Jesus Was Born In Bethlehem, Not Jerusalem....duh!

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................

There are greater issues with the Book of Mormon, as I've said. Determining its origins, while interesting, doesn't change my view regarding the claims of Joseph Smith. But I definitely do not believe it is a divine translation of ancient text. There is zero evidence for that claim.

What you may have meant to say is that you are not aware of any evidence for that claim, since abundant evidence has been published demonstrating that it is an ancient text.  You generally make your faith considerations the be all and end all of your discussion, and (unlike you) the kind and friendly people on this board have been very respectful of your faith tradition.  You might try doing something along the same lines.  We have, for example, discussed the Pope and Roman Catholicism on this board many times, always with considerable respect.

 

An example of substantive discussion of the Book of Mormon is my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

[Robert F. Smith]

Please do a google on Paul as a plagiarizer.

 

https://www.google.com/#q=paul+quoting+pagan+poets&safe=active

 

Paul and the other NT writers have quoted from the Old Testament without giving an attribution.  Indeed Christ Himself quoted the OT while he was on the cross.

 

The New Testament writers are plagiarizers, including our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  We are truly impressed with your argument trashing the Bible

I have mentioned this fact to saemo, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.  Too much cognitive dissonance perhaps?

[saemo]

Please do a google on Paul as a plagiarizer.

 

https://www.google.com/#q=paul+quoting+pagan+poets&safe=active

 

Paul and the other NT writers have quoted from the Old Testament without giving an attribution.  Indeed Christ Himself quoted the OT while he was on the cross.

 

The New Testament writers are plagiarizers, including our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  We are truly impressed with your argument trashing the Bible

 

Please do a google on Paul as a plagiarizer.

 

https://www.google.com/#q=paul+quoting+pagan+poets&safe=active

 

Paul and the other NT writers have quoted from the Old Testament without giving an attribution.  Indeed Christ Himself quoted the OT while he was on the cross.

 

The New Testament writers are plagiarizers, including our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  We are truly impressed with your argument trashing the Bible

As I said, I see a difference. It isn't me who presents arguments against the Bible. That would always be the Mormon argument when trying to defend what you can't defend. The Book of Mormon is unable to stand on its own?

[saemo]

What you may have meant to say is that you are not aware of any evidence for that claim, since abundant evidence has been published demonstrating that it is an ancient text.  You generally make your faith considerations the be all and end all of your discussion, and (unlike you) the kind and friendly people on this board have been very respectful of your faith tradition.  You might try doing something along the same lines.  We have, for example, discussed the Pope and Roman Catholicism on this board many times, always with considerable respect.

 

An example of substantive discussion of the Book of Mormon is my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Correlations are not evidence.

 

Ad hominems are falacies

Edited August 26, 2014 by saemo

[Scott Lloyd]

Correlations are not evidence.

 

Ad hominems are falacies

Of course they are evidence!

And Robert is not doing ad homs, merely stating what has been clear for a long time: People on this board generally have been respectful toward Catholicism, while the purpose of your presence here, it seems, is primarily to attack Mormonism.

[Scott Lloyd]

If someone expects PC from me, he will be very disappointed.

 

Anyway, I apologize and will try to remember this in the future.

Well, I'm anything but a champion for political correctness. Just filling you in on what I had understood to be the case.

[Storm Rider]

Of course they are evidence!

And Robert is not doing ad homs, merely stating what has been clear for a long time: People on this board generally have been respectful toward Catholicism, while the purpose of your presence here, it seems, is primarily to attack Mormonism.

 

Saemo has an agenda being here and it certainly never has been about creating positive relationships with LDS or gaining any form of understanding of the LDS Church.  Regardless, she and all others remain welcome here. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Storm Rider

[saemo]

Ever here correlation is not causation? It may rain every time you wash your car, and your hypothesis may be that washing your car causes it to rain. The correlation does not prove your hypothesis. That's my point.

 

I was under the impression Mormon topics are the purpose of the board.

 

I view myself as respectful, just as you view yourself as respectful. But this conversation is going nowhere. I stopped participating other than to answer personal attacks and questions pointed at me. I have been honest, which is respectful. If you don't like my answers don't ask the questions. I try very seriously to think both critically and respond respectfully to the person in responding to. Just because I disagree, does not mean I am disrespectful. If my hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon is a novel, that is no more disrespectful or maybe as disrespectful, as Mormons viewing Sacred Tradition as the philosophies of men.

 

So, I either believe that view is disrespectful, which I could, or I view it as Mormons believe something different than I do.

Edited August 26, 2014 by saemo

[cdowis]

Of course your views are welcome here.  Certainly more so than some of my comments.

[wenglund]

Ever here correlation is not causation? It may rain every time you wash your car, and your hypothesis may be that washing your car causes it to rain. The correlation does not prove your hypothesis. That's my point.

 

I was under the impression Mormon topics are the purpose of the board.

 

I view myself as respectful, just as you view yourself as respectful. But this conversation is going nowhere. I stopped participating other than to answer personal attacks and questions pointed at me. I have been honest, which is respectful. If you don't like my answers don't ask the questions. I try very seriously to think both critically and respond respectfully to the person in responding to. Just because I disagree, does not mean I am disrespectful. If my hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon is a novel, that is no more disrespectful or maybe as disrespectful, as Mormons viewing Sacred Tradition as the philosophies of men.

 

So, I either believe that view is disrespectful, which I could, or I view it as Mormons believe something different than I do.

 

Agreed. It is no more disrespectful for you to consider the Book of Mormon a novel as it is for atheists to view the Bible and Jesus as historical fiction and equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus. 

 

What makes this comparison apropos is that you and atheists use pretty much the same arm-of-flesh approach when questioning the authenticity of scripture--which is your shared right.

 

We LDS take a different approach, and rely upon God in matters of God.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Ever here correlation is not causation? It may rain every time you wash your car, and your hypothesis may be that washing your car causes it to rain. The correlation does not prove your hypothesis. That's my point.

 

I was under the impression Mormon topics are the purpose of the board.

 

I view myself as respectful, just as you view yourself as respectful. But this conversation is going nowhere. I stopped participating other than to answer personal attacks and questions pointed at me. I have been honest, which is respectful. If you don't like my answers don't ask the questions. I try very seriously to think both critically and respond respectfully to the person in responding to. Just because I disagree, does not mean I am disrespectful. If my hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon is a novel, that is no more disrespectful or maybe as disrespectful, as Mormons viewing Sacred Tradition as the philosophies of men.

 

So, I either believe that view is disrespectful, which I could, or I view it as Mormons believe something different than I do.

 

Yes I heard of and used that phrase. But what value that is to refuting the Book of Mormon eludes me.

 

I've always been respectful of you and the Catholic church. Though I do have disagreements on some of its theology, that's for another discussion. From what you have posted about the Book of Mormon what you are proposing is a Double Standard.

 

As I understand Sacred Tradition as used by the Catholics it is not only the Scriptures, but the how the Apostles and Popes passed down the authoritative writings of the church. The LDS have a roughly similar view. Though we do disagree with who has that authority.

[teddyaware]

Agreed. It is no more disrespectful for you to consider the Book of Mormon a novel as it is for atheists to view the Bible and Jesus as historical fiction and equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus. 

 

What makes this comparison apropos is that you and atheists use pretty much the same arm-of-flesh approach when questioning the authenticity of scripture--which is your shared right.

 

We LDS take a different approach, and rely upon God in matters of God.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So true. It all distills down to this:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moroni 10)

and this,

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2)

 

No human approach to spiritual knowledge will ever be able to fathom even the shallowest depths of the knowledge of God. The  Prophet Joseph Smith said it best:

 

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that was ever written"

[Scott Lloyd]

 The correlation does not prove your hypothesis.

"Prove" being the operative word here. Evidence does not prove a hypothesis, but it might very well support one. (Check a reliable dictionary if you're unclear on the distinction between prove and support.)

 

What you are talking about here is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

As the Wikipedia article makes clear, there is no fallacy unless the conclusion is based solely on the correlation. That is not the case here. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted that there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon, there is, in fact, a great deal of evidence, of which Robert's FairMormon presentation is only one piece.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................   

 

What makes this comparison apropos is that you and atheists use pretty much the same arm-of-flesh approach when questioning the authenticity of scripture--which is your shared right.

 

We LDS take a different approach, and rely upon God in matters of God.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, Wade, one way in which the Roman Catholic laity might differ from atheists in evaluating religious issues is in their dependence on the authoritative statements by their local priests.  I have heard more than one Roman Catholic tell me that, rather than carrying on a theological debate or any sort, they would consult with their priest -- which is certainly wise, given the fine theological training they receive before ordination.  This also applies to their dependence on the priest as the mediator between them and God.

 

This does not mean that Roman Catholics eschew individual revelation, and RC tradition is filled with extraordinary and miraculous visions by its members.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[saemo]

Yes I heard of and used that phrase. But what value that is to refuting the Book of Mormon eludes me.

Hello, I was not refuting the Book of Mormon with that example.

 

I've always been respectful of you and the Catholic church. Though I do have disagreements on some of its theology, that's for another discussion. From what you have posted about the Book of Mormon what you are proposing is a Double Standard.

 

As I understand Sacred Tradition as used by the Catholics it is not only the Scriptures, but the how the Apostles and Popes passed down the authoritative writings of the church. The LDS have a roughly similar view. Though we do disagree with who has that authority.

Yes that is how Sacred Tradition is handed on, it is not what it is. Not all that we hold as divinely inspired is given as Scripture, and not all of it is written. It is also what we believe and we do, such as in the form of liturgy and sacraments. It exists in the living Church and we call it Sacred Tradition. The two go together, and are sourced from the same divine well-spring through the Holy Spirit.

So the comparison I was making is, I don't view the Book of Mormon as sourced from divine inspiration, excepting what was copied from the Bible directly (not paraphrased). You don't view Sacred Tradition as sourced in its entirety, or at all, from divine inspiration.

I expressed my disagreement using the word "novel". You express your disagreement using the phrase "philosophy of men".

Edited August 27, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

"Prove" being the operative word here. Evidence does not prove a hypothesis, but it might very well support one. (Check a reliable dictionary if you're unclear on the distinction between prove and support.)

 

What you are talking about here is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

As the Wikipedia article makes clear, there is no fallacy unless the conclusion is based solely on the correlation. That is not the case here. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted that there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon, there is, in fact, a great deal of evidence, of which Robert's FairMormon presentation is only one piece.

I see that as solely the case. For example, comparing measurements of gold and silver in the Book of Mormon to Mideastern measurements, provides no evidence for the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is authentic. By authentic I mean, came forth from a people who lived on the American continent before European contact.

The correlation of weights and measures is made, therefore there was a civilization that existed in the Americas that used them.

The correlation of weights and measures is made, therefore the Book of Mormon is of ancient origin.

That is the fallacy.

Edited August 27, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

"Prove" being the operative word here. Evidence does not prove a hypothesis, but it might very well support one. (Check a reliable dictionary if you're unclear on the distinction between prove and support.)

 

What you are talking about here is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

As the Wikipedia article makes clear, there is no fallacy unless the conclusion is based solely on the correlation. That is not the case here. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted that there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon, there is, in fact, a great deal of evidence, of which Robert's FairMormon presentation is only one piece.

saemo continues to ignore that fact.

"Evidence for" is the best we are ever going to get in matters of faith. "Proof of" never applies to matters of faith.

Simply claiming that there is "no proof" is useless in matters of faith. Ignoring "evidence for" and claiming that it is "not proof" of is simply a game.

[thesometimesaint]

Hello, I was not refuting the Book of Mormon with that example.

 

Yes that is how Sacred Tradition is handed on, it is not what it is. Not all that we hold as divinely inspired is given as Scripture, and not all of it is written. It is also what we believe and we do, such as in the form of liturgy and sacraments. It exists in the living Church and we call it Sacred Tradition. The two go together, and are sourced from the same well-spring through the Holy Spirit.

So the comparison I was making is, I don't view the Book of Mormon as sourced from divine inspiration, excepting what was copied from the Bible directly (not paraphrased). You don't view Sacred Tradition as sourced in its entirety, or at all, from divine inspiration.

I expressed my disagreement using the word "novel". You express your disagreement using the phrase "philosophy of men".

 

HI.

 

Then I don't understand what you are claiming. Sorry.

 

You don't have to believe the Truth Claims of the Book of Mormon. Quite frankly I don't see why anyone of a different religion would.

 

The Book of Mormon was not copied from the Bible. Every Christian child knows where Jesus was born, and it wasn't Jerusalem. If JS merely copied the Bible he would have never made such a stupid obvious error. Add in that a family Bible was usually handed down to the oldest daughter, and that there is no indications that JS even had a Bible during the translation time frame. It becomes problematic to claim he merely copied and/or conspired with others to produce the Book of Mormon.

[wenglund]

Actually, Wade, one way in which the Roman Catholic laity might differ from atheists in evaluating religious issues is in their dependence on the authoritative statements by their local priests.  I have heard more than one Roman Catholic tell me that, rather than carrying on a theological debate or any sort, they would consult with their priest -- which is certainly wise, given the fine theological training they receive before ordination.  This also applies to their dependence on the priest as the mediator between them and God.

 

This does not mean that Roman Catholics eschew individual revelation, and RC tradition is filled with extraordinary and miraculous visions by its members.

 

I appreciate the clarification. And, if saemo appealed to his local priest as the means for assessing the verity/authenticity of the Book of Mormon, rather than historical/critical analysis, then I stand corrected.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

I don't know why I should care. I'm using the term, and I live now. Your assertion that only 19th century terms should be used when discussing the Book of Mormon, is irrelevant.

 

Your footwork is getting fancier.

 

I made no such "assertion," and "novel" is a perfectly good 19th century term.

 

However, those actually involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon -- i.e. those who actually knew what was going on, as opposed to those who smugly and flippantly try to dismiss it -- were absolutely clear and consistent that what they produced was in no sense a "novel."  They unanimously described it as a divinely inspired translation of a pre-existing document inscribed on metal plates.  (Which plates they saw and touched.)

 

So when you casually assume that "Smith, or other (un-named) co-authors," produced "their own novel," you are relying upon the fallacy of circular argument.

 

And you are also accusing them of fraudulently misrepresenting their activities.

 

You've made a lot of your claim that there is "no evidence" for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  You've got it exactly backwards: there is considerable evidence, starting with the direct personal testimonies of the actual participants.  Against that testimony, you have nothing whatsoever to offer except the mere opinion of someone far removed from the events: namely, your good self.

 

And so it turns out that it is your accusation that is supported by no evidence.

 

Just so you know.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 28, 2014 by Pahoran