The State of the Evidence

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, absolutely every conclusion technically requires some faith, even if it's faith in our ability to accurately understand the nature of what is being discussed. But I don't think being unconvinced that God exists requires the same kind of leap of faith that we usually talk about in religious circles. Rather, it's more like being unwilling or unable to take a leap of faith. 

Taking a leap of faith is essentially to become sure that something is true, and it helps to have enough information to lead to a state of being able to be sure.

So first there needs to be an understanding based on correct information... just the understanding... and then there must be the hope... just an allowance for the possibility... that what is understood is true.  And then from there someone can develop faith... which is the state of being sure... that the possibility is a reflection of how that thing really is.  Even when it can't be seen that what that person is sure about is true.

So I wouldn't advise anyone to just  take a leap of faith.  Just jump to being sure that something is true?  No, I would never do that. I don't feel sure about something until I understand something, to at least some extent, and it feels right that what I think about it is both true and good.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

But so far NOBODY has produced a reasonable explanation for WHY the BOM is dependent on the KJV Bible.

NOBODY.

The arguments are all unreasonable; by which I mean that no reasonable person would believe them.

The only new argument to be added is that God can do anything.

Which is no argument at all.

Because the same argument could be used for every unreasonable argument under the sun.

Quakers living on the moon?  Unreasonable.  But God could make it happen.

Is the earth flat?  Unreasonable.  But God could make it happen.

Book of Mormon not dependent on KJV Bible?  Unreasonable.  But God Could make it happen.

See what I mean? 

 

I don't think that the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I think God allowed JS to use the KJV because it was acceptable but I don't think that the bible had to have been used. If the KJV hadn't of been around (or hadn't of been acceptable), then we'd have the same teachings with different words and no bible connection.

So no, i really don't see what you mean.  

[Ahab]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I think God allowed JS to use the KJV because it was acceptable but I don't think that the bible had to have been used. If the KJV hadn't of been around (or hadn't of been acceptable), then we'd have the same teachings with different words and no bible connection.

So no, i really don't see what you mean.  

You're considering alternative possibilities to what maybe could have happened instead of talking about what actually is.

The Book of Mormon, as we have it, IS...and I say again IS... dependent on what is written in the KJV Bible, otherwise the KJV of the Bible would not have carried over into what the BOM now is... a KJV translation of the Book of Mormon.

If some other version of the Bible or biblical texts had carried over into the BOM then we would see traces of that translation in the Bible, but as it is, in English, it is a KJV English version of the Book of Mormon.

It's as if the original version of the BOM and KJV Bible got together and made a baby which we now see as the KJV Book of Mormon.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Ahab

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're considering alternative possibilities to what maybe could have happened instead of talking about what actually is.

The Book of Mormon, as we have it, IS...and I say again IS... dependent on what is written in the KJV Bible, otherwise the KJV of the Bible would not have carried over into what the BOM now is... a KJV translation of the Book of Mormon.

If some other version of the Bible or biblical texts had carried over into the BOM then we would see traces of that translation in the Bible, but as it is, in English, it is a KJV English version of the Book of Mormon.

It's as if the original version of the BOM and KJV Bible got together and made a baby which we now see as the KJV Book of Mormon.

My point is that just because it carries over and uses it doesn't mean it's dependent on it. 

I don't believe the BOM had to rely on the bible to exist, even though I'm fine that it does in some places.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The majority of posters on this thread are doing everything they can to avoid the evidence.

Yes, and the reasons are twofold:  (1) those who don't know anything about evidence don't want to appear ignorant, and (2) those who don't know anything about Mormonism don't want to appear ignorant.  Needless to say, both apply as much to Mormons as to anti-Mormons.  I wanted to give you a rep point here, but no matter, your other response was out in left field -- and I don't mean a home run.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My point is that just because it carries over and uses it doesn't mean it's dependent on it. 

My point is that the Book of Mormon, as we now have it, IS dependent on the KJV Bible, which is why it is now a KJV Book of Mormon.

And I also think my analogy of books having babies is worth at least a rep point or 2.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that question could be asked of any religious faith.  It could also be asked of irreligious faith, that is, atheism.  Atheism's claims are, in many ways, more audacious even than those of the LDS Church.  I can grasp the agnostic approach of "We don't know one way or another if God exists."  But atheism is another ball o' wax.  That the denizens of this Big Blue Marble, as finite and flawed and blinkered as we are in power and awareness and duration and perspective, can presume to affirmatively declare that nowhere in the entirety of the universe/multiverse/existence is there a supreme being . . . well, that's just brassy.

This affirmative declaration - that God does not exist - is the sine qua non of atheism.  And it is not based on "evidence" one whit.  It is based on . . . oddly enough . . . faith.  A dank, depressing, nihilistic faith that God does not exist, that there is no plan, no existence prior to or after death.  A faith not predicated on evidence, but on the presumed absence of evidence.  It is a faith based on our finite and flawed "If I Can't See It I Will Deny It's Existence"-type of reasoning.   But it is a faith nonetheless.  It is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I agree.  Atheism is a kind of faith or ideology as much as that of any religion, and the assumptions made are equally unprovable or unfalisifiable.  I saw a film the other night, "God's Not Dead," which made the case in an evangelical context -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eFlAY0D0ho .  Back in 1970, I met a Univ of Utah law school student on vacation in Jerusalem who declared his atheism to me, but who became infuriated when I pointed out that that belief was his faith.

In the case of Mormonism, however, I agree that atheism "is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours," such that we have a leg up on other religions as far as secular evidence is concerned.  I have argued, for example, that the Book of Mormon origin story is so preposterous that it couldn't possibly be true.  Consequently, it should be well nigh impossible that the Book of Mormon should be provable by secular means -- to any reasonable degree, outside of mere coincidence.  Since it is possible to show that the preponderance of evidence supports the Book of Mormon, therefore, that basically verifies its authenticity -- while at the same time verifying the Bible, by extension.  I have made that argument, with some specific examples of facts which it should be impossible to bring forth, if and only if the BofM were fiction.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

[James Tunney]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I agree.  Atheism is a kind of faith or ideology as much as that of any religion, and the assumptions made are equally unprovable or unfalisifiable.  I saw a film the other night, "God's Not Dead," which made the case in an evangelical context -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eFlAY0D0ho .  Back in 1970, I met a Univ of Utah law school student on vacation in Jerusalem who declared his atheism to me, but who became infuriated when I pointed out that that belief was his faith.

In the case of Mormonism, however, I agree that atheism "is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours," such that we have a leg up on other religions as far as secular evidence is concerned.  I have argued, for example, that the Book of Mormon origin story is so preposterous that it couldn't possibly be true.  Consequently, it should be well nigh impossible that the Book of Mormon should be provable by secular means -- to any reasonable degree, outside of mere coincidence.  Since it is possible to show that the preponderance of evidence supports the Book of Mormon, therefore, that basically verifies its authenticity -- while at the same time verifying the Bible, by extension.  I have made that argument, with some specific examples of facts which it should be impossible to bring forth, if and only if the BofM were fiction.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

When you say it's possible to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports the book of mormon, what do you mean?  Do you mean that as a lot of things are "possible," it's also "possible" to meet the preponderance standard?  Is it possible only if you get a jury made up of farms contributors?  What about an atheist jury?  What about a jury made up of non-mormon archaeologists?  So, if you get the stacked farms jury to believe, then its verified?  Is this preponderance possibility only possible if you change your paradigm?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I can't answer the poll question unless we first pin down the meaning of 'evidence'.

If you mean something along the lines of 'forensic evidence', then I would choose 'The evidence leaves room for faith and belief, but on its own I don't find it compelling'.

If, however, 'evidence' includes all of the things that I have personally experienced in relation to the Restored Church, then I would have to choose 'The evidence is overwhelming in favor of LDS truth-claims'.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

It almost certainly doesn't represent a word for word account of the teachings of Jesus. 

Well duh. I'm almost certain it gets His point across.

Edited July 1, 2016 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And that God who "is more intelligent than they all" thought it a good idea to make large sections of the Book of Mormon translation look like it was cribbed directly from the KJV?

Do you believe He created us? Do you believe He has the power to resurrect us?  

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

Edited July 1, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Guest]

On June 27, 2016 at 2:46 PM, bluebell said:

If we're talking about evidence that can be examined by someone else, then I agree with them.  There's not really much evidence in support of any religion.  Having said that, i've had personal experiences that I consider evidence which support my belief system.  

Correct on many levels, there is little evidence, but undeniable evidence burns within my soul. Evidence that I could no more deny than love, nor myself. 

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

When you say it's possible to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports the book of mormon, what do you mean?  Do you mean that as a lot of things are "possible," it's also "possible" to meet the preponderance standard?  Is it possible only if you get a jury made up of farms contributors?  What about an atheist jury?  What about a jury made up of non-mormon archaeologists?  So, if you get the stacked farms jury to believe, then its verified?  Is this preponderance possibility only possible if you change your paradigm?

So you're saying atheist and non-Mormon scholars don't bring prejudice to their point of view?

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And?  None of us sees matters of faith as they are: rather, we see them as we are.  I'm not terribly concerned if a Catholic places his faith in Pope Francis, a Buddhist places his faith in the Buddha, a Muslim places his faith in Mohammed, and so on, as much as I'm concerned whether these teachings bear good fruit in the lives of their adherents.  If they do that, what else matters?  In light of the fact that we see things as we are, you would be better served, rather than attempting to solve the conundrum posed by the fact that, apparently, God is speaking on some level to the adherents of each of these belief systems even though the systems themselves are not 100% compatible with one another, instead, putting all of that energy into being the best member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you can be, or, perhaps, finding another belief system that better speaks to you, fills your soul, and makes you happy.

Is a belief system, which I assume for you means some sort of religion, required for happiness?

Would you make the same argument for a fully mature adult who believes is Santa Clause or would you find such a belief irrational?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that question could be asked of any religious faith.  It could also be asked of irreligious faith, that is, atheism.  Atheism's claims are, in many ways, more audacious even than those of the LDS Church.  I can grasp the agnostic approach of "We don't know one way or another if God exists."  But atheism is another ball o' wax.  That the denizens of this Big Blue Marble, as finite and flawed and blinkered as we are in power and awareness and duration and perspective, can presume to affirmatively declare that nowhere in the entirety of the universe/multiverse/existence is there a supreme being . . . well, that's just brassy.

This affirmative declaration - that God does not exist - is the sine qua non of atheism.  And it is not based on "evidence" one whit.  It is based on . . . oddly enough . . . faith.  A dank, depressing, nihilistic faith that God does not exist, that there is no plan, no existence prior to or after death.  A faith not predicated on evidence, but on the presumed absence of evidence.  It is a faith based on our finite and flawed "If I Can't See It I Will Deny It's Existence"-type of reasoning.   But it is a faith nonetheless.  It is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure atheists say this.   I think it's more they find no evidence of a God and in fact find much evidence that may speak of there not being a God.   Least that's the way I understand it.  And no it's not based on faith. I recommend Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs. Fact.  It will help you at least understand and compare how scientist who claims to be an atheist approaches claims about our existence and reality vs. faith and religion.  

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  By definition, an "atheist" is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

I guess I can see your point.  I'm not sure i fully grasp the distinction between "I deny that God exists" and "I disbelieve - that is, I am not convinced - that God exists."  I suppose the former is more definitive and the latter a bit milquetoast.

That said, regardless of whether an atheist affirmatively "denies . . . the existence of a supreme being" or simply "disbelieves . . . the existence of a supreme being," both positions still require faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No they don't require faith.

 

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith

 

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faith.htm

Edited July 1, 2016 by Teancum

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I agree.  Atheism is a kind of faith or ideology as much as that of any religion, and the assumptions made are equally unprovable or unfalisifiable.  I saw a film the other night, "God's Not Dead," which made the case in an evangelical context -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eFlAY0D0ho .  Back in 1970, I met a Univ of Utah law school student on vacation in Jerusalem who declared his atheism to me, but who became infuriated when I pointed out that that belief was his faith.

In the case of Mormonism, however, I agree that atheism "is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours," such that we have a leg up on other religions as far as secular evidence is concerned.  I have argued, for example, that the Book of Mormon origin story is so preposterous that it couldn't possibly be true.  Consequently, it should be well nigh impossible that the Book of Mormon should be provable by secular means -- to any reasonable degree, outside of mere coincidence.  Since it is possible to show that the preponderance of evidence supports the Book of Mormon, therefore, that basically verifies its authenticity -- while at the same time verifying the Bible, by extension.  I have made that argument, with some specific examples of facts which it should be impossible to bring forth, if and only if the BofM were fiction.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Atheism does not require or make faith statements.  See me links in the post above.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Is a belief system, which I assume for you means some sort of religion, required for happiness?

Would you make the same argument for a fully mature adult who believes is Santa Clause or would you find such a belief irrational?

I'm sorry that you feel the need to equate faith in God with belief in Santa Claus.  I'm deeming that the equivalent of a Godwin's Law violation.  I see no point in attempting further dialogue with you.  Good evening.

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So you're saying atheist and non-Mormon scholars don't bring prejudice to their point of view?

Everyone is susceptible to prejudice.  However, if a conclusion must be reached, then there is a higher possibility of prejudice in my opinion.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

When you say it's possible to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports the book of mormon, what do you mean?  Do you mean that as a lot of things are "possible," it's also "possible" to meet the preponderance standard?  Is it possible only if you get a jury made up of farms contributors?  What about an atheist jury?  What about a jury made up of non-mormon archaeologists?  So, if you get the stacked farms jury to believe, then its verified?  Is this preponderance possibility only possible if you change your paradigm?

What I am saying is that, considering solely and only secular evidence, a preponderance of that evidence can be marshaled to show that the BofM is an ancient document.  I presented several specific examples of what I mean in the paper I cited, and can cite more of my own comments which are online (if you wish).  Such indicators cover a broad range of kinds and types of evidence, as they would in any forensic inquiry or archeological excavation. (the principles are the same in either case).  Naturally, when you empanel a jury to hear any such case, you want to cull out anyone with bias or prejudice.  It is always interesting and worthwhile to obtain the views of disinterested third parties.

The preponderance standard does not assert possibility, but rather convincing plausibility -- such that it is more likely than not that the BofM is historically authentic, a statistical likelihood based on Bayes' Theorem.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Atheism does not require or make faith statements.  See me links in the post above.

Yes, atheists frequently say that because they are in denial.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What piques my curiosity is how your comments never really come to grips with the hard evidence that large swaths of BOM text are obviously dependent on the KJV Bible.

Well, of course, given the way in which translators employed KJV English style so commonly back in the day, and given the common way in which ancient writers/editors constantly alluded to and quoted from earlier and contemporary literature (oral & written), one would be very surprised if such intratextual and intertextual phenomena did not regularly appear in the Bible, Brass Plates, Book of Mormon, etc., and one should expect that the original languages (Hebrew & Egyptian) would be expressed with familiar English figures, metaphors, and symbols.

However, for all that, what we need to consider is the broad range of evidence, not simply a single issue.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, of course, given the way in which translators employed KJV English style so commonly back in the day, and given the common way in which ancient writers/editors constantly alluded to and quoted from earlier and contemporary literature (oral & written), one would be very surprised if such intratextual and intertextual phenomena did not regularly appear in the Bible, Brass Plates, Book of Mormon, etc., and one should expect that the original languages (Hebrew & Egyptian) would be expressed with familiar English figures, metaphors, and symbols.

However, for all that, what we need to consider is the broad range of evidence, not simply a single issue.

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.

Edited July 1, 2016 by sunstoned

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

And no it's not based on faith.

 

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

No they don't require faith.

 

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Atheism does not require or make faith statements.

As geometry teaches us, all theorems rest on postulates ... and postulates are accepted on faith.

Or as I've always taught the students in my first-year university history courses, data do not speak for themselves; they must be understood within interpretative frameworks ... and those frameworks are accepted on faith.

All 'knowledge' is dependent on faith. All of it. And in the 21st century, this is not a radical position to take, including in 'science'. Have you ever heard, for example, of the Uncertainty Principle?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry that you feel the need to equate faith in God with belief in Santa Claus.  I'm deeming that the equivalent of a Godwin's Law violation.  I see no point in attempting further dialogue with you.  Good evening.

This was simply an example and I was not equating faith in God equal to belief in Santa Clause.

 

People have faith in all sorts of things you would find strange or bizarre.  So I think you really have proven my point. There is a place where you draw the line.