Kenngo1969 Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, canard78 said: I'd like to think the Book of Mormon and least has a little more evidence than the existence of Leprechauns. There are people who believe in Leprechauns apparently... maybe they have their own John Sorenson. Paddy O'Mally or something. I believe there is, indeed, more evidence for the genuineness of the Book of Mormon than there is for the existence of leprechauns. (Each of us is his own trier of fact in that regard: He determines what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, what weight he will give to any given piece of evidence admitted, and so on.) My point, in case you were confused (which I highly doubt, although perhaps I'm giving you entirely too much credit and you do tend to become easily confused, in which case I apologize ) is not that there is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of leprechauns as there is for the genuineness of the Book of Mormon: rather, it's simply that one can, baldly, assert anything (just as I, baldly, asserted that Video Game Junkie may be a leprechaun). However, neither my bald assertion nor any of those proffered by the purveyors of the The Bible vs. The Book Mormon video, standing alone, is enough to make the case. P.S.: And Video Game Junkie, try this one on for size: http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/The_Bible_vs_The_Book_of_Mormon Edited March 4, 2016 by Kenngo1969 1
USU78 Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 On 3/3/2016 at 7:55 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Anti-Mormon is a pajorative... Which is a bad thing because it isn't accurate? Or is there another reason? 1
Gray Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 5 hours ago, deli_llama said: Ahhh, 'hard' science and 'soft' science, there's a difference? To be fair, there are some aspects of anthropology where some empirical research can, or might, be performed. But even that is still debated. Still, I can't think of anything in the video that was proof of anything. And, and, then there is the time you woke up and realized that you must be in Bizzaro World. A world where one of the 'hard-est' sciences had flopped and was 'softer' than anthropology. For example: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/science-faction-is-theoretical-physics-becoming-softer-than-anthropology/ . So, maybe the video is proof of something in Bizzaro World? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against drawing conclusions based on evidence. But evidence is really the right word here. Where does the evidence point to? It's reasonable to come to conclusions based on evidence, but proof is too strong a word for this topic, IMO.
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 On 3/3/2016 at 6:59 PM, Calm said: This podcast answers some of the claims of the video: Bible vs Book of Mormon is just another pathetic video, FairMormon should tackle tougher criticisms.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 55 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Bible vs Book of Mormon is just another pathetic video, FairMormon should tackle tougher criticisms. The very existence of this thread is evidence that perhaps The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon and its effect isn't as insignificant as you would have us believe. And why do I suspect that, with respect to FAIRMormon's treatment of so-called "tougher criticisms," your response is an indifferent shrug and a "Meh. That's all they got"?
Gervin Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, cdowis said: Professional archaeologists (non-LDS) are very ignorance of the text of that "book delivered by an angel." that pretty much sums it up for me: non-LDS archaeologists are very ignorance Edited March 4, 2016 by Gervin
deli_llama Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: Don't get me wrong, I'm not against drawing conclusions based on evidence. But evidence is really the right word here. Where does the evidence point to? It's reasonable to come to conclusions based on evidence, but proof is too strong a word for this topic, IMO. I very much agree with you. Sorry if I appeared to not too.
cinepro Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, cdowis said: "coin" == a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money. "money" == something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment I actually checked you out by looking in the dictionary. The weights and measures described in the BOM does not require that they be "coins", e.g. a packet or poke of metal. Indeed, again looking in the dictionary, "packet" == (British) the money paid regularly to a person for labor or services. Cinepro, it really does make sense. They were not coins, but units of money. This is really tiresome. You could have looked this up for yourself. Fair enough. Let's go with the 1828 definition: Quote COIN, noun Primarily, the die employed for stamping money. Hence, 1. Money stamped; a piece of metal, as gold, silver, copper, or other metal, converted into money, by impressing on it marks, figures or characters. To make good money, these impressions must be made under the authority of government. That which is stamped without authority is called false or counterfeit coin Formerly, all coin was made by hammering; but it is now impressed by a machine or mill. Current coin is coin legally stamped and circulating in trade. Ancient coins are chiefly those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans, which are kept in cabinets as curiosities. 3. That which serves for payment. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/coin I think the key point is whether or not the "weights and measures" for the metals described in Alma 11 were uniquely identifiable. For example, if I give you a US silver dollar, its face value identifies is as a "weight and measure" of one dollar worth of silver (setting aside appreciation and debasement of course). Now, if I give you a small lump of silver and say "this is one dollar", you're probably not going to take my word for it. You are going to have it weighed and the purity checked. The "dollar" may be a value, and it may serve as an indicator of the "weight and measure" of the lump of silver, but the name that I give the silver ("dollar") isn't useful to you. And what if I give you six lumps of silver and say "these are all worth a dollar"? How do you know. You have to have them verified. This is the point of having coins. They are uniquely identifiable, uniform pieces of metal, where their distinct appearance indicates their value without needing to be verified. That's what a coin is. Now read this description: Quote 4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/11?lang=eng If that sounds like "senum" and "onti" were just measures (like "pound" or "ounce"), and you could have a "senum" of rice, or rocks, or dirt, then fine. But to me, it sounds like this specific unit of this specific metal is given this specific name, and it is uniform in such a way that it is easily identifiable. Which to me, is the definition of a "coin". Edited March 4, 2016 by cinepro 1
USU78 Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 45 minutes ago, cinepro said: Fair enough. Let's go with the 1828 definition: I think the key point is whether or not the "weights and measures" for the metals described in Alma 11 were uniquely identifiable. For example, if I give you a US silver dollar, its face value identifies is as a "weight and measure" of one dollar worth of silver (setting aside appreciation and debasement of course). Now, if I give you a small lump of silver and say "this is one dollar", you're probably not going to take my word for it. You are going to have it weighed and the purity checked. The "dollar" may be a value, and it may serve as an indicator of the "weight and measure" of the lump of silver, but the name that I give the silver ("dollar") isn't useful to you. And what if I give you six lumps of silver and say "these are all worth a dollar"? How do you know. You have to have them verified. This is the point of having coins. They are uniquely identifiable, uniform pieces of metal, where their distinct appearance indicates their value without needing to be verified. That's what a coin is. Now read this description: If that sounds like "senum" and "onti" were just measures (like "pound" or "ounce"), and you could have a "senum" of rice, or rocks, or dirt, then fine. But to me, it sounds like this specific unit of this specific metal is given this specific name, and it is uniform in such a way that it is easily identifiable. Which to me, is the definition of a "coin". Is a shekel a coin or a measure? Depends upon when we are asking the question, doesn't it? The "Temple Shekel" during First Temple days: was it the same as the weight being determined by the moneychangers at the time of Christ? In our own past, people cut up silver dollars into 8 pieces called "bits." Since the cutting process was imprecise, the weight of silver in each bit or a handful of bits overrode the otherwise agreed-upon value of 12-1/2 cents per bit. And since the unscrupulous shaved off the edges of coins in order to "mine" every penny of value that could be "mined" out of each coin, our coinage today has "bumpy" outer edges. Why does the Master take so much time speaking to the issue of correct measures/weights? It's because, like the Nephite system, the weight of a quantity of precious metal has a spot price equivalent to an agreed-upon volume/number of agricultural products. How much barley is a silver onti worth? Doesn't have to be a coin. Just because people made the assumption about the text that they were talking about coins and not weights, doesn't mean we're bound to uphold their mistaken belief about the text. 2
cdowis Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) OK, you have made the point that a piece of sheep dung is a "coin" as long as its value is verified and is accepted as payment. Brilliant! Edited March 4, 2016 by cdowis
cinepro Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, cdowis said: OK, you have made the point that a piece of sheep dung is a "coin" as long as it's value is verified and is accepted as payment. Brilliant! Well, the fact that the Book of Mormon also specifies these as being metal pieces also helps. You don't have to be brilliant to figure that out.
cinepro Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 47 minutes ago, USU78 said: Is a shekel a coin or a measure? Depends upon when we are asking the question, doesn't it? The "Temple Shekel" during First Temple days: was it the same as the weight being determined by the moneychangers at the time of Christ? In our own past, people cut up silver dollars into 8 pieces called "bits." Since the cutting process was imprecise, the weight of silver in each bit or a handful of bits overrode the otherwise agreed-upon value of 12-1/2 cents per bit. And since the unscrupulous shaved off the edges of coins in order to "mine" every penny of value that could be "mined" out of each coin, our coinage today has "bumpy" outer edges. Why does the Master take so much time speaking to the issue of correct measures/weights? It's because, like the Nephite system, the weight of a quantity of precious metal has a spot price equivalent to an agreed-upon volume/number of agricultural products. How much barley is a silver onti worth? Doesn't have to be a coin. Just because people made the assumption about the text that they were talking about coins and not weights, doesn't mean we're bound to uphold their mistaken belief about the text. That's fine. Obviously, you can read it however you want (or need to). I'm just pointing out why some people might understand that Alma 11 is describing metal coins. Of course, I strongly suspect that if metal coins were ever found in mesoamerica, then we'd hear a chorus of "Hey, it's the coins that were described in Alma 11!" (as opposed to "It looks like this isn't a viable theory for Book of Mormon geography because coins weren't used in the BOM, so these obviously aren't BOM peoples...")
USU78 Posted March 4, 2016 Posted March 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: That's fine. Obviously, you can read it however you want (or need to). I'm just pointing out why some people might understand that Alma 11 is describing metal coins. Of course, I strongly suspect that if metal coins were ever found in mesoamerica, then we'd hear a chorus of "Hey, it's the coins that were described in Alma 11!" (as opposed to "It looks like this isn't a viable theory for Book of Mormon geography because coins weren't used in the BOM, so these obviously aren't BOM peoples...") Speculate all you want. But don't do damage to the text by oversimplification or taking it too far in support of your theory. In defense of those who made the assumption that the text referred to coinage, we have to allow that the text is not damaged by that assumption ... it just doesn't necessarily require a reading of onti as coin. Accordingly, should we find Mosiah II's face on a 7-onti silver coin, that would not do damage to the text. Since coinage has been unearthed in Mesopotamia going back several thousand years BCE, it's not unthinkable that coinage might have had some limited or even wide-spread useage amongst Mesoamerican city-states and their environs. Haven't seen any. Don't expect to. Don't need to to have the BoM be a legitimate artifact of its claimed milieu. 1
cdowis Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, cinepro said: That's fine. Obviously, you can read it however you want (or need to). I'm just pointing out why some people might understand that Alma 11 is describing metal coins. My copy of the BOM describes it as pieces of metal. Of course, I strongly suspect that if metal coins were ever found in mesoamerica, then we'd hear a chorus of "Hey, it's the coins that were described in Alma 11!" (as opposed Of course, and I would be the first to say, "I told you so. After all, coins ARE pieces of metal, are they not." Peterson's three steps of accepting a BOM discovery 1. Impossible, absurd. 2. Well, I have to admit that it is possible, but very unlikely. Show me a peer-reviewed article. 3. After it's accepted, "I told you so." Edited March 5, 2016 by cdowis
cdowis Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, cinepro said: You don't have to be brilliant to figure that out. I'm using British slang. Waiter: "Are you ready to order?" Customer: "err, yes..." Waiter: "Brilliant!!!" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brilliant Edited March 5, 2016 by cdowis
Jim Stiles Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 On 3/3/2016 at 11:53 AM, thesometimesaint said: CFR Was this directed at me? What would you like me to show? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/faith/ci_7403990 Quote The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites. The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 On 3/3/2016 at 8:27 AM, Jim Stiles said: I have watched the first 8 minutes of this video, there is a alot of neo-orthodoxy when it comes to the discussion of metals in the Book of Mormon. Steel during Joseph Smith Jr.'s time was basically what it is now: an alloy of iron and carbon with a carbon content less than 2.1%. More neo-orthodoxy about chariots. Some of the Nahom nonsense; the inscription was NHM. Claims that the LDS church stated that the Lamanites were not the only people in the Americas, yet the old version of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites were the primary ancestors of the Native Americans. "Neo-orthodoxy"? Please. What is that supposed to be? Have you ever heard of an open canon? Do we really have to do the definition of doctrine routine all over again? I thought we were done with that.
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 I really do not understand why non-members come here and relate all the same arguments a hundred times, which we have refuted every single time, and each one acts as if we have never heard these arguments, and they are novel geniuses who will now enable us to drop the chains of our cult and be led to Christ by their brilliance. Gosh, it gets old. I don't know why I get so riled up over it. It is the repetition I suppose. We should just send them to the previous 93 threads that already answered their question 93 times before. We need an index of best threads on a topic. 2
Jim Stiles Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: "Neo-orthodoxy"? Please. What is that supposed to be? Have you ever heard of an open canon? Do we really have to do the definition of doctrine routine all over again? I thought we were done with that. The following contain good definitions and descriptions of traditional Neo-orthodoxy: http://www.theopedia.com/neo-orthodoxy http://www.gotquestions.org/neoorthodoxy.html Mormon Neo-orthodoxy is a term used by evangelicals to describe the word games employed by LDS apologists to do what they see as papering over the apparent contradictions and paradoxes in the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. O. Kendall White wrote a book entitled: Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology. The following is a review: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/MSR/article/viewFile/31876/30123 The book is available on Amazon and Signature Books. Traditional Neo-orthodoxy developed as a response to the shock and horror of World War I by those theologians who had promoted liberal progressivism before the war. Evangelical observers believe that Mormon Neo-orthodoxy developed from the crisis between the apparent truth claims of the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture and the results of modern anthropology and other modern sciences. As I type this, I am listening to a Celtic version of the Dr. Who theme song. Yes, I have heard of the idea of an Open Canon. It is what separates evangelical Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Pentecostalism. I reject the idea of an Open Canon. Of the many different books that have been written, I see none that merit inclusion in the canon of scripture of the Christian faith.
Jim Stiles Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I really do not understand why non-members come here and relate all the same arguments a hundred times, which we have refuted every single time, and each one acts as if we have never heard these arguments, and they are novel geniuses who will now enable us to drop the chains of our cult and be led to Christ by their brilliance. Gosh, it gets old. I don't know why I get so riled up over it. It is the repetition I suppose. We should just send them to the previous 93 threads that already answered their question 93 times before. We need an index of best threads on a topic. I have yet to see a refutation of a single good argument. A reference to mormonhaven.com does not constitute a refutation.
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The following contain good definitions and descriptions of traditional Neo-orthodoxy: http://www.theopedia.com/neo-orthodoxy http://www.gotquestions.org/neoorthodoxy.html Mormon Neo-orthodoxy is a term used by evangelicals to describe the word games employed by LDS apologists to do what they see as papering over the apparent contradictions and paradoxes in the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. O. Kendall White wrote a book entitled: Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology. The following is a review: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/MSR/article/viewFile/31876/30123 The book is available on Amazon and Signature Books. Traditional Neo-orthodoxy developed as a response to the shock and horror of World War I by those theologians who had promoted liberal progressivism before the war. Evangelical observers believe that Mormon Neo-orthodoxy developed from the crisis between the apparent truth claims of the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture and the results of modern anthropology and other modern sciences. As I type this, I am listening to a Celtic version of the Dr. Who theme song. Yes, I have heard of the idea of an Open Canon. It is what separates evangelical Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Pentecostalism. I reject the idea of an Open Canon. Of the many different books that have been written, I see none that merit inclusion in the canon of scripture of the Christian faith. Yes I know. I am a postmodernist. I do not accept the term. It is an EV thing. It presumes "orthodoxy" in the first place, and we have no orthodoxy. We have orthopraxis. Edited March 5, 2016 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 And you apparently have not read the review. Lou Midgley is no believer in Mormon "neo-orthodoxy". You should know that anyway, if you allege to know about Mormonism. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: I have yet to see a refutation of a single good argument. A reference to mormonhaven.com does not constitute a refutation. I am not responsible for what you have not seen, nor am I responsible for educating you. All of these questions have been answered here many times,use the search function I have tried to engage you many times before and you never respond to difficult questions about your beliefs. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time Edited March 5, 2016 by mfbukowski
Jim Stiles Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I am not responsible for what you have not seen, nor am I responsible for educating you. All of these questions have been answered here many times,use the search function I have tried to engage you many times before and you never respond to difficult questions about your beliefs. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time What difficult questions? Citations of Bart Ehrman do not hold a lot of water with me. Especially when you do not ask him for his opinion of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
Jim Stiles Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes I know. I am a postmodernist. I do not accept the term. It is an EV thing. It presumes "orthodoxy" in the first place, and we have no orthodoxy. We have orthopraxis. Ask an LDS missionary about the Adam God Theory and see what kind of response one gets? If there is no concept of correct thinking, then there is no reason to believe what the LDS church teaches about correct practice.
Recommended Posts