DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

[salgare]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

FWIW, this video has been popping up all over my Facebook feed from friends and relatives that have shown no previous interest in apologetics.  It really seems to be catching on with a certain subset of church members.

Clay and Matt?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

FWIW, this video has been popping up all over my Facebook feed from friends and relatives that have shown no previous interest in apologetics.  It really seems to be catching on with a certain subset of church members.

What video is that?

ETA:  The Matt & Clay videos are not related to apologetics.  They are enhanced anti-Mormon propaganda.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, volgadon said:

We don't have much of a scholastic tradition, just our flavour of fundamental Protestant approach we dubbed scriptorian.

Which is straight out of scholasticism.

Without scholasticism, there is no basis for the Trinity.  Protestants are trinitarians therefore protestants are in some measure, "scholastics".  It's that dang old Nicene Creed consubstantiality stuff.  Then they also supposedly abandon personal revelation and substitute the correspondence theory of truth because of bible historicity.  At least that is the way I see it.  Because the bile is "historical" and the beliefs in the bible allegedly correspond to actual historical events as can allegedly be proven, the spiritual truths must be true.  I have turned that into a caricature slogan that boils that argument down to its most obviously false nugget with the phrase "Because Jerusalem exists, Christ saved us"

Because we have the place names where Jesus allegedly visited, that proves that he existed and therefore is the savior.  The logic of that is to me, literally unbelievable.  Never could, never did, believe it.

Then we get to have three persons with one substance in the trinity.  For Catholics substance theology is also the cornerstone of .... surprise... "tranSUBSTANTiation".  Anglican protestants still buy into that one also

Substance also helps out the logic of Christ having "two natures" which parallels the substance argument that you can have three persons with one substance.  If you can do that, why not have one person with two natures?  Easy as pie!

We say the words, and that makes it so, forget the logic.

So I think that substance and correpondence pervade present "Christian" creedal theology.  We still have some of that thinking but my point is that it is doomed to failure.

Nobody believes in stuff which cannot be experienced anymore.  We are now empiricists.  William James called his view "Radical Empiricism".  He included spiritual experience as "empirical" because it was a direct experience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

So we have direct experience of God in the same way we have direct experience of chairs and tables.

I have never seen or experienced a substance or nature, nor have I experienced "correspondence with the world" and neither has anyone else.  No one thinks that way anymore except in churches.  THAT is why the allegedly "Christian god" who never could exist, never did.

Christ has one nature- human nature.  The trinity is a family- no substance.  If my family were unified by a substance we would all need to take showers. 

Few believers take scripture literally anymore either.  A six day creation?  No evolution?  I wonder what the numbers are for people who actually think those are scientifically justifiable positions.  Few would even understand what "scientifically justifiable" means.  That is not a negative- it is just not relevant to their lives.  It is not even a matter of education at this point- I wonder how many people who have not finished high school actually believe that the earth was created in 6 days.

That would be interesting to me.  Scientism is in the air we breathe, it is embedded in the culture at this time.  But it is going and I wager will not be an important force in a hundred years if we don't blow ourselves up before that.

Secular religion is taking over.  If we do not show secular religion works with theism, theism itself will be gone in a hundred years as a superstitious relic of the past.

If we CAN show it, theism will have a resurgence of tremendous importance for world culture

Edited January 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error- my mistake cal

Edited January 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Clay and Matt?

See how it feels when posts are not specific?

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, salgare said:

Quote

"scholarly inquiry which have nothing to do with any faith-based assumptions"

I responded about the faith scholarly mix as I miss read your above statement where I thought you were suggesting for a faith based mix and I was suggesting the scholarly should rule the day for the historicity issue.

Either/or, or both, but the two don't really mix well, and one must choose one or the other when making an argument.  Neither rules.  They are very different epistemologies.

Quote

"Blair Hodges is a wonderful and friendly guy who does not hate, and is not hated by anybody."

I fully agree.  Everyone in the new guard acted totally professionally, and Christ like with all public aspects of this history.  I have a high respect for Blair.  I'm fully aware of the early (publicly available) history of the MI breakup.  It was mostly Bill that continued to attack BYU, MI and the new guard for a couple years following.  However Dan continued with his fair share, last I heard was the blow up in a book store, I assume on BYU campus.  This bookstore ugliness happened sometime in the last year I believe, where Dan swore at Blair.  I assume Scott and possibly others from FairMormon continue to have hard feelings that continue to this day over this history, and years before it. (I witnessed some loap unpleasantness here myself).  Blair's recent comment in his announcement thread on Scott's rejection of free copies supports this assumption.

Several of these later incidents were based on accusations of apostasy coming from Bill/Dan towards BYU/MI individuals because of their having/supporting a non-historical BoM.

Sounds like you have bought into a lot of rumormongering here, without  any specific sources, quotes, or dates.  There was no Maxwell Institute "breakup."  Some people were purged by the Director, plain and simple.  This was done while they were out of the country.  An effort was made to embarrass those purged by making it public.  You seem to be completely unfamiliar with what in fact happened, or with the aftermath.  Who or what is the New Guard?

Quote

 

"Silence does not confirm anything at all.  You are so wrong here.  Do you even have any basis for your imaginative claims?  Cite a source for us.

... Most "orthodox Mormons" (whatever that means) know nothing of either theology or philosophy"

 

I mix these two quotes to suggest different audiences; a limited scholarly audience and a google audience.  The limited scholarly audience is going to understand that those involved are not representing their religions or their Church organizations and are going to appreciate the scholarly ethics and language.  Right or wrong, many of the google audience are going to view this differently.  I would even suggest that a Chapel Mormon would view FAIR, BYU, MI and Bill Hamblin debating in defense OF the Church not of his own personal/professional historical work.

To say so is to admit that yokels don't understand scholarly palaver, but that is not a new observation.  One might find Chapellites from the late Pastor Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel church likewise miss the point.

I know I'm horrible at this, but I want to also bring this same thinking over to the mfb/given's situation.  Even thought the Given's do not represent the Church, the Church and local leaders allow them use of their Chapels to teach their principles (to the theology/philosophy unaware members).  Does this not imply some level of acceptability of the Church to what they are teaching?  Of course coming from a critics environment of discussion, with talk of factions within the FP/Q12, as well as seeing similar factions emerge from even the likes of FAIR/MAD/MDDB/FairMormon I'm very interested in seeing how this mix of seemingly conflicting factions being presented to the members is going to turn out.   All though it seems only the philosophical approach is actively being presented in member firesides at this time.  But I suppose the old Orthodox is well enough in place.

It would be wonderful to hear from insiders of what exactly these 'factional" differences are and if the contention is based on theology issues or just bad personal blood issues.

"Bad blood," "factions," etc., you are still talking nonsense, salgare.  Who are the members of these supposed factions?  what do they stand for?  Do you have some published sources?

You question what orthodox Mormon even means.  There really was no question about this in our generation was there Robert?  Here is (was) an Orthodox Chapel Mormon, roughly our age, black and white with no need for nuanced philosophies for his faith to work, until he turned internet Mormon over night and freaked out.

http://mormonstories.org/thirteen-years-of-silence-matt-elggren-clay-christensen/ 

The pattern of Matt Elggren's apostasy is a familiar one: He even admits to having been "excessively devout" and "too rigid" on his mission, and had expected to be a Church leader from an early age, which he calls "hubris" (perhaps because he is a descendant of Brigham Young).  But he was disappointed at his own failure to go the CES route, realizing that he had not been a good seminary teacher. In addition, he had false notions of infallibility of his bishop, and found out it wasn't true.  He became familiar with John Dehlin's email conversations on LDS topics, and was clearly shocked.  Dehlin recalls Matt being done already -- so quickly, without much reflection -- while Dehlin was still defending the Church at that stage.

Listen to Clay's understanding of the issues three months ago.  That's 99% of every High Priest in my home ward.

Anyway, I digress (there is much of nuance in that interview worth discussion).

Quote

"As for good, acceptable historiography, I'm open to understanding what you think is an acceptable historical methodology.  Do any of my writings pass muster with you?"

I need some time to study the links you have given me here.  A crazy week ahead but I hope to continue this after later in the week.

Of course I have nothing to offer on its acceptability but look forward to reading some heretical Robert Smith writings.

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

My writings are deemed "heretical" by you, even before you read them?

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

It appears that Mark Bukowski takes exception to your characterization that archaeology and history must be evaluated based "on their own merits:"

Evaluating historical evidence "on its own merits" is in no way incompatible with believing that the BOM is "historically true" as a religious proposition

I have no clue how you could conclude that.  Robert and I are pretty much two peas in a pod when it comes to our views of this issue- he is just a trained historian and archaeologist and I am far from that.  We could not possibly agree about social constructivism as we do and not see it applying to history as well.

As I have written before, the whole question of BOM historicity from a scientific perspective must be taken from an entirely different paradigm than the usual way of seeing archaeology.

As Robert has written, the whole story of the BOM is preposterous scientifically.  The possibility of Angels and gold plates popping up from nowhere is obviously NOT a scientific perspective.  No one disputes that.

The question then becomes - what do we make of the evidence that we DO have?  How does one account for there being ANY evidence whatsoever for such preposterous events??

Bob is the expert on the evidence and has written about it extensively and I will leave that up to him.

So YES there IS historical evidence for the BOM, the question is its importance in deciding that the BOM is ALSO "spiritually true".

These are independent variables.  Some may think the book is spiritually true but never happened.  Some may believe that it is spiritually true and DID happen.  Some might believe that it is spiritual false and yet happened. Some,like you, believe it is both spiritually false and never happened.

Can you at least follow the argument this far?  Two variables - spiritually true or false, happened or did not happen.  Four possibilities.

My position is that it is both spiritually true AND that it did in fact happen.

My evidence for the former belief is personal revelation.  My evidence for the latter belief is, as Robert points out, the fact that the preponderance of the evidence cannot be dismissed as showing that SOMETHING LIKE THE ACCOUNT JOSEPH GAVE "really happened".  Preposterous, yes, but otherwise how does one account for the evidence we DO have?

So archaeology "on its own merits" shows evidence - to my judgement- that something like Joseph's explanation DID happen.  That judgement to me, is a scientific judgement.  So I can truly say that I have what I think is a justifiable scientific belief that despite being preposterous, the stories about the origins of the BOM are scientifically justified.

On the other hand we have the IMPORTANCE of the fact that the BOM is "true".

It makes no difference in my life whatsoever that the culture of Mohenjo-daro existed other than the fact that I like their art and find their religion interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro

It "really happened" but has no importance in my life.  Their religion holds no spiritual "truth" for me.  So regarding M-d, I would be in the "Spiritually false, and yet it happened" camp.

Follow so far how this works?

However it is VERY important to my life that the Nephite culture DID exist for religious reasons.

In fact, for me, the religious reasons overshadow the historical scientific reasons I believe the culture existed.

I find it helpful to believe that Jesus "really did" visit the Nephites, though the science portion of that belief is actually of minimal importance to me, so much so that I think I could probably dismiss it entirely and still find the BOM to be of great religious value in my life.

It is likely that the person Isaiah never existed either, yet I find it helpful to believe that he did and actually wrote that wonderful book of the Bible of prophecies about Jesus.  On the other hand, that could all be hogwash, but I still believe it is a religiously important alleged "revelation"

So I spent all this time because I hope I was able to clarify your confusion about these variables and how your question confused them.  I know for a fact others have the same confusion.

To make it short, I could have said

"What Cal said". 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, salgare said:

In the first link (thumbnails)

You start with what I assume is an attempt at showing physical evidence:

 False

"The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as to the blatant physicality of the Plates, along with offhand observations of others who had physical contact with the Plates, is also of prime epistemological importance, leading Terryl L. Givens to observe that 

'I can see no reason to compel a non-literal reading of the Testimony of the Eight, other than sheer reluctance to accept supernaturalism. And that is a reluctance I cannot argue with. That is why the only alternative to a literal reading that I do not think is easily dismissible is Humes more general argument against miracles: the reliability of witnesses is more easily impugned than the reliability of natural laws.' "

I'm fairly clueless as to what Givens said there, but I assume the Hume's reference is saying that the physical plates (natural law) is more reliable than the easily impugned witnesses.  And yet your stated physical evidence is based on easily impugned witnesses?

Givens and I are agreeing with David Hume that supernaturalism or miracles can reasonably be doubted, whereas natural law is more reliable.  You completely misunderstood me.

Leaving this you move on to the focus of probabilities and start with the same statement from a woman you base one of the other link presentations on.

 "Implausibility & Bayesian Probability…

Since the origin story of the Book of Mormon is by its very nature preposterous, all the more reason for an affirmation of its authenticity to be taken seriously."

My memory is so frustrating, I had totally forgotten about the Bayesian intuition discussions at MDB on proving negatives. i.e.  Hamblin trying to deal with non-existent (to date) physical archaeological and linguistic evidence.

An example EAllusion noted:

 "When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince."

Maybe Bayesian Probability is the inverse of Bayesian intuition?  If so, this is a much earlier statement (2011) on Bayesian analysis (same?) by Aristotle Smith

"I don't think Bayesian analysis will affect Mormon apologetics much at all. Bayesian analysis requires a couple of things that I don't think the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS have ever really done. First, it requires you to actually have a hypothesis about some states of affairs. Second, it requires you to be able to rationally decide what counts as evidence given that hypothesis. If you don't have both of these, you can't really do a Bayesian analysis of a given situation.

Take the Book of Abraham for instance. What is an actual coherent hypothesis about the Book of Abraham that the apologists are actually willing to state? They'll throw out a ton of explanations, many of which are mutually contradictory, but they won't actually give a coherent hypothesis. But even more telling, what counts as actual evidence in favor of the Book of Abraham, given the hypothesis? Pretty much anything, because practically anything counts as evidence when you claim half a dozen or so competing hypothesis are the hypothesis. Likewise, what would count as negative evidence, given the hypothesis? Pretty much nothing for the same reason."

It seems Aristotle's prediction of Bayesian not being of interest to apologist failed.

"Aristotle Smith" was wrong on several counts, and referring to "the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS" is a contemptuous reference which tells us who he really is.  Bayesian probability boils down to preponderance of evidence, as in civil jury trials.

 

[Gervin]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 Because the bile is "historical" and the beliefs in the bible allegedly correspond to actual historical events as can allegedly be proven, the spiritual truths must be true.  I have turned that into a caricature slogan that boils that argument down to its most obviously false nugget with the phrase "Because Jerusalem exists, Christ saved us"

Because we have the place names where Jesus allegedly visited, that proves that he existed and therefore is the savior.  The logic of that is to me, literally unbelievable.  Never could, never did, believe it.

Christians self-identify as Christians because of their faith in Christ, not in cities.  And of course no church teaches this - it wouldn't even be heresy - it would just be silly.  Why are you so stuck on this patently false (and weird) canard?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Gervin
font

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

Mark,

I thought I was starting to be able to understand your language as well.  I have tried, but apparently I have fallen short.   You demand of me to adjust my language to your requirements and yet seem unwilling to give my words any time and consideration.

Based on the skills and accomplishments you have listed along with my own take that here is a smart man with some wisdom to impart I'm still left wanting with such simplistic statements as the Gospel is what you want it to be as long as you meet the Temple Recommend requirements.  I guess all my years of working in the temple and looking for deeper symbolic meanings has intrigued me with this pragmatism which you hold to, assuming their is something deeper to what you are saying.  But now I'm getting that it really is not any deeper than this Temple Recommend Requirements being the foundation and only requirement for what you foresee the upcoming Church to be.  

If I view this from my corrupted organization viewpoint, I guess I can see the organization being 100% behind this; remain paying and sustaining the leaders, don't cause any waves and we are all good.  

Looking at this from a God the Father, Christ the Son grab a hold of the iron rod view ... this feels very wrong.

I have read enough of Robert's first link (the thumbnails one) to see he quotes Givens extensively.  I'm not sure why I assumed he would be an old school orthodox member, but of course there is no such thing in this brave new world.  Except of course for 99% of my HP group who are just like Clay and have not seen the light yet.  btw have you looked at that, are you willing to look at that? here is the link again: http://mormonstories.org/thirteen-years-of-silence-matt-elggren-clay-christensen/

All I can say is that there are going to be a lot of casualties between today's reality and your prophesies of the upcoming Church.  But of course the Baby Boomer orthodox members are growing old and the hope/focus is on the youth. 

Givens has been a godsend for this purpose.

Phew.  I would not bother if I did not think this is important.
I do not demand you do anything unless you want me to understand you.

Quote

I thought I was starting to be able to understand your language as well.  I have tried, but apparently I have fallen short.   You demand of me to adjust my language to your requirements and yet seem unwilling to give my words any time and consideration.

 

Do you know HOW MUCH TIME I have spent on you???  You are welcome.  Now it is my fault that I do not understand your sentences and I owe you to figure it all out? In fact yes we once did communicate and I found our discussions valuable so I persist.  But this is about it.  YOU are the one who asks me questions then criticizes me for not understanding you.  A sane person would have ignored you long ago.  I find this rather manipulative, frankly.  It's my fault that I do not understand your questions?

Please. 

I do not owe you anything.

You persist in using the term "orthodox".  I do not know what that means.  There is no such thing.  Perhaps you mean "mistaken".  Perhaps you even mean "believers in the infallibility of BRM".

If that is what you mean then say so. I love BRM  I just know he was mistaken.  He himself admitted he was mistaken and yet you describe him as "orthodox".  Can you see that is a distorted way of seeing it?

And this has nothing to do with direct understanding of symbolic temple content.  What is the link?  Where is the logic to that? My whole point is that direct personal revelation is what makes this church what it is, and you conclude I am saying something opposite to that?

How do you do that?

Quote

Looking at this from a God the Father, Christ the Son grab a hold of the iron rod view ... this feels very wrong.

Omigosh

Then don't believe it!!

I love Givens, but so do I also love everyone else I read.  Read Ostler. Read Faulconer. Read Adam Miller. Read Mike Ash.  Read Kevin Christensen.  Read for pete's sake don't waste your time listening to podcasts by John Dehlin.

I do not waste my time on mormonstories podcasts.  I have no intention of listening to it.  Spoken words take too much time for my little brain which cannot stand to wait for someone to get to a relvant point while they speak in self-congratulatory platitudes about how courageous they are. 

13 years of silence? Balderdash!   (a race between two bald guys) Who would allow their kids to be taught something you could not yourself believe in for 13 years for selfish reasons of keeping the peace?

I will allow my kids to be brainwashed into a cult so that my wife doesn't get mad at me. 

THAT IS COURAGE?  That is praiseworthy behavior?

 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Christians self-identify as Christians because of their faith in Christ, not in cities.  And of course no church teaches this - it wouldn't even be heresy - it would just be silly.  Why are you so stuck on this patently false (and weird) canard?

Well then I stand corrected. It is good to know that you view evidence of biblical historicity as irrelevant to your faith and simply go on your personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

I did not know that.

But churches DO teach that biblical historicity is very important
 

Quote

 

Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.

Quote

 

....Lest this critique be written off as the meaningless chatter of some conservative curmudgeon, however, I must point out that, in fact, it represents the majority view in biblical scholarship today. University of Arizona archaeologist William Dever, for example, is well known for his objection to the term “biblical archaeology,” since it seems to convey a probiblical bias; yet he assails some of the unwarranted conclusions of biblical minimalists in a strongly worded article in BAR: “Save Us from Postmodern Malarkey.”¹¹ He does not have kind words for the minimalists in his book, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? either. “I suggest,” he writes, “that the revisionists are nihilist not only in the historical sense but also in the philosophical and moral sense.”¹²

 

 

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

Edited January 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Christians self-identify as Christians because of their faith in Christ, not in cities.  And of course no church teaches this - it wouldn't even be heresy - it would just be silly.  Why are you so stuck on this patently false (and weird) canard?

Here's another silly one

Quote

The Argument

Perhaps it would serve us well to lay out in the broadest terms of what the case for Christianity consists. My argument will consist of defending three premises[3]:

1. The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
2. On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.

Conclusion: Since the Bible is the Word of God, then Christianity is true.[4]

It is important to notice that the argument is not circular.[5] The first premise is not assuming that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but, rather, it is claiming that, according to the standard tools of judging the historical reliability of ancient documents, the Bible is substantiated as historically reliable and trustworthy.

 

Weird canard?

http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Christians self-identify as Christians because of their faith in Christ, not in cities.  And of course no church teaches this - it wouldn't even be heresy - it would just be silly.  Why are you so stuck on this patently false (and weird) canard?

 

Quote

 

Is biblical chronology important to modern Christians?

The following article is abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1, Number 2 and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1, Number 3. Full details and references can be found there.
 

Should Christians concern themselves with Biblical chronology? Is it important?

Yes, they should; yes, it is important. It is important because our ability to defend the truth of Christianity hinges upon it.

Biblical Chronology and Apologetics

To see why this is so we need to take a brief look at the relationship between Biblical chronology and Christian apologetics. Since apologetics is not a household word, I have highlighted its definition below.

apologetics:

a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity. (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

Biblical chronology lies very near the foundation of Christian apologetics. This comes about because apologetics is built upon a foundation of Biblical historicity (i.e., historical factuality), and Biblical historicity is, in turn, founded upon Biblical chronology.

The Importance of Historicity

Wheaton's Professor of Bible and Archaeology, Joseph P. Free, in the middle of the twentieth century, on the opening page of his textbook, Archaeology and Bible History, says it this way:

The Bible is a historical book, and the great truths of Christianity are founded upon the historic facts revealed therein. If the fact of the Virgin Birth, the fact of the Crucifixion, and the fact of the Resurrection be set aside, our faith is without foundation. Since the New Testament revelation stands upon the foundation of the Old Testament, the accuracy of the Old Testament is of great importance to us.

 

In a much more recent video series, theologian R. C. Sproul says it this way:

Now just because a book claims to be the Word of God, doesn't make it the Word of God. Just because a book claims to be the unvarnished truth does not make it the unvarnished truth. Anybody can make a claim like that, and more than one book does make that claim. ... We want to look beyond the simple claim, for evidences; what the scholars call the indicia. Is there any evidential basis for agreeing with the claim that Scripture makes?

Now, obviously, in this short period of time I can't give you a full-fledged apologetic for the integrity of sacred Scripture. But let me just give you a brief outline of how the church has proceeded historically to the conclusion that the Bible is not a myth, that it is not fable, that it is not legend, and that it is truth, and that it is infallible truth.

The starting point in the inquiry is this question: ``Does the Bible communicate basically reliable information?'' Is it a basically reliable historical document? Not, is it inspired; not, is it infallible; not, is it any of that; but just, is it a good historical source?

Now, obviously, if the answer to that question is, ``No, it's not even basically reliable,'' there's no reason under the sun why we should spend five minutes in ``recreation'' attending its message.

Both scholars make the same point: if the Bible can be convicted of any falsehood in regard to history, then there is no basis for the claim that Christianity is true. The defense of the truth of Christianity is entirely dependent upon the truth of Biblical history; Christian apologetics is rooted in Biblical historicity.

 

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/historicalapologetics.php

[Gervin]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well then I stand corrected. It is good to know that you view evidence of biblical historicity as irrelevant to your faith and simply go on your personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

I did not know that.

But churches DO teach that biblical historicity is very important
 

 

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

The point is, no one makes Biblical historicity a relevant part of faith.  The quote you provide is some 2004 article by a 1954 Harvard grad who also writes historic fiction.  He's hardly representative of any mainstream beliefs and ... he hardly seems dogmatic.

Biblical historicity provides a wealth of information when you're studying scriptures and gives a sense of authenticity to the context.  It isn't necessary for faith - or increased faith.  If, however, it provides a sense of reassurance for some, it's probably not a bad thing.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Gervin said:

The point is, no one makes Biblical historicity a relevant part of faith.  The quote you provide is some 2004 article by a 1954 Harvard grad who also writes historic fiction.  He's hardly representative of any mainstream beliefs and ... he hardly seems dogmatic.

Biblical historicity provides a wealth of information when you're studying scriptures and gives a sense of authenticity to the context.  It isn't necessary for faith - or increased faith.  If, however, it provides a sense of reassurance for some, it's probably not a bad thing.

Read the rest of the quotes

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...

"My writings are deemed "heretical" by you, even before you read them?"

It was a joke Robert, as you mentioned I might find you to be different than I had supposed (which I did).

"Sounds like you have bought into a lot of rumormongering here, without  any specific sources, quotes, or dates.  There was no Maxwell Institute "breakup."  Some people were purged by the Director, plain and simple.  This was done while they were out of the country.  An effort was made to embarrass those purged by making it public.  You seem to be completely unfamiliar with what in fact happened, or with the aftermath.  Who or what is the New Guard?"

Once again, I'm well aware of how Dan got fired, that's not of interest here, the leaked letters etc.  The rumormongering you are accusing me of comes from the following years of Bill Hamblin bashing BYU and MI.  Are you seriously telling me you and the regulars on this board did not follow Bill and Dan's public blogs slinging the mud I have already referred to?  It was Bill's same blogs that brought Jenkins into the picture in the first place.

I'm also surprised that the term "New Guard" is unknown to you and this board.  It's common terminology on at least three other boards referring to the expulsion of the "Old Guard" (Dan and Crew along with their style of apologetics)  Being replaced with a new guard of a softer gentler apologetic.  The pubic nastiness of two members of the old guard towards the new guard is well know everywhere, it seems but here?  Including accusations of apostasy over the very issues we are discussing here, namely the historicity of the BoM.  

"Bad blood," "factions," etc., you are still talking nonsense, salgare.  Who are the members of these supposed factions?  what do they stand for?  Do you have some published sources?

Ok, lets use the simple case I have referred to a couple times of late; Scott Lloyd, Dan Peterson and Blair Hodges.  I assumed that this whole movement towards a Nuanced Mormonism verses old school orthodoxy was the bases of underlying friction between Dan and Blair.  Do I remember wrong that Blair was Life on a Plate here years back?  Along with the likes of David Bokovoy being accused right here of being wolfs in sheep's clothing.  Once again I assume (hope) the underlying friction is based on theological differences (factions), but well may still stem from hard feelings all the way back to Dan's firing.  And yet here and now, I'm seeing you and this board embracing David (you quoted him quite heavily as well).

"The pattern of Matt Elggren's apostasy ...."

It's not Matt's part of the interview that is of interest, that is why I encouraged listening to the second part (maybe that was in a different thread).  What is interesting is how blatantly ignorant Clay was, three months ago to all the issues.  My perfect definition of a TBM Chapel Mormon.  He is also my definition of an Orthodox Mormon and a man that represents 99% of my local wards Elders/High Priests.  The point of this in relation to this thread is how far off this New Mormonism is from the members I know and whom I presume prevail along the Wasatch Front.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

See how it feels when posts are not specific?

My question was to cinepro, whom I assume had no problem/issues understanding the question

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare

[Gervin]

I'm sure Dr. Aardsma is a great guy, but why you think he represents some mainstream or common thought is strange to me. 

Scientist, Chronologist, and Christian

Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma (shown at right in Israel in June 2000) obtained B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in physics from the University of Guelph in 1978 and 1979 respectively, and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto in 1984. During his Ph.D. studies, and subsequently as an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow, Dr. Aardsma worked in the newly founded field of accelerator mass spectrometry, a field which is now widely employed for radiocarbon and other rare-isotope dating methods.

Physical dating methods such as radiocarbon play an important role in the construction of historical chronologies. Dr. Aardsma's background in physics, and his specialization in radioisotopic dating methods provide him with the tools needed to critically evaluate secular dates and their relationship to biblical chronology.

Dr. Aardsma is not only a physicist and a chronologist, he is also a conservative Christian. His research reflects a high view of both the scientific and the biblical data bearing on any question.

Dr. Aardsma has presented his work on biblical chronology at both scientific and theological conferences. (See for example: Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment.Radiocarbon, Vol 43, No. 3, 2001, p 1247--1254 Proceedings of the 17th International ¹⁴C Conference, edited by H J Bruins, I Carmi, and E Boaretto.)

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...

"False"

I'm here to learn if you are willing to share.  it struck me as being too quickly noted and left at the Givens quote.

"Givens and I are agreeing with David Hume that supernaturalism or miracles can reasonably be doubted, whereas natural law is more reliable.  You completely misunderstood me."

Once again from the false reply above ...it seems this point about the witnesses and the plates dealt with their physical (non-supernatural) nature.  Seeing that its said they saw them with their spiritual eyes we are back to the supernatural, more doubted side of the fence.  Since I've completely missed this, please help me to understand what you were saying.

"Aristotle Smith" was wrong on several counts ...,"

I hesitated putting in the Aristotle quote as it predated and was not related to the historicity issue.  I only brought this up realizing that the mathematics often have an inverse function and wonder if  the multiple hypothesis played in here.  What I'm much more interested in is EAllusion's observations which do inversely contradict your observations.  I noted you did not comment on this? 

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you know HOW MUCH TIME I have spent on you???  You are welcome. 

Gee, I thought this was a discussion forum and that maybe you are here to engage in discussion.  How about you send me a bill and I'll get settled up with you.

I'm certain this old country boy could not possibly have anything to try and share back.  Seeing how valuable your time is, it sounds like you should be that arrogant sane person and ignore me.

"it is my fault that I do not understand your sentences and I owe you to figure it all out? In fact yes we once did communicate and I found our discussions valuable so I persist.  But this is about it.  YOU are the one who asks me questions then criticizes me for not understanding you.  A sane person would have ignored you long ago.  I find this rather manipulative, frankly.  It's my fault that I do not understand your questions?"

As a note, I have spent years on other boards, and with people knowing of my weaknesses are not constantly beating me up.  Their complaints are on grammar and spelling, not understanding.  But apparently your time is too important to deal with this.

"You persist in using the term "orthodox".  I do not know what that means.  There is no such thing.  Perhaps you mean "mistaken".  Perhaps you even mean "believers in the infallibility of BRM"".

Watch the second part of the Clay/Matt interview.  Clay is a true blue orthodox Mormon.  I can not image that you don't sit with a bunch of them every Sunday.  I'm known to wear my heart on my sleeve, I tend to connect and have sympathy and empathy for peoples journies, and hopefully pick up a bit of wisdom from them.  Yes, I should read more in my pursuits of truth, but might I also suggest that you put down the books and look into some faces for truth .... "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

"My whole point is that direct personal revelation is what makes this church what it is, and you conclude I am saying something opposite to that?"

I don't believe I've ever made a statement that would indicate I concluded your whole point is opposite of personal revelation.  That would not be my understanding of you at all.  However you don't speak much of revelation, you speak of;  "things are what you have the faith/belief they are" to put it in country hick as I understand you.  

 

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here's another silly one

Weird canard?

http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html

I did not quote all of EAlusions statement in my post to Robert, here is the whole of it:

"When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince.

The apologists who think they have sound archaeological and linguistic evidence that should convince informed listeners hilariously undersell what they are supposed to be proving. That the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of a heretofore unknown civilization is wild enough, but they also think they have proof of telepathy through careful analysis secular historical evidence. Think about how crazy that sounds for a second. Imagine getting up at a conference and declaring that your linguistic analysis of this pseudo-Biblical tale produced by a 19th century New Yorker demonstrates that telepathy is real."

Is this not what Robert's paper (and Bill Hamblin) was doing?

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

Deleted

Edited January 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[salgare]

answered anyway:

 

"The entire point of Mormonism is that of course it allows all paradigms which do not contradict orthopraxis of a lifestyle of behaving according to what satisfies the temple recommend interview."

there are others from way previous conversations

 

I'm advanced googling your posts at mdb from way back ... I never did follow those threads.  Do you have any that you would recommend where I might see where you stand in contrast to some critics that are knowledgeable in philosophy?

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I did not quote all of EAlusions statement in my post to Robert, here is the whole of it:

"When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince.

The apologists who think they have sound archaeological and linguistic evidence that should convince informed listeners hilariously undersell what they are supposed to be proving. That the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of a heretofore unknown civilization is wild enough, but they also think they have proof of telepathy through careful analysis secular historical evidence. Think about how crazy that sounds for a second. Imagine getting up at a conference and declaring that your linguistic analysis of this pseudo-Biblical tale produced by a 19th century New Yorker demonstrates that telepathy is real."

Is this not what Robert's paper (and Bill Hamblin) was doing?

Huh? What does your response have to do with the quote?

I can't do thjis anymore.

And things are not paradigms.

I wish you well.

[salgare]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh? What does your response have to do with the quote?

I can't do thjis anymore.

And things are not paradigms.

I wish you well.

Your silly example was a Bayesian intuition problem right?  Roberts Links supporting historicity where stating Bayesian analysis as a proof (however as I noted it seemed the inverse of what I've heard).

I've only started reading you on mdb, but so far they are all on the same concept ... proving a negative.  I'm beginning to see this whole Bayesian analysis is critical to New Mormonism.

So far in my reading I'm not going to be missing out much with your arrogant dismissal.  With all the references to Bayesian the last few pages, how could you not understand what my statement had to do with the quote and to the ongoing conversation?

Now I'm really interested to finish reading those old threads.  Perhaps there might be other reasons to your being done with me?

Edited January 26, 2016 by salgare