History And Historicity In The Book Of Mormon---Gardner

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Spiritual evidence is entirely subjective. That's why it's individually useful but not reliable (as with most subjective things).

I was calling into question your use of objectivism to measure the value or reliability of subjective means.  You say that you know the difference, but I have yet to see any evidence of that.  Consult Ayn Rand, and perhaps have a look at my own examination of the objective realities of the Book of Mormon at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

Evidence of the Book of Mormon's hiatoricity? Fairly subjective too for now. The evidence is too soft to be anything else. What I see as unconvincing, you see otherwise. Not because one of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but because it's subjective.

One who uses his testimony as the basis for his belief in the BofM's historicity could be said to apply a subjective measure.  One who uses archeology is using science.  Your critique of the latter is not one of subjectivity, but rather of the speculative misuse of science.  A simple category mistake on your part, canard.

[Robert F. Smith]

Evidence for Universalism? 

Are you saying that Mormonism is a universalist religion, and that the Book of Mormon is universalist?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Are you saying that Mormonism is a universalist religion, and that the Book of Mormon is universalist?

 

No, canard78 is a universalist, what ever that means.

[Robert F. Smith]

No, canard78 is a universalist, what ever that means.

Oh.  O.K.  I didn't know, and am not sure what he means by that term as applied to himself.

 

However, universal salvation is a notion very compatible with Mormonism.

[SmileyMcGee]

11 men testify of seeing and handling the resurrected Savior. 11 men testify of seeing and handling the plates...and then those 3 stubborn testimonies of the three special witnesses. You certainly can't discount one group and believe the other. I dunno, but when you look at the evidences with the testimony of the witnesses as your base, they seem less like a coincidence.

Well, those wouldn't be the first instances in history of a group of men exaggerating the truth, being misleading, or just flat out lying.