New Poster Needs His Own Thread...For You, Billy, Bom Evidence

[Calm]

From BillyOmaha:

Howdy,

My brother who has some position in the LDS has been attempting to "save" me by argument as to the validity of the faith and using BoM historicity claims as evidence of the authority. Each time I check the validity of the historicity argument I have failed to find supporting evidence and, usually, find contradictory evidence.

Frequently he will attempt to argue the validity of the BoM using the BoM as the Authority in support of its validity. Obvious circular reasoning, so I don't get anywhere with that discussion.

I am open minded and reasonable on the subject of faith. If it is faith, so be it. If there are facts that support the foundation of the faith then, I would like to review the evidence.

So, I want to start at the beginning; Is there any evidence, other than the verbal assertion by Joseph Smith, of the supernatural source for the Book of Mormon? Please point me to a scholarly article on the subject and I will investigate.

Sincerely,

Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From Kevin C:

For starters:

http://maxwellinstit...ooks/?bookid=41

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ERayR]

For Book of Mormon information overview I like John L Sorenson's Digging into the Book of Mormon.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Sure. I have lots of personal evidence. But that won't help without some ground rules - so what is it that you would classify as "evidence"? What is the proverbial evidentiary bar that you set? As I noted in my other post (where you first commented), this is a very problematic area, since by default most of those who want evidence exclude from the outset most of what believers would call evidence.

Ben M.

[rameumptom]

You may want to check out my Book of Mormon Sunday School lessons, to see the archaeology and exegesis, etc., that is in the lessons:

joelsmonastery.blogspot.com

[mfbukowski]

Sure. I have lots of personal evidence. But that won't help without some ground rules - so what is it that you would classify as "evidence"? What is the proverbial evidentiary bar that you set? As I noted in my other post (where you first commented), this is a very problematic area, since by default most of those who want evidence exclude from the outset most of what believers would call evidence.

Ben M.

[CV75]

From BillyOmaha:

"I am open minded and reasonable on the subject of faith. If it is faith, so be it. If there are facts that support the foundation of the faith then, I would like to review the evidence."

1. It is faith.

2. The facts that support the foundation of faith: a) you are open minded. b) you are reasonable. c) you asked the question. d) you have the book. e) you can read.

3. Review your open mindedness, your reasonableness, your question, the book.

Now read the book and stop bugging everybody already!

[altersteve]

Evidence? Yes. Proof? No.

[Calm]

Anyone seen Billy?