The State of the Evidence

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

And should one expect all the common KJV errors to show up in the BoM?  For an impartial outsider looking in, it is not a matter of the lack of evidence supporting the BoM that is the problem.  It his the mountain of facts that make a rational belief in the BoM as an ancient document laughable. Best go with the inspired fiction theory.  That is about all that is left.

I gave you a rep point for your support of impartiality, even though there is nothing in your posts to indicate any commitment to impartiality.  At least, however, you give lip service to the concept of being fair and impartial.  Would that you could put the concept into practice.

Meantime, perhaps you could provide a source or sources for that pretended "mountain of facts" which make the BofM "laughable" and no more than "inspired fiction."  Perhaps you are referring to that vast assemblage of first rate scholarly material from Jerald & Sandra Tanner.  

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your remark is absurd and deals with nothing in the links I posted.  

You would find it offensive if someone said you are in denial that your claimed experience with the Holy Ghost is simply an emotional brain stimulated chemical response would you not.

Denial is denial.  That is obvious to disinterested third parties.  Atheism is a belief system, as with any other belief system.  That you deny it merely hurts your credibility.  It also harms your own status as a well integrated personality.  Why would you find it offensive to face reality?

I do not, by the way, find it at all offensive when some neuroscientists claim that any spiritual experience is no more than "an emotional brain stimulated chemical response."

[Kevin Christensen]

A particularly interesting essay with implications for the Book of Mormon translation's dependence on the KJV is Thomas A. Wayment in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:1 (2005,) "The Hebrew Text of Alma 7:11".    

 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/14/1/S00011-50be6caa520dc9Wayment.pdf

Wayment observes that the KJV for Isaiah 53:4 has "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" which is what we also have in Mosiah 14:4 as an explicit Isaiah quotation.  Matthew 8:17, KJV quoting Isaiah 53:4 has "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses".

Alma 7:11 has "and that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of the people,"  which is a more literal translation, actually closer to the MT Hebrew than either the KJV Isaiah 53 or Matthew.  Waymont concludes that this is so because in this case Joseph Smith didn't recognize the passage as an Isaiah quotation, and so translated more literally, rather than relying the KJV.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Denial is denial.  That is obvious to disinterested third parties.  Atheism is a belief system, as with any other belief system.  That you deny it merely hurts your credibility.  It also harms your own status as a well integrated personality.  Why would you find it offensive to face reality?

I do not, by the way, find it at all offensive when some neuroscientists claim that any spiritual experience is no more than "an emotional brain stimulated chemical response."

First Robert I am not an atheist. Next atheism is not a belief system.   The fact that you incist it is demonstrats your either your ignorance or your poor apologetics.   This it is your credibility that suffers not mine because you are clearly in error.  I am not offended at all by your position. It simply demonstrates how desperate apologists of faith systems are. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

First Robert I am not an atheist. Next atheism is not a belief system.   The fact that you incist it is demonstrats your either your ignorance or your poor apologetics.   This it is your credibility that suffers not mine because you are clearly in error.  I am not offended at all by your position. It simply demonstrates how desperate apologists of faith systems are. 

You remind me very much of the evangelicals who often engage in the apologetics of denial.  In your case, you provide a perfect example of atheistic apologetics, using tortuous double-talk to get around the dilemma of that faith position.  Denial doesn't become you, Teancum, but only brings shame in its wake.  Better to own up to your belief system, whatever it is.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You remind me very much of the evangelicals who often engage in the apologetics of denial.  In your case, you provide a perfect example of atheistic apologetics, using tortuous double-talk to get around the dilemma of that faith position.  Denial doesn't become you, Teancum, but only brings shame in its wake.  Better to own up to your belief system, whatever it is.

First you commit a straw man because I am not an atheist.   I did provide some links to two atheist sites that explains why are atheists  don't have faith In a belief system.   Did you bother to read them?   You could I suppose call them atheist apologists.

Second you act like a bad LDS apologist as you don't deal with the arguments.   You simply keep saying I am wrong, in denial and attack me personally by telling me I am shameful.   

Third I have stated what my belief system is over and over here. I am practicing LDS though I have have concluded many of the LDS truth claims are likely not true.  I am hopeful though that a number of them that I value are.   I wonder if there is a God or at least a Theistic involved God like Christianity and thus Mornonism as well portrays (though as we know there are significant differences between the Mormon teachings about God and Historic Christianity in general).   And while I don't find a lot of evidence for such a God and some evidences I thnk may speak against such a God I don't know either way.   Still I am hopeful enough that I still pray as if such a being is real.  I call myself a skeptical seeker of the truth.  I am willing to accept and embrace truth wherever I find it and as well as reject truths I may have once held if I in my search find that they are likely not true.

if God is there perhaps He set me on this path.  15 years ago while battling cancer I promised God that if I survived I would go wherever he led me even if it was painful. If God is there perhaps He set me on this path.   At that time I was a fully believing and testimony bearing Latter-day Saint.   The path that I am now on is and has been very painful.   I never ever thought then it would lead me to where I am now.

the purpose of my comments about atheists and faith was due to what seemed to me a misrepresentation of what I have read from those who claim to atheists.   I try to do that when I see any group misrepresented if I have some knowledge about the group.   I do it for Mormonism, Catholcism, whateverism......

Edited July 2, 2016 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/1/2016 at 4:38 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

A particularly interesting essay with implications for the Book of Mormon translation's dependence on the KJV is Thomas A. Wayment in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:1 (2005,) "The Hebrew Text of Alma 7:11".    

 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/14/1/S00011-50be6caa520dc9Wayment.pdf

Wayment observes that the KJV for Isaiah 53:4 has "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" which is what we also have in Mosiah 14:4 as an explicit Isaiah quotation.  Matthew 8:17, KJV quoting Isaiah 53:4 has "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses".

Alma 7:11 has "and that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of the people,"  which is a more literal translation, actually closer to the MT Hebrew than either the KJV Isaiah 53 or Matthew.  Waymont concludes that this is so because in this case Joseph Smith didn't recognize the passage as an Isaiah quotation, and so translated more literally, rather than relying the KJV.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Quite so.  Also, as pointed out by John W. Welch, at 3 Nephi 12:22, the Book of Mormon text follows the earliest and best MS evidence for the NT parallel text at Matthew 5:22 by leaving out the later (2nd century AD) addition of “without a cause” (Greek eikē).  It is absent from the earliest and most reliable texts, such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p64+67, minuscule MSS 1292, 1424, 2174, Ptolemy, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Cassian, most Vulgate, and Ethiopic, and is also absent from similar phrasing in the Gospel of the Nazarenes 4, as well as rabbinic texts.  The KJV is wrong.   Welch in FARMS Review, 6/1 (1994):164-167. 

Also pointed out by Welch is the fact that 3 Nephi 12:10 is a throwback to the likely Hebrew or Aramaic original of Jesus’ saddiq “righteous-one,” misread as sedeq “righteousness, justice,” as the Vorlage of Greek dikaiosunē “righteousness” in Matthew 5:10.  3 Nephi 12:10 instead reads “for my name’s sake,” i.e., the Righteous One, thus more accurately reflecting the intended original person.  Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & Sermon on the Mount (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 193-194.

Likewise, in Alma 60:23-24 only one vessel is listed, while in the parallel KJV text at Matthew 23:25-26 (Luke 11:39) two vessels are listed, “cup and platter.”  However, as Bruce Metger points out, followed by the scholars who produced the New Oxford Annotated Bible, the text at Matthew 23:26 likely had only one vessel – based on autou in Vaticanus and minuscule MSS f13 and 28.  B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Biblia Druck, 1994).  In these and in many other cases (as Sidney Sperry pointed out long ago), the Book of Mormon text follows very early MS readings, about which Joseph could have known nothing.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

First you commit a straw man because I am not an atheist.   I did provide some links to two atheist sites that explains why are atheists  don't have faith In a belief system.   Did you bother to read them?   You could I suppose call them atheist apologists.

Second you act like a bad LDS apologist as you don't deal with the arguments.   You simply keep saying I am wrong, in denial and attack me personally by telling me I am shameful.   

Third I have stated what my belief system is over and over here. I am practicing LDS though I have have concluded many of the LDS truth claims are likely not true.  I am hopeful though that a number of them that I value are.   I wonder if there is a God or at least a Theistic involved God like Christianity and thus Mornonism as well portrays (though as we know there are significant differences between the Mormon teachings about God and Historic Christianity in general).   And while I don't find a lot of evidence for such a God and some evidences I thnk may speak against such a God I don't know either way.   Still I am hopeful enough that I still pray as if such a being is real.  I call myself a skeptical seeker of the truth.  I am willing to accept and embrace truth wherever I find it and as well as reject truths I may have once held if I in my search find that they are likely not true.

if God is there perhaps He set me on this path.  15 years ago while battling cancer I promised God that if I survived I would go wherever he led me even if it was painful. If God is there perhaps He set me on this path.   At that time I was a fully believing and testimony bearing Latter-day Saint.   The path that I am now on is and has been very painful.   I never ever thought then it would lead me to where I am now.

the purpose of my comments about atheists and faith was due to what seemed to me a misrepresentation of what I have read from those who claim to atheists.   I try to do that when I see any group misrepresented if I have some knowledge about the group.   I do it for Mormonism, Catholcism, whateverism......

I am very sorry to have misinterpreted or misrepresented you in any way, and thus to have caused you pain.

However, as to the whateverisms we encounter in life, I think that logic demands that they be understood as belief systems, all of them.  Those who adhere to them may not like that, and may well describe themselves otherwise, but to no avail.  I can think of no exceptions.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

On 27 June 2016 at 8:23 PM, CV75 said:

Who, in their so-called "right mind," and especially of a personality inclined toward giving priority to the five (six?) physical senses alone would believe on the so-called "evidence" available (whether by his own or another person's observation or experience, or by theory or logic) that there is a God, and a Son of God born of a mortal woman who died and came back to life three days later? Every other LDS belief flows from that.

You're right. There is no "obvious" or physical/tangible evidence that God exists at all or that any of Jesus' miracles happened. 

God is apparently content to be perceived and personified in whichever way each human wants to (or doesn't want to).

[James Tunney]

On 7/1/2016 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

A particularly interesting essay with implications for the Book of Mormon translation's dependence on the KJV is Thomas A. Wayment in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:1 (2005,) "The Hebrew Text of Alma 7:11".    

 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/14/1/S00011-50be6caa520dc9Wayment.pdf

Wayment observes that the KJV for Isaiah 53:4 has "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" which is what we also have in Mosiah 14:4 as an explicit Isaiah quotation.  Matthew 8:17, KJV quoting Isaiah 53:4 has "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses".

Alma 7:11 has "and that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of the people,"  which is a more literal translation, actually closer to the MT Hebrew than either the KJV Isaiah 53 or Matthew.  Waymont concludes that this is so because in this case Joseph Smith didn't recognize the passage as an Isaiah quotation, and so translated more literally, rather than relying the KJV.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Doesn't the above depend on the non-existence of the deutero-isaiah problem?

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Doesn't the above depend on the non-existence of the deutero-isaiah problem?

I take it that you have not yet read "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song" by Margaret Barker.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

Where is there an explanation of the deutero-Isaiah problem that accounts for her observations?  And how long would it take, using the methods and assumptions that led to the deutero-Isaiah problem, to actually come to those observations?  And if there is a discrepancy between the validity and relevance of her observations and the observations and conclusions of the deutero-Isaiah hypothesis, at least in regards to the authorship of Isaiah 53, which is the chapter quoted in whole by Abinadi, and in part by Alma, is that not a significant problem for the deutero-Isaiah problem, worth acknowledging?

My own approach to the deutero-Isaiah problem appeared in Paradigms Regained, before I had read that essay.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

You're right. There is no "obvious" or physical/tangible evidence that God exists at all or that any of Jesus' miracles happened. 

God is apparently content to be perceived and personified in whichever way each human wants to (or doesn't want to).

No. that is wrong.

An example of obvious and physical/ tangible evidence that God exists and that all of Jesus' miracles happened are the many witnesses to all of those things.

Sure, there are also false witnesses who will deny or refuse to believe all of those things, which goes to show there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence, but any all witnesses to any or all truth is an obvious and physical/ tangible form of evidence to the truth that each witness bears testimony of, and that I will not deny.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Ahab

[Nevo]

On 7/1/2016 at 9:15 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Personally, I'd find the 19th century origin theory . . . a lot more compelling if it managed to account for the whole of the Book of Mormon, rather than targeted bits.  

I feel the same way about apologetic approaches, which likewise seem to focus on "targeted bits" to the exclusion of the big picture. Never mind that the Book of Mormon is textually dependent on the New Testament, here's a single verse that matches a variant reading in an early Greek manuscript! 

In the Book of Mormon we have a Bible-like book written in pseudo-KJV idiom that theorizes that American Indians are Israelites who must be brought to a knowledge of their true origin. The agent that God will use for this reclamation, preparatory to Christ's second coming, will be named Joseph Jr. He will be a seer—one who has a gift from God to "translate all records that are of ancient date." In addition to bringing the Indians to "the knowledge of the covenants which [God] has made with [their] fathers," the book he brings forth will also convince them of the truth of the Bible "unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Ne. 3:11–12). This divinely appointed agent will not only translate; he will also be a prophet-savior, "great like unto Moses," with power to bring the Lord's covenant people unto salvation. The Book of Mormon foregrounds America as a new promised land, "a land of liberty" to the righteous. If white Americans do not repent, they will be destroyed by the Indians. The book will come forth at a time of "many churches" and "secret combinations," a time when miracles are doubted and when "priests . . . shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance." 

If one had to hypothesize a nineteenth-century author, the internal evidences of the book point to someone who came of age in post-revolutionary America during a crisis of religious authority, who is familiar with Second Great Awakening revival language (e.g., "sing the song of redeeming love") and teachings (anti-Universalist rhetoric) yet who rejects Calvinism and is deeply skeptical of religious institutions. The book's frequent condemnations of wealth and luxury and worldly learning also suggest an author on the social, religious, and economic margins of American society. The author accepts the Bible as literal history (Adam and Eve, the Flood, Tower of Babel) and is evidently concerned about challenges to the Bible's authority and growing skepticism about miracles and spiritual gifts (deism, atheism, etc.). Like many of his contemporaries, the author also believes the western tribes of Indians are a scattered remnant of Israel who must be brought to a knowledge of Christ and that Isaiah prophesied of this (see, e.g, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews). He also lives at a time when Indians are still sufficiently numerous as to pose an existential threat to white Americans. He expects the imminent end of the world and that the Indians will figure prominently as agents of God's judgment against those who reject the gospel. There are other clues about the author's wordview: he thinks of white skin as normative and dark skin as suggestive of a divine curse and appears to accept rural folk beliefs about "slippery treasures" and treasure guardians and seer stones. I would submit that Joseph Smith is a pretty good match for this hypothetical nineteenth-century author.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Nevo

[sunstoned]

On 7/1/2016 at 4:18 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you a rep point for your support of impartiality, even though there is nothing in your posts to indicate any commitment to impartiality.  At least, however, you give lip service to the concept of being fair and impartial.  Would that you could put the concept into practice.

Meantime, perhaps you could provide a source or sources for that pretended "mountain of facts" which make the BofM "laughable" and no more than "inspired fiction."  Perhaps you are referring to that vast assemblage of first rate scholarly material from Jerald & Sandra Tanner.  

You are a good man Robert.  I read your research, and I am both impressed and saddened. In ways you are like Nibely. A gifted scholar, but he was someone who ground his life away and misdirected his talents trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  You know the facts as well as I do.  And they are stacked against the BoM, and Joseph Smith's truth claims. This thread with it's poll seems to bear this out.  Even on a pro-faithful board like this, people are voting that they don't find the evidence convincing.  To me the BoA is the smoking gun.  It is not what JS said it was.  The translation is not what JS said it was.  Yes, I have read the apologetic spin, but it is not only unconvincing, but it down right embarrassing and would only be tolerated in a faithful forum like this. In the open market place of ideas and scholarship, it would have a half live of 02 seconds.  This seems to be the case with most of the historic LDS truth claims. 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I feel the same way about apologetic approaches, which likewise seem to focus on "targeted bits" to the exclusion of the big picture. Never mind that the Book of Mormon is textually dependent on the New Testament, here's a single verse that matches a variant reading in an early Greek manuscript! 

In the Book of Mormon we have a Bible-like book written in pseudo-KJV idiom that theorizes that American Indians are Israelites who must be brought to a knowledge of their true origin. The agent that God will use for this reclamation, preparatory to Christ's second coming, will be named Joseph Jr. He will be a seer—one who has a gift from God to "translate all records that are of ancient date." In addition to bringing the Indians to "the knowledge of the covenants which [God] has made with [their] fathers," the book he brings forth will also convince them of the truth of the Bible "unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Ne. 3:11–12). This divinely appointed agent will not only translate; he will also be a prophet-savior, "great like unto Moses," with power to bring the Lord's covenant people unto salvation. The Book of Mormon foregrounds America as a new promised land, "a land of liberty" to the righteous. If white Americans do not repent, they will be destroyed by the Indians. The book will come forth at a time of "many churches" and "secret combinations," a time when miracles are doubted and when "priests . . . shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance." 

If one had to hypothesize a nineteenth-century author, the internal evidences of the book point to someone who came of age in post-revolutionary America during a crisis of religious authority, who is familiar with Second Great Awakening revival language (e.g., "sing the song of redeeming love") and teachings (anti-Universalist rhetoric) yet who rejects Calvinism and is deeply skeptical of religious institutions. The book's frequent condemnations of wealth and luxury and worldly learning also suggest an author on the social, religious, and economic margins of American society. The author accepts the Bible as literal history (Adam and Eve, the Flood, Tower of Babel) and is evidently concerned about challenges to the Bible's authority and growing skepticism about miracles and spiritual gifts (deism, atheism, etc.). Like many of his contemporaries, the author also believes the western tribes of Indians are a scattered remnant of Israel who must be brought to a knowledge of Christ and that Isaiah prophesied of this (see, e.g, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews). He also lives at a time when Indians are still sufficiently numerous as to pose an existential threat to white Americans. He expects the imminent end of the world and that the Indians will figure prominently as agents of God's judgment against those who reject the gospel. There are other clues about the author's wordview: he thinks of white skin as normative and dark skin as suggestive of a divine curse and appears to accept rural folk beliefs about "slippery treasures" and treasure guardians and seer stones. I would submit that Joseph Smith is a pretty good match for this hypothetical nineteenth-century author.

Aside from the problem that the English translation of the BofM was dictated in Early Modern English, which went out of fashion a couple of centuries before Joseph, your summary is a pretty good (and typical if facile) interpretation of the Book of Mormon according to 19th century American folklore, but often misses the actual meaning of the text of the BofM.  There is no reason to think that Joseph and his contemporaries knew where and under what specific conditions the BofM stories took place (if they are actually historical).  We are all subject to wild and ridiculous notions:  As Lewis Carroll has the Queen say in Through the Looking Glass, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Anyhow, I consider Richard Bushman's reading of the BofM as compared to contemporary American institutions to be far more germane -- R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), 87-105.  For example, instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  Grant Hardy adds that "Joseph Smith’s own life at the time of the translation included influential women such as his mother and his wife of less than a year, those seeking the origins of the book in his personal history have to somehow explain the absence of any accounts of courtship, romance, or maternal interaction.”  Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), 288 n. 3.  There is a vast literature discussing this matter pro & con.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You are a good man Robert.  I read your research, and I am both impressed and saddened. In ways you are like Nibely. A gifted scholar, but he was someone who ground his life away and misdirected his talents trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  You know the facts as well as I do.  And they are stacked against the BoM, and Joseph Smith's truth claims. This thread with it's poll seems to bear this out.  Even on a pro-faithful board like this, people are voting that they don't find the evidence convincing.  To me the BoA is the smoking gun.  It is not what JS said it was.  The translation is not what JS said it was.  Yes, I have read the apologetic spin, but it is not only unconvincing, but it down right embarrassing and would only be tolerated in a faithful forum like this. In the open market place of ideas and scholarship, it would have a half live of 02 seconds.  This seems to be the case with most of the historic LDS truth claims. 

Nice, if short, funeral oration, Sunstoned.    The problem is that, as with most such claims, you are unable to produce that pretended "mountain of evidence" against the BofM.  So you immediately shift to BofA, where you make several straw man assertions about what Joseph and the text of the book claim.  Anyone who says anything different from that straw man view is engaging in "spin."  Never a moment's consideration for factual analysis, such as I bring to bear in short compass with my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Moreover, you appeal to the flawed and fallacious idea that a poll on this board has actual meaning.  Anyone familiar with scientific sampling techniques used in polling knows that such a poll is completely meaningless (and I did not vote, as usual).  And, yes, I agree that the credibility of the BofA would have a half-life of about 2 seconds (give or take) on any anti-Mormon board, but are you really proud of that, and of your notion of vox populi vox Dei?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, canard78 said:

You're right. There is no "obvious" or physical/tangible evidence that God exists at all or that any of Jesus' miracles happened. 

God is apparently content to be perceived and personified in whichever way each human wants to (or doesn't want to).

As with all such statements, it depends; He both is and isn’t. It is interesting that you make an assessment of God's emotional state based on physical/tangible evidence that does not exist! You have just demonstrated how the basic LDS doctrine of agency applies to everyone, even those who err.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

No. that is wrong.

An example of obvious and physical/ tangible evidence that God exists and that all of Jesus' miracles happened are the many witnesses to all of those things.

Sure, there are also false witnesses who will deny or refuse to believe all of those things, which goes to show there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence, but any all witnesses to any or all truth is an obvious and physical/ tangible form of evidence to the truth that each witness bears testimony of, and that I will not deny.

You make a you make a very good point Abab. In fact Simon Greenleaf, a professor of evidence and president of Harvard Law School, wrote a book called The Testimony of the Evangelists on this subject and in the process of researching it, became a Christian by convincing himself that there is a mountain of evidence sufficient in court to prove the veracity the gospel stories of Jesus. I highly recommend it to gospel doubters who frequent this forum.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, canard78 said:

You're right. There is no "obvious" or physical/tangible evidence that God exists at all or that any of Jesus' miracles happened. 

God is apparently content to be perceived and personified in whichever way each human wants to (or doesn't want to).

Until such time as he decides to come back.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Until such time as he decides to come back.

Even then there will be people who will deny and refuse to believe that that is him and that he has ever been here before.  

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  

I agree with you (and Bushman) on that much. As I said, the author is on society's margins. There are numerous aspects of early nineteenth-century American culture that the Book of Mormon doesn't embrace and indeed condemns.

A few months ago, I quoted Bushman's observation that the Book of Mormon "patriotically [honors] America by giving it a biblical history. And yet on closer reading, the Book of Mormon contests the amalgam of Enlightenment, republican, Protestant, capitalist, and nationalist values that constituted American culture. . . . Against increasing wealth and inequality, the Book of Mormon advocates the cause of the poor. Against the subjection of the Indians, it promises the continent to the native people. Against republican government, it proposes righteous rule by judges and kings under God’s law. Against a closed-canon Bible and non-miraculous religion, the Book of Mormon stands for ongoing revelation, miracles, and revelation to all nations. Against skepticism, it promotes belief; against nationalism, a universal Israel. It foresees disaster for the nation if the love of riches, resistance to revelation, and Gentile civilization prevail over righteousness, revelation, and Israel . . . the Book of Mormon can be read as a ‘document of profound social protest’ against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith’s time" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 104-105).

Joseph Smith's point of view, as subsequent events bore out, was far from typical.

[thesometimesaint]

55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Even then there will be people who will deny and refuse to believe that that is him and that he has ever been here before.  

Which will be their right.

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Even then there will be people who will deny and refuse to believe that that is him and that he has ever been here before.  

Deny him?  Heck, there will be idiots that probably try to launch missiles at him.

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice, if short, funeral oration, Sunstoned.    The problem is that, as with most such claims, you are unable to produce that pretended "mountain of evidence" against the BofM.  So you immediately shift to BofA, where you make several straw man assertions about what Joseph and the text of the book claim.  Anyone who says anything different from that straw man view is engaging in "spin."  Never a moment's consideration for factual analysis, such as I bring to bear in short compass with my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Moreover, you appeal to the flawed and fallacious idea that a poll on this board has actual meaning.  Anyone familiar with scientific sampling techniques used in polling knows that such a poll is completely meaningless (and I did not vote, as usual).  And, yes, I agree that the credibility of the BofA would have a half-life of about 2 seconds (give or take) on any anti-Mormon board, but are you really proud of that, and of your notion of vox populi vox Dei?

 

 

I think our very different perspectives might in part be a function of scope. The apologetic arguments that you espouse play well within the limited (and shrinking) scope of a true believing audience such as this forum.  However, there is a much larger world out there that I am sure you are aware of that consists of scientists, philosophers, researchers, historians and just plain folks who are seekers who value critical thinking and open discussion of ideas. The process of testing, hypotheses and falsifiable theories might not be perfect, but it works, and it is self correcting.  Its in this world (the one with the blue sky) that that most apologetic arguments don't find acceptance.  The methodology of starting with a conclusion and working backwards ignoring any data that does not support the conclusion does not result in very many widely accepted theories. 

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think our very different perspectives might in part be a function of scope. The apologetic arguments that you espouse play well within the limited (and shrinking) scope of a true believing audience such as this forum.  However, there is a much larger world out there that I am sure you are aware of that consists of scientists, philosophers, researchers, historians and just plain folks who are seekers who value critical thinking and open discussion of ideas. The process of testing, hypotheses and falsifiable theories might not be perfect, but it works, and it is self correcting.  Its in this world (the one with the blue sky) that that most apologetic arguments don't find acceptance.  The methodology of starting with a conclusion and working backwards ignoring any data that does not support the conclusion does not result in very many widely accepted theories. 

Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.