike me as incredibly insecure in their faith.

Actually, I took no offense. I'm kind of hard to offend for the most part. I'm not wanting to send this thread off on a whole new tangent, and I am sure that the reasons for believing based on the book itself-or not-have been and will be discussed much more cogently than I could ever hope to do. But for someone who considers the internal evidences of the BOM to be compelling, when a critic says that a belief based on those evidences to be not just wrong-I could live with that-but downright unreasonable, which I interpret as "your nuts or unintelligent if you do", well it evinced a roll of my eyes and a prolonged chortle. To dismiss those internal evidences out of hand just seemed...unreasonable.

[Jaybear]

Actually, I took no offense. .... which I interpret as "your nuts or unintelligent if you do", ...

Your "interpretation" was wrong. No one said or implied such a thing.

Usually, when posters read statements such as "your nuts or unintelligent" into posts, its not because they really take offense, its because they see a chance to bring out the feinting couch, and pretend to take offense, and derail the thread. You are the one that chose to personalize, what was otherwise an objective discussion of reasonableness. No need to go there.

BTW, you are misreading Vogel again.

If you take the text and compare it to external facts, which I assume you are doing, then you are not basing your belief of authenticity on the book itself.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I think it is reasonable to believe in numbers. However the only thing any of us see is numerals.

I think is reasonable to believe in electrons, but AFAIK no one has ever seen one.

I think it is reasonable to believe that I won't fall though my concrete floor because the atoms in it are largely empty space.

While I personally don't believe in Vishnu. It is a reasonable belief.

Why should those who believe in numbers, electrons, concrete floors, or Vishnu be held up to public ridicule?

[Dan Vogel]

I'm sorry- I don't understand this post. Perhaps you could re-phrase it.

You seem to be assuming scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

I am dumbfounded. You have just denied the need for your own articles and even being here. It's just incredible. The BOM is inauthentic because it is inauthentic.

This discussion is a waste of time.

I don't think you are following what I said to Wade. He said he had a reasonable belief that the BOM is historical, but so far the only thing he has given for the existence of the Nephites is the BOM. He needs to admit that there isn't any Nephite city or artifact.

[Dan Vogel]

I don't know about Mr. Englund, to whom this question is addressed, but my conviction of the truthfulness BOM is based-at least the non-spiritual side-largely on..(drum roll)...the book itself. Am I automatically to be dismissed as unreasonable?

Yes!

[LDSToronto]

Ah. Smearing by association.

Since all the most cynical and unprincipled demagogues use it as a weapon of first resort, it's not surprising to see you flourishing it with such practiced ease.

It's actually a relevant observation. If one can claim that the Book of Mormon is evidence of the existence of Nephites, then it stands to reason that the all the writings of Scientology is evidence of existence of Xenu.

H.

[wenglund]

I don't think you are following what I said to Wade. He said he had a reasonable belief that the BOM is historical, but so far the only thing he has given for the existence of the Nephites is the BOM. He needs to admit that there isn't any Nephite city or artifact.

Actually, it is you who isn't following what I said, but I am not going to repeat and clarify myself a fourth time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

You seem to be assuming scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence.

Huh? You are speaking to a Mormon here who thinks that spiritual experience is perfectly good "evidence"

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you are following what I said to Wade. He said he had a reasonable belief that the BOM is historical, but so far the only thing he has given for the existence of the Nephites is the BOM. He needs to admit that there isn't any Nephite city or artifact.

If you accept the premise that the Nephites lived among the Mayans as a sub-culture, there would be very few "artifacts" much as there would be few "LDS" artifacts in such a situation.

That is a scenario being explored by scholars like Mark Wright

Besides, artifacts are of no use in establishing spiritual truth- you could find the "true cross" and hypothetically verify it in every scientific way possible and it still would not prove that Jesus was Christ, the son of God and savior of mankind

Artifacts prove nothing spiritual, spiritual things prove nothing scientific. Spiritual matters have to do with human significance, not what is merely factually true.

[Tarski]

Naughty, naughty Tarski: equivocation is not allowed. I was clearly talking about "physiology." You are talking about how different groups socially and culturally interpret unusual experiences. (Like atheists dismissing spiritual and visionary experiences as aberrant brain chemistry, or delusion, or hypnotism, for example.) That's a very different thing.

No. Not so different it turns out.

The processes I am talking about apply "all the way in". The phrase "society of mind" is not used for nothing.

For both you and Bukowski, the point would be clearer (including the issue of time scale and narratives) if you were to check out the so called "multiple drafts model" of consciousness or variations on the same idea. You might especially profit from reading chapters of Consciousness Explained entitled "Time and Experience" and also "Dismantling the Witness Protection Program". The part about the false dichotomy between two explanations of nonveridical perception/memory humorously but aptly called the Stalinesque model and the Orwellian model is especially pertinant to the discussion. The subpersonal neural processes resemble what happens in groups of people but all happens in the brain of an individual on times scales of microseconds.

On the other hand, this was a group so I suppose error can occur on both levels. Indeed, there is no sharp line between the interpersonal and the subpersonal when it comes to the creation of false convictions and memories of perceptions.

But, instances of group hallucination are common enough that I know of two examples personally so no need for theorizing. It happens. In one case a group of new-agey housewives simultaneously saw and heard angels preaching the gospel of reincarnation or some other idea you would be loath to accept. It happened in a house and the silly spectacle was witnessed by one of the women's sons (a close friend and skeptic who saw nothing and found the whole thing humorous). They all saw and heard vividly the same thing. How is that possible?

When I was at UCLA, multiple witnesses saw a guru calling himself "atmananda" levitate and glow. (This guy later killed himself to be with his recently deceased dog!). His real name was Frederick Philip Lenz: http://en.wikipedia..../Frederick_Lenz

Physiologically impossible?

For our purposes, a hallucination is just a false memory about a perception whether that memory is about something a mere nanosecond ago or a decade ago. But even the immediate traditional kind of hallucination can happen to more than one person at the same time (as my examples seem to suggest) by mechanisms perhaps not fully understood but clearly involving exchange of information or cues by subtle but natural means.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Tarski

[Dan Vogel]

If you accept the premise that the Nephites lived among the Mayans as a sub-culture, there would be very few "artifacts" much as there would be few "LDS" artifacts in such a situation.

That is a scenario being explored by scholars like Mark Wright

Besides, artifacts are of no use in establishing spiritual truth- you could find the "true cross" and hypothetically verify it in every scientific way possible and it still would not prove that Jesus was Christ, the son of God and savior of mankind

Artifacts prove nothing spiritual, spiritual things prove nothing scientific. Spiritual matters have to do with human significance, not what is merely factually true.

It could also mean there weren't any Nephites. The absence of evidence, for whatever reason, and the historical problems such as anachronisms puts the BOM in a very bad place, historically that is.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

Wrong. You don't want to answer the original question because it exposes a flaw in your theory-driven approach. Unlike you, I am not assuming which category the Nephites fit into, but instead I let the evidence drive the categorizing, as one reasonably should.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So where's your Nephite artifact? That was the original question you keep avoiding with your question-begging answer.

[Dan Vogel]

While the "actuality" of the Nephites is a matter of opinion, the Book of Mormon is a record of the Nephites either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But is the BOM a record of real or fictional Nephites? that's the issue you keep avoiding. If the BOM isn't history, then the witnesses hallucinated, right?

[Dan Vogel]

I am using the term in relation to logical fallacies, and I am quite familiar with it. If you think otherwise, then make your case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The implied argument from Toronto was the BOM is not real history because no Nephite artifacts have been found. His challenge was for you to produce a Nephite artifact to establish BOM historicity.

You gave the BOM as evidence that the Nephites existed. This clearly begs the question. Time for you to man up and admit you were being flip for the amusement of your fellow apologists than with constructive dialogue.

[Evergrow]

You state:

You seem to be assuming scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence.

Then you state:

So where's your Nephite artifact? That was the original question you keep avoiding with your question-begging answer.

So tell us.... Does the irony escape you?

The difference between us Mormons and you anti-mormons is that we see and know many evidences for the Book of Mormon from all aspects of the sciences and intellectual analysis. You, you claim such as the above that there is more evidence than just science, but then you don't really believe it because you only still look for the "Nephite Artifact" for Mormonism to be valid for you, while ignoring the plethora of evidences for the work from other sources.

Some 20 years ago when I returned to the Church there was so much evidence for the Restoration, not only the Book of Mormon, that it fascinated me how any real objective person could deny the Churches truthfulness. I saw so much, that I felt people were really without excuse. Then today the evidences have only tripled since that time. So is the problem that there isn't enough good evidence for the Church? Not at all. The problem is much more simple, and it has to do with the heart and soul of a man/woman. Bottom line. People like you are without excuse.

[LDSToronto]

Besides, artifacts are of no use in establishing spiritual truth- you could find the "true cross" and hypothetically verify it in every scientific way possible and it still would not prove that Jesus was Christ, the son of God and savior of mankind

Artifacts prove nothing spiritual, spiritual things prove nothing scientific. Spiritual matters have to do with human significance, not what is merely factually true.

I've never understood this argument. Many religious traditions display relics that are spiritually relevant to the faith of adherents. Yet, with Mormonism, physical relics, it is claimed, have absolutely no relevance.

I don't believe this is true, not for one minute. In fact, I believe if incontrovertible physical evidence of Nephite civilizations existed, there would be no shortage of putting it on display at every opportunity so that the Church and it's members would have a more sure footing for their faith.

Let's face it, the only reason this argument stands - physical evidence does not lead to spiritual truth - is because there is no physical evidence to present.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Some 20 years ago when I returned to the Church there was so much evidence for the Restoration, not only the Book of Mormon, that it fascinated me how any real objective person could deny the Churches truthfulness. I saw so much, that I felt people were really without excuse. Then today the evidences have only tripled since that time. So is the problem that there isn't enough good evidence for the Church? Not at all. The problem is much more simple, and it has to do with the heart and soul of a man/woman. Bottom line. People like you are without excuse.

Please share this abundance of evidence that you claim is in existence.

H.