The State of the Evidence

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Bushman and others have said the "evidence" for BOM, the plates, etc., is evenly divided between for and against. I disagree. I think the evidence is weighted strongly in favor of JS, that he was telling the truth, that there were gold plates, etc. But for the sake of argument, let's say it is perfectly balanced, for and against. What throws the balance one way or the other?

A choice. We make a choice to believe, or not to believe. I believe this is a moral choice, just like the choice one makes to commit adultery, or not commit adultery; to steal or not to steal; to lie or not to lie.

The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided.

It is overwhelmingly against.

What throws the balance one way or the other?

(Everybody, repeat after me . . .)

The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

[bdouglas]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided.

It is overwhelmingly against.

What throws the balance one way or the other?

(Everybody, repeat after me . . .)

The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

Since it is "overwhelmingly against," why are you wasting your time on this board (and others), burning up hundreds of hours, when you could be doing something else...something productive? Is it because you are what Ambrose Bierce called a "disappointed idealist", a disappointed idealist who subsequently turns into a hardened cynic? Or is it because you have a sneaking suspicion you are wrong and are seeking to comfort yourself?

Edited June 28, 2016 by bdouglas

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, bdouglas said:

Since it is "overwhelmingly against," why are you wasting your time on this board (and others), burning up hundreds of hours, when you could be doing something else...something productive? Is it because you are what Ambrose Bierce called a "disappointed idealist", a disappointed idealist who subsequently turns into a hardened cynic? Or is it because you have a sneaking suspicion you are wrong and are seeking to comfort yourself?

What makes you think the time you spend here is productive?

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This is a dumb argument.  So because Joseph Smith produced things that weren't plagiarized, it means he didn't plagiarize other stuff?

 

This is a dumb argument.  What is "extremely suspicious" is a book purporting to have been written by Jews who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. containing verbatim texts from the KJV Bible written after they left.

 

This is a dumb argument.  Because a word or two are changed here or there doesn't make lengthy cribbing from the KJV something other than plagiarism.

This is a dumb argument.  It says nothing about how the KJV of Deutero-Isaiah shows up in the BOM, not to mention the KJV of New Testament passages.

 

But these are the best arguments that FAIR can trot out to answer this smoking gun showing the BOM to be a product of the 19th century.

 

In summary,

 

Would you care to explain how my comments do not apply to you?  You believe the evidence that overwhelmingly proves the BoM is a product of the 19th century stands on its own.  I mean you must, you trotted out South Park and dismissed the best arguments of FAIR as dumb. The books and articles I have read aren't the topic of the thread.  

[drums12]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This is a dumb argument.  So because Joseph Smith produced things that weren't plagiarized, it means he didn't plagiarize other stuff?

 

This is a dumb argument.  What is "extremely suspicious" is a book purporting to have been written by Jews who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. containing verbatim texts from the KJV Bible written after they left.

 

This is a dumb argument.  Because a word or two are changed here or there doesn't make lengthy cribbing from the KJV something other than plagiarism.

This is a dumb argument.  It says nothing about how the KJV of Deutero-Isaiah shows up in the BOM, not to mention the KJV of New Testament passages.

 

But these are the best arguments that FAIR can trot out to answer this smoking gun showing the BOM to be a product of the 19th century.

 

In summary,

 

Would we were all as smart as Consiglieri

[SteveO]

23 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Since it is "overwhelmingly against," why are you wasting your time on this board (and others), burning up hundreds of hours, when you could be doing something else...something productive? Is it because you are what Ambrose Bierce called a "disappointed idealist", a disappointed idealist who subsequently turns into a hardened cynic? Or is it because you have a sneaking suspicion you are wrong and are seeking to comfort yourself?

I don't think he's as certain as he claims either...

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are the one who is not interested in a good faith discussion, Spencer.

It is not good faith to claim that obvious evidence of KJV plagiarism from sources unavailable to the purported authors of the Book of Mormon is evidence "in favor of the books' historicity."

I did not just call the arguments dumb.  I showed why they are dumb.

What you have not done is to show why they are not dumb.

I can understand your desire to bow out at this point.

So neither of us thinks that the other wants to have a good faith discussion. Okay. So let's not try to have a discussion. A presumption of good faith is lacking bilaterally.

[bdouglas]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What makes you think the time you spend here is productive?

There is a difference between a doubter who comes to this forum with sincere questions, and someone who is simply tossing grenades. You are simply amusing yourself by tossing grenades … or so you come across to me.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided.

It is overwhelmingly against.

What throws the balance one way or the other?

(Everybody, repeat after me . . .)

The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

I think the point people are trying to make is that, though this throws the balance off for you, it doesn't for other people.  Because evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true or false.

One of my history professor's favorite things to make us do was to read a whole bunch of primary and secondary sources on a subject and then divide us up and make us argue pro or con for some historical event using only those sources.  After we had all become thoroughly entrenched in our positions (it sometimes got quite heated) he would make us all switch positions and use the sources to argue the other side. (Stuff like, whether or not Troy existed or whether or not privates in the German army were responsible for the Holocaust, etc.)

Without exception we were able to do so.  It was a good lesson in how subjective history and 'evidence' for historical issues really are.  How we interpret the sources we have is based on a lot of different stuff and personal bias is always a part of that.  It doesn't mean we are wrong, but it does mean that there is no such thing as 'it's obvious that this evidence must mean....'

[consiglieri]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the point people are trying to make is that, though this throws the balance off for you, it doesn't for other people.  Because evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true or false.

 

There is no way to reasonably conclude that this particular evidence is anything but unhelpful to claims of BOM historicity.

 

As an old professor of mine used to say:

I love you.

But I must be brutal.

[consiglieri]

17 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I don't think he's as certain as he claims either...

Of course I must be a closet believer who only makes these claims to conceal what I really know to be true.

Get real.

My certainty or lack thereof has nothing to do with the evidence.

And the evidence is stacked against claims of exclusive Book of Mormon historicity.

Unless that historicity is grounded primarily in the 19th century.

[bluebell]

Just now, consiglieri said:

There is no way to reasonably conclude that this particular evidence is anything but unhelpful to claims of BOM historicity.

 

As an old professor of mine used to say:

I love you.

But I must be brutal.

I disagree.  I think there are ways, and in fact, different ways have been presented on this thread.

[James Tunney]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  I think there are ways, and in fact, different ways have been presented on this thread.

I think you have to consciously disregard the evidence at this point in order to believe in historicity. It seems to work for my brother, a counselor in a stake presidency. However, he overtly chooses to avoid the issue to maintain his belief. I gotta agree with Consiglieri on this one.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think you have to consciously disregard the evidence at this point in order to believe in historicity. It seems to work for my brother, a counselor in a stake presidency. However, he overtly chooses to avoid the issue to maintain his belief. I gotta agree with Consiglieri on this one.

I don't believe so.  I think the belief that your interpretation of the evidence is the only logical one is more a reflection of your bias than it is of reality. 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/27/2016 at 2:44 PM, James Tunney said:

My brother has a similar way to view it.  He says the history doesn't matter to him so he won't even engage in it because it is a waste of time to do so.  His testimony like those you cite takes precedence. He is in the stake presidency in his stake and I wonder if that is a new apologetic being used?

No, it is apologetics finally catching up to what has been clearly understood in philosophy now for 200 years, back to Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, all of phenomenology and pragmatism and linguistic analysis philosophy, and of course Wittgenstein.  Language can only yield interpretations of other linguistic statements, and never get beyond linguistic interpretations

That's about all there is.

Read my various siggys

Edited June 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[SteveO]

49 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Of course I must be a closet believer who only makes these claims to conceal what I really know to be true.

Get real.

My certainty or lack thereof has nothing to do with the evidence.

And the evidence is stacked against claims of exclusive Book of Mormon historicity.

Unless that historicity is grounded primarily in the 19th century.

You make the claim that the evidence is overwhelming.  Smac presented alternative views that allows for a belief in the contrary.  You deride and call his presentation dumb.  You gave "reasons" for why they were dumb.  Really what they were, were reasons for why you think they were dumb.  I think the reasons you gave were dumb.  And I don't believe the evidence is overwhelming. You may think I am dumb.  We probably think the other is dumb.  But neither of us is as certain of their own position regarding the evidence as the other.  You DO NOT KNOW the methods of Mormon/Moroni in the abridgment process.  YOU DO NOT KNOW the process Joseph used when he came upon the Isaiah chapters in the BoM.  YOU DO NOT KNOW for certain the chronology of Near East writings especially since that chronology is based largely off Egyptian chronology--which I've mentioned has been in question recently.  YOU DO NOT KNOW these things for certain.  And because you do not know, I am not dumb, nor do I choose to consciously disregard the facts.  I choose to believe in a different outcome when presented with evidence. Just as you do.

Do you get it now?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I think you have to consciously disregard the evidence at this point in order to believe in historicity. It seems to work for my brother, a counselor in a stake presidency. However, he overtly chooses to avoid the issue to maintain his belief. I gotta agree with Consiglieri on this one.

Funny, that.  I think there is substantial and compelling evidence in favor of the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

There are oodles of people on this board who are very, very familiar with the evidence, pro and con, and who strongly believe in The Book of Mormon.  And there are also people who are similarly informed but go diametrically the other way.  

I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

I can, and generally do, grant a presumption of good faith and intelligence and honesty to people who "go diametrically the other way."  My position relative to The Book of Mormon is not contingent on publicly accusing other people who disagree with me of intellectual or moral dishonesty.

Bluebell is spot on in her remarks about subjectivity inherent in evaluating historical issues, particularly controversial historical issues (such as the provenance of The Book of Mormon).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 29, 2016 by smac97

[James Tunney]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe so.  I think the belief that your interpretation of the evidence is the only logical one is more a reflection of your bias than it is of reality. 

Well, I guess anyone can choose their own reality where whatever they believe is real is real.  However, at a certain point belief in a given reality becomes an absurdity.  I'm sure you look at other religions that way.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/27/2016 at 2:58 PM, Storm Rider said:

I do not believe in Jesus because I see his cross, or walk in the same trail he walked.  I believe in Christ because I came to know him.  I don't believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet or in the Book of Mormon as scripture because I "know" they existed, but because I also came to know them.  

Sorry but this is a very chilling, sobering, expression, coming from a sincere guy. I can absolutely not relate to.....

I mean I can relate to instances in my life I lost huge amount (in less than 30mi 20K) due to my belief...And the money was gone....I could not believe how well they played me...Yes it hurt deeply losing that cool 20K in less than half hour but it was such a perfect set up. 

Anyway, deep down I realize the lesson I learned was immeasurable and the best part was that I could return the way I was.....

[James Tunney]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny, that.  I think there is substantial and compelling evidence in favor of the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

There are oodles of people on this board who are very, very familiar with the evidence, pro and con, and who strongly believe in The Book of Mormon.  And there are also people who are similarly informed but go diametrically the other way.  

I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

I can, and generally do, grant a presumption of good faith and intelligence and honesty to people who "go diametrically the other way."  My position relative to The Book of Mormon is contingent on publicly accusing other people who disagree with me of intellectual or moral dishonesty.

Bluebell is spot on in her remarks about subjectivity inherent in evaluating historical issues, particularly controversial historical issues (such as the provenance of The Book of Mormon).

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you believe that God spoke to Joseph Smith through the seer stone?  I have a hard time with that one especially when he used the same rock to claim he could find buried treasures that would always slip away.  Sure reasonable minds can and do differ regarding evidence.  However, I submit if you put yourself into the place of an outsider non-member, you would have to claim that historicity is implausible given the origins of the book.  Also, given the origins, it is not surprising that there is a dearth of evidence for historicity.  However, is that the end of things?  Surely the book of mormon has a good effect on people like you.  Could you accept it if it were considered inspired fiction?

[smac97]

On 6/28/2016 at 7:40 PM, James Tunney said:

Do you believe that God spoke to Joseph Smith through the seer stone? 

I'm not familiar with this claim.  I believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone while translating The Book of Mormon.  The mechanism by which it worked is, AFAIK, unknown to us.  Could you clarify your question?

Quote

I have a hard time with that one especially when he used the same rock to claim he could find buried treasures that would always slip away. 

I can understand and respect your discomfort with the concept of physical artifacts being used in a way authorized by God.  To its credit, the Church is being pretty open about this:

Quote

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”18 As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19 As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.20

___

19. According to Martin Harris, an angel commanded Joseph Smith to stop these activities, which he did by 1826. (See Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 64–76; and Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching,” BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [Fall 1984]: 489–560.) Joseph did not hide his well-known early involvement in treasure seeking. In 1838, he published responses to questions frequently asked of him. “Was not Jo Smith a money digger,” one question read. “Yes,” Joseph answered, “but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” (Selections from Elders’ Journal, July 1838, 43, available at josephsmithpapers.org.) For the broader cultural context, see Alan Taylor, “The Early Republic’s Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780–1830,” American Quarterly 38, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 6–33.

It's not like we Mormons are the only ones called upon to believe in things that may rankle the mind of someone raised in the secular 21st century.  Moses used the Rod of Aaron for both divine purposes (to part the Red Sea) and for purposes for which it was not intended, but which still apparently had a miraculous effect (Moses used it to strike the stone at Meribah, from which water burst forth).  And then there's Manna, and the Brazen Serpent, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the floating axe head, and the Urim and Thummim, the Savior's spittle mud.  These all seem rather . . . weird to think about as I sit in my living room while typing this on a laptop.

Quote

Sure reasonable minds can and do differ regarding evidence.  However, I submit if you put yourself into the place of an outsider non-member, you would have to claim that historicity is implausible given the origins of the book. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "given the origins of the book."  The origins of the book are in dispute.  Front and center.  There is no consensus about its origins, so we cannot take those origins as a "given."

The claim to historicity has evidence both for and against.  I readily acknowledge this.  

Quote

Also, given the origins, it is not surprising that there is a dearth of evidence for historicity. 

But I don't think there is a "dearth of evidence for historicity."  I think such evidence exists.  

Quote

However, is that the end of things?  Surely the book of mormon has a good effect on people like you.  Could you accept it if it were considered inspired fiction?

I don't think so.  The book is not presented as "fiction," either in its content or by Joseph Smith.  To call it "inspired fiction" is to reject what the book and Joseph claim it to be.  

I will elucidate: Historicity matters vis-à-vis The Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel.  It is an essential component of my faith. On this point I agree with Joseph Smith, who said (emphases added): "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."

The historicity of God, the "idea that he actually exists," is a dealmaker for me.  The absence of it is a dealbreaker.  If God does exist, then I can continue with an inquiry as to His "character, perfections, and attributes," His relationship to and plan for us, and so on.  But if God does not exist, if He's just a piece of "fiction" that makes people feel good, then I would not stay in the LDS Church.  

Similarly, I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity.   The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly.  As President Hinckley put it (speaking broadly of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling): "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

My view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture.  Consider the following observations (emphases added):

• Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)
• In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I agree with these sentiments.  I think historicity is integral to meaningful acceptance of The Book of Mormon, of Joseph Smtih, and of the Restored Gospel generally.

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2016 by smac97

[Nevo]

Here's a quick recap of the last two pages of this thread:

consiglieri: ...Making the matter even more conclusive from my point of view are the KJV passages that date from the time after Lehi left Jerusalem, and could therefore not have been found on the brass plates. Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages fall into this latter category.

smac97: FairMormon has some interesting stuff about the KJV quotations in The Book of Mormon… [multiple quotes are cited that say nothing at all about Deutero-Isaiah or New Testament passages] …It seems like there is plenty of room for principled disagreement about why The Book of Mormon excerpts the KJV.  Not much of a smoking gun, methinks.

consiglieri: This is a dumb argument.  It says nothing about how the KJV of Deutero-Isaiah shows up in the BOM, not to mention the KJV of New Testament passages.

smac97: If I thought you were interested in a good faith discussion, I would respond.  But I don't, so I won't.

bdouglas: Bushman and others have said the evidence for BOM, the plates, etc., is evenly divided between for and against. I disagree. I think the evidence is weighted strongly in favor of JS, that he was telling the truth, that there were gold plates, etc.

consiglieri: The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided. It is overwhelmingly against. What throws the balance one way or the other? (Everybody, repeat after me . . .) The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

bluebell: I think the point people are trying to make is that, though this throws the balance off for you, it doesn't for other people. Because evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true or false.

consiglieri: There is no way to reasonably conclude that this particular evidence is anything but unhelpful to claims of BOM historicity.

bluebell: I disagree. I think there are ways, and in fact, different ways have been presented on this thread.

------------------------------------------

LOL. Yeah, I guess you could say that different ways of accounting for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon have been presented in this thread. I can count three: 

1. Ignoring the problem and then, when challenged, leaving the conversation (smac97)
2. Bearing testimony (bdouglas)
3. Stating that evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything (bluebell)

Any others that I missed?

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Nevo

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Nevo said:

LOL. Yeah, I guess you could say that different ways of accounting for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon have been presented in this thread. I can count three: 

1. Ignoring the problem and then, when challenged, heading for the doors (smac97)
2. Bearing testimony (bdouglas)
3. Stating that evidence doesn't actually prove anything (bluebell)

Any others that I missed?

I haven't read the thread (I've been gone for the last two weeks to girl's and Scout camp), but from the above synopsis, I would say that you missed:

4. The evidence for Deutero and Trito-Isaiah cited is not as cut-and-dried as some (and apparently you, also) claim. I'm sure you're familiar with Sidney B. Sperry's survey of the scholarly debate surrounding this. As I have read many of these scholars' arguments myself, I agree with Sperry that their reasons for arguing in favor of multiple Isaiahs *always* stem from a complete denial of the existence or possibility of actual predictive prophecy. A corollary to this is the stylistic arguments, where scholars argue what could or could not have been written by Isaiah (a favorite is that the exuberance and jubilation of Deutero-Isaiah must have been written by someone other than Isaiah, because he couldn't have written in that tone (even though he is writing of the Second Coming and other such topics). 

I may be misreading your point 3, but it seems that you are lumping bluebell with point 1, like she, too, is burying her head in the sand and ignoring "evidence." As for me, I am well aware of the evidence cited, but find it to be absolutely unconvincing and unpersuasive.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Nevo said:

LOL. Yeah, I guess you could say that different ways of accounting for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon have been presented in this thread. I can count three: 

1. Ignoring the problem and then, when challenged, leaving the conversation (smac97)
2. Bearing testimony (bdouglas)
3. Stating that evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything (bluebell)

Any others that I missed?

 

First, I don't think the topic was specifically about "the presence of Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon," but about KJV quotations in the BOM generally.

Second, I provided several links to resources which discuss this issue in some depth, which links you have ignored.

Third, I refrained from responding to HJW's snide cheapshot about matters I hold sacred.  That's hardly equivalent to "leaving the conversation."

Fourth, I also withdrew, as I often do, from efforts to interact with Consig.  His endless provocateur schtick is just stale.  

Fifth, despite refraining from responding to HJW and Consig, I have continued to participate in this thread by responding to James Tunney and, now, you.  So I haven't really left the conversation.

Sixth, you've contributed nothing of substance.  Just a drive-by.  No analysis.  No thoughts.  No reasoning.  No research.  No citation to references.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Here's a quick recap of the last two pages of this thread:

consiglieri: ...Making the matter even more conclusive from my point of view are the KJV passages that date from the time after Lehi left Jerusalem, and could therefore not have been found on the brass plates. Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages fall into this latter category.

smac97: FairMormon has some interesting stuff about the KJV quotations in The Book of Mormon… [multiple quotes are cited that say nothing at all about Deutero-Isaiah or New Testament passages] …It seems like there is plenty of room for principled disagreement about why The Book of Mormon excerpts the KJV.  Not much of a smoking gun, methinks.

consiglieri: This is a dumb argument.  It says nothing about how the KJV of Deutero-Isaiah shows up in the BOM, not to mention the KJV of New Testament passages.

smac97: If I thought you were interested in a good faith discussion, I would respond.  But I don't, so I won't.

bdouglas: Bushman and others have said the evidence for BOM, the plates, etc., is evenly divided between for and against. I disagree. I think the evidence is weighted strongly in favor of JS, that he was telling the truth, that there were gold plates, etc.

consiglieri: The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided. It is overwhelmingly against. What throws the balance one way or the other? (Everybody, repeat after me . . .) The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

bluebell: I think the point people are trying to make is that, though this throws the balance off for you, it doesn't for other people. Because evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true or false.

consiglieri: There is no way to reasonably conclude that this particular evidence is anything but unhelpful to claims of BOM historicity.

bluebell: I disagree. I think there are ways, and in fact, different ways have been presented on this thread.

------------------------------------------

LOL. Yeah, I guess you could say that different ways of accounting for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon have been presented in this thread. I can count three: 

1. Ignoring the problem and then, when challenged, leaving the conversation (smac97)
2. Bearing testimony (bdouglas)
3. Stating that evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything (bluebell)

Any others that I missed?

 

I don't think that was what bluebell was saying.  An imperfect analogy for what I believe her point was...when two people look at a picture of a circle you can't see and one person says it is blue and the other person says it is purple, both are presenting their personal interpretation as evidence and there is no objective way to prove one right and the other is wrong...perhaps they are both wrong due to some weird form of colourblindness, perhaps both are right because they just use the same name for different colours....no, I mean the reverse.  Bottom line is we can only deal with their interpretation and unless we know all the subjective reasonings that have gone into much of the concluding, it may be best to allow that the other person may have very good reason to believe that way.

There are some cases in recent history that I think are clear cut, but I would still listen to a claim at least once to see if there was any reason to seriously consider it.  I feel grateful there are still a few things in life no one immediately around is going to argue with me (no 911 conspiracy believers or holocaust deniers in my family and friend circuit, though I have to bite my tongue when it gets to politics when I think somethings should be obvious to anyone that a certain politician is a fraud; the both nice and horrible thing about that claim is that it could be pretty much either/any party this year I am talking about so everyone can agree with me, we just happen to be thinking of different people).

Someone mentioned the possibilty that the DI timing was off due to basing it on Egyptian timelines that are now apparently suspect.  This seems a logical challenge if based on credible claims, which I have no clue about.