Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

But isn't it a little weird, somehow, to have all this miraculous power to preserve the Nephite records on the one hand, and then on the other hand have all these mundane historical problems being insurmountable?

"If I were God, I would not allow mundane historical problems obscure the truth of the Book of Mormon."

Christ answered this question when He told Peter

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You might also check out Moroni 104-5 and Alma chapter 32, start with verse 17.

That is how God does things.  The answer is clearly given in the scriptures, if only you were to read them.

Edited November 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Physics Guy]

36 minutes ago, cdowis said:

"If I were God, I would not allow mundane historical problems obscure the truth of the Book of Mormon."

That's a reasonably fair re-statement of my point, yes — as long as by "if I were God" you mean not "if God were like me" but "if God acted in the way that seems to me to be consistent with how God is supposed to have acted at other times." I mean, if God ordained geographical conditions that let us find Jericho and the Pyramids in the Middle East, and then really pulled out all the stops to get some ancient records to Joseph Smith in 1830, why not at least give us a dry plateau somewhere in the Book of Mormon lands, with a few ruins and inscriptions? We got that kind of thing for the Bible, at least a bit. Why not for the Book of Mormon?

 

[Steve J]

38 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

 

Just from a philosophical point of view- what would be the purpose of moroni's promise?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Judging from the venom oozing from your post, the total lack of BoM evidence must be a real sore spot for you. 

Is this what you call discussion?  Is this your version of frank exchange of views?  Apparently, you crave the venom, and rejoice in making transparently false statements so as to engender anger.  Whatever makes you happy . . .

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Judging from the venom oozing from your post, the total lack of BoM evidence must be a real sore spot for you. 

2 Nephi 9:40  Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; 

I give you the last word.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

Welcome to the asylum!

I think, IMNSHO, the plates were preserved because, first of all, they're gold, and gold doesn't rust or corrode or rot away like other forms of record-keeping would, and second, the records were the important thing. What kind of houses the Nephites lived in, or what kinds of swords they killed each other with, or what shape their churches were, is not relevant or important to our salvation. But what the Savior taught them is.

I thought the apologists now say the plates weren't gold, because if they were there is no way Joseph could have ran and carried them for such a long distance.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I can believe that archaeology, and history in general, are harder than most people realize. Good evidence is scarce. And it may be that the fairly detailed and well-corroborated ancient history that we have for the Middle East is an anomalous fluke. I understand that the history of India is shockingly vague in comparison.

Plausible excuses for lack of evidence, however, are still not evidence. Some of the discussions of evidence for the Book of Mormon can start to sound, to my non-Mormon ears, like the Monty Python cheese shop sketch. The excuses may be valid and all, but they really don't make the situation much better.

I also have to say that when I'm nodding my head to all these sensible, natural reasons why we can't find Zarahemla (or wouldn't recognize it if we did), at some point I remember the part about an angel with golden plates and translating by miracle. At that point the issues of language drift and architectural fashions suddenly seem incongruous. It's as though I'm hearing Superman explain that he missed the villain this time because he had a flat tire. For a while I'm nodding along, because a flat tire at rush hour is obviously major. But then I think, Wait a minute. Aren't you Superman?

I know, it's not a knock-down argument. But isn't it a little weird, somehow, to have all this miraculous power to preserve the Nephite records on the one hand, and then on the other hand have all these mundane historical problems being insurmountable?

I think you do not understand the nature of "evidence" in religious matters.

By definition, religion is about what is "unseen" and taken on faith.  It is like principles of morality in which we might feel disgust at hearing of horrendous acts of killing millions, or details of rape or murder

What evidence do we have that that disgust is appropriate?

What evidence do we have of the comfort that religion gives?

How do you know that you love your wife?  What evidence did you have to know that you should marry her or enter into a relationship with your significant other?

There are many atheists who are devoted to social causes without need for "evidence" that income inequality is "wrong" perhaps or that saving the whales is a cause one shouild devote one's life to.  There are some who write of "religion without God" who understand the nature of religious "evidence" while disagreeing on the need for God.

Religion is not about scientific facts nor is it about historic facts.

All the evidence in the world of Biblical archaeology is totally irrelevant to "KNOWING" that Jesus is the Christ and was resurrected.   That is a feeling deep inside not unlike perhaps the feeling- unjustified by facts- that perhaps you have for your significant other.

Yes, many here do not understand that, yet on the other hand many do.   I would suggest that you are not understanding the logic of feelings and the notion that we each work out our own truths about what gives us joy in life, which makes scientific truth irrelevant.   Bringing scientific truth into matters of faith is irrelevant- it is like maintaining that a knowledge of baseball is essential to teaching chemistry- or physics for that matter.

They are two unrelated disciplines.  One is about how the world works- the other is about what gives humans MEANING in their lives and purpose.

I can give voluminous evidence that your view presents a misunderstanding of the logic here if you like, but I suspect you are not interested.  

We can start with a simple wikipedia article if you like, on fideism.

To understand different philosophical theories of truth, I would go to a bit more sophisticated source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

To understand the particular theory of truth I personally espouse, I would recommend this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

In physics, as you know, there are problems describing the ultimate nature of reality.  Science is not the answer to everything.  There are other important matters in human existence as well that have no relevance to science.

Religion is one.   

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

"If I were God, I would not allow mundane historical problems obscure the truth of the Book of Mormon."

Christ answered this question when He told Peter

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You might also check out Moroni 104-5 and Alma chapter 32, start with verse 17.

That is how God does things.  The answer is clearly given in the scriptures, if only you were to read them.

This is the perfect example of how your method doesn't work.

You are not listening to him- his point is perfectly valid.  He is looking for scientific evidence for faith.  He wants scientific evidence for why the scriptures are scientifically valid before he will believe them.  He is looking for the rules of baseball and you are showing him ancient poetry. (that is an analogy)

Your approach makes no sense to him or to anyone else in his position!  He needs to understand that religion is not about science- and only then can he read the scriptures for their spiritual content- once he knows that they are not meant to be about "what happened" but what makes life meaningful.

You will never reach him or any like him with this approach, besides the fact that it is rude.

By quoting those verses you are contradicting what he wants to see.  Those scriptures do not teach the scientific method they teach a different theory of truth.

Those scriptures are incomprehensible to someone looking for the scientific proof of God.  You have to start with the method first- that there are more important things in life than the scientific method and its correct use.

Edited November 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

 

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought the apologists now say the plates weren't gold, because if they were there is no way Joseph could have ran and carried them for such a long distance.

They were not pure gold, but a gold alloy.  As the eight witnesses said, "the appearance of gold", such as a gold watch, gold ring, etc.  An alloy.

Edited November 20, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the perfect example of how your method doesn't work.

This is the approach the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have used in their missionary program,  the approach that Christ Himself used.

I sincerely wish him all the best.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

You're asking me to teach you a course in research methodology and statistics.  Sorry, not interested, but once you have taken that class, read Nibley's article.  You will discover that the scientific method is built into what he wrote.

That is what I was saying.

 

[mfbukowski]

Physics guy said:

Quote

That's a reasonably fair re-statement of my point, yes — as long as by "if I were God" you mean not "if God were like me" but "if God acted in the way that seems to me to be consistent with how God is supposed to have acted at other times." I mean, if God ordained geographical conditions that let us find Jericho and the Pyramids in the Middle East, and then really pulled out all the stops to get some ancient records to Joseph Smith in 1830, why not at least give us a dry plateau somewhere in the Book of Mormon lands, with a few ruins and inscriptions? We got that kind of thing for the Bible, at least a bit. Why not for the Book of Mormon?

The problem is that all the Biblical evidence in the world will not prove that Jesus died for YOUR SINS and mine.   You could go back in a time machine and watch the crucifixion and not be converted!

There were many witnesses that didn't even blink an eye!

Historical details have nothing to do, ultimately, with religious truth.   That mere fact proves it.  Eyewitnesses were not converted, or at least so the story goes.

So there must be something else there, right?

THAT is what you are missing- what IS there that is not "factual" that you are missing?

Religion is not about "facts" and "observations" or "evidence" which is objective and able to be replicated.  It is about feelings in your heart.

OH NO!  Emotion?

Yep!  Not just emotion- intuition about what is true.  It is about experiencing JOY in your life.  JOY deep inside your very being does not come from scientific facts.

[Gervin]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, whatever the exact figures might be, no historian expects that the use of the word “millions” is always meant to be taken literally.  We know from historical documents worldwide that descriptions of ancient battles and casualty figures were regularly exaggerated.  One might just as well have used the term “myriad.”

---

 

You contradict yourself.  You said, earlier, in response to a point raised about the millions engaged in battles in the BOM,  "Battles in Mesoamerican regularly involved just such numbers".

Your impressively elaborate response seemed only to miss my question.  But thanks.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what I was saying.

 

The METHOD is different than the "facts"

The scientific method is perfectly described in Alma 32, but it speaks of the non-factual results being feelings in our heart which are "sweet" to us.  Scientists seek objective results, Alma gives us "what is sweet" in our hearts.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

This is the approach the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have used in their missionary program,  the approach that Christ Himself used.

I sincerely wish him all the best.

Jesus and the church said that the gospel could be proven scientifically?

Gosh I missed that part.

(sarcasm)

Edited November 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Gervin said:

You contradict yourself.  You said, earlier, in response to a point raised about the millions engaged in battles in the BOM,  "Battles in Mesoamerican regularly involved just such numbers".

Your impressively elaborate response seemed only to miss my question.  But thanks.

You quoted me saying:

 

Quote

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, whatever the exact figures might be, no historian expects that the use of the word “millions” is always meant to be taken literally.  We know from historical documents worldwide that descriptions of ancient battles and casualty figures were regularly exaggerated.  One might just as well have used the term “myriad.”

That is not a self-contradiction at all, since it accepts actual millions in general because that is the nature of the actual population, but does not pass judgment upon whether it was simply hyperbole for a very large number, a myriad, if you will.  I am being scholarly and reasonable.  You are playing heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games, Gervin.  Once more, sincerity is everything.  Surely you are not silly enough to claim that a Jaredite auditor had to count each person exactly, something that they did not have the capacity to do.  And you don't believe in the Jaredites anyhow.  We are having a discussion of what can be reasonably concluded from the text and archeology.  You reject both.  Since you reject both science and textual analysis, what does that leave us?  Sheer anti-intellectual mockery on your part, I guess.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what I was saying.

 

https://learn.bu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-826908-dt-content-rid-2073693_1/courses/13sprgmetcj702_ol/week04/metcj702_W04S01T05_fivesteps.html

[Gervin]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You quoted me saying:

That is not a self-contradiction at all, since it accepts actual millions in general because that is the nature of the actual population, 

No, you haven't shown an actual population in the millions and you haven't shown that battles with combatants numbering in the millions regularly occurred.  

Quote

 

 You are playing heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games, Gervin.  Once more, sincerity is everything.  Surely you are not silly enough to claim that a Jaredite auditor had to count each person exactly, something that they did not have the capacity to do.  And you don't believe in the Jaredites anyhow.  We are having a discussion of what can be reasonably concluded from the text and archeology.  You reject both.  Since you reject both science and textual analysis, what does that leave us?  Sheer anti-intellectual mockery on your part, I guess.

 

You're consistent in your carping.  I give you that.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Gervin

[Glenn101]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The METHOD is different than the "facts"

The scientific method is perfectly described in Alma 32, but it speaks of the non-factual results being feelings in our heart which are "sweet" to us.  Scientists seek objective results, Alma gives us "what is sweet" in our hearts.

Agree

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

https://learn.bu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-826908-dt-content-rid-2073693_1/courses/13sprgmetcj702_ol/week04/metcj702_W04S01T05_fivesteps.html

From what I can gather from what Blass is saying is that the document in question is authentic is the hypothesis not the null. 

 

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

From what I can gather from what Blass is saying is that the document in question is authentic is the hypothesis not the null. 

 

Glenn

And this is supposedly what the church teaches missionaries, from Boston University yet.

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

This is the approach the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have used in their missionary program,  the approach that Christ Himself used.

 

I can't find that in Gospel Principles anywhere

 

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't find that in Gospel Principles anywhere

 

It's time for Mommy to spoon feed you ==>>    Chapter 4 "Preach My Gospel".

Poster removed.

[morgan.deane]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

No, you haven't shown an actual population in the millions and you haven't shown that battles with combatants numbering in the millions regularly occurred.  

You're consistent in your carping.  I give you that.

I'll admit that I haven't been following this conversation, but I'm a bit confused why anybody needs to show battles with millions of people happened any number of times.

 I assume that the claim of millions comes from Ether 15:2. A close reading of that scripture does not indicate it was one battle in which millions of people died, but they are referring to the conflict before hand.Ether 14:1-2 describe a break down of social order. v.3, civil war and a faction "giving battle". v.4 more battles. v.5 a long siege and more deahts. v.6-10 more civil war and intriuge. v. 11, factions "give battle" across the land. v. 13, another battle. v. 14, an army is "smited", v. 16, a series of battles across the land. v.17, many cities overthrown and inhabitants killed, v. 18-26 "swift" and "speedy" destruction across the and and v.27, more battle. So there seems to be plenty in their history that makes millions dying a credible assertion.  

That being said, there are a variety of ways to look at numbers in a text.  Critically reassessing the numbers in ancient and medieval texts was one of the first things that people like Hans Delbruck did and is considered one of the basic duties of a modern, trained historian. The unreliability of eye witnesses who usually weren't military men and did't have access to orders of battle or even a basic method of counting armies, scribal errors, deliberate exaggeration to  emphasize a moral or political point all combined to make numbers extremely unreliable. For example, a study of the marching style of Persian armies would indicate that the first units would have reached Greece before the last of the million man army started their march!! Obviously the millions listed by Greek historians can be safely reduced without destroying its reliability as a historical document. In fact, having these mistakes actually enhances the BoM's status as a historical document.  http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/12/millions-in-book-of-mormon.html

The Chinese historians operating under a new dynasty often exaggerated the size of the previous dynasties in order to amplify the magnitude of their defeat and the loss of Mandate of Heaven. There is good evidence that in the BoM case the ten thousands in Mormon 6 referred to unit names similar to the Greek Myriad and Roman Century than exact numbers. You can start with A Brent Merrill's article about the decimal units in the BoM. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1108&index=13 The units of ten thousand could have an unspecified number of individuals.  Roman Centuries ended up having 80 men for example, and thats assuming they were at full strength and didn't lose any to sickness and desertion.  (The Theodisian Codes actually allowed up to several years of leave for soldiers.)  

To reassess the armies sizes in the book of Mormon within the Book of Mormon we can also use things like the military participation ratio. This is a percentage of the total population that can be mustered for war. Outside of rare cases that prove the rule, a nation could muster only about 10-15% of their total population.15% of 230,000 is 34,500, which is exactly within the range of soldiers, 30 and 42,000 listed in Mormon 2: 9,25. It doesn't make sense that the Nephites would fight for decades and then suddenly increase the size of their armies by a factor of 7.  But it makes more sense that they started their fight with the most number of soldiers that they had, and that the final battle listed their total population. Mormon 6:7 for example seems to suggest that women and children were among the soldiers.  http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/search?q=military+participation+ratio 

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/07/eat-this-logistics-in-book-of-mormon.html

Granted, some of this goes against the common interpretation of the text. But its seems when reading the BoM that many prefer initial and superficial assessments, no matter or because of how ridiculous they sound instead of trying to diligently read the text and abandoning shallow assumptions of it. Long story short, I'm not really seeing your point about numbers.  Big numbers are listed in the BoM, which have ample precedent in history, but many historical documents list "wrong" numbers, which has many more precedents in historical documents.  There are a variety of very useful analytical approaches we can take to understanding the numbers listed in historical documents, or those purporting to be like the BoM. Demanding to know of battles in history with millions of people is not one of them.  

Again, I didn't read all 20 pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead tapir, but considering I have a chapter on numbers in my second book, and I'm military historian, I thought I could provide some needed perspective to the discussion. I love talking about the BoM so thanks for giving me the chance.  

Edited November 21, 2016 by morgan.deane

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

It's time for Mommy to spoon feed you ==>>    Chapter 4 "Preach My Gospel".

Well this is getting quite inappropriate.  I went through it and have no clue where the reference is.   I did find the word "experiment" in one place but of course that was in a spiritual sense, having nothing to do with the scientific approach.  If you can be more specific, fine, if anyone else can find it, fine.

But regardless  am done here with this from you.   Adieu.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

I'll admit that I haven't been following this conversation, but I'm a bit confused why anybody needs to show battles with millions of people happened any number of times.

 I assume that the claim of millions comes from Ether 15:2. A close reading of that scripture does not indicate it was one battle in which millions of people died, but they are referring to the conflict before hand.Ether 14:1-2 describe a break down of social order. v.3, civil war and a faction "giving battle". v.4 more battles. v.5 a long siege and more deahts. v.6-10 more civil war and intriuge. v. 11, factions "give battle" across the land. v. 13, another battle. v. 14, an army is "smited", v. 16, a series of battles across the land. v.17, many cities overthrown and inhabitants killed, v. 18-26 "swift" and "speedy" destruction across the and and v.27, more battle. So there seems to be plenty in their history that makes millions dying a credible assertion.  

That being said, there are a variety of ways to look at numbers in a text.  Critically reassessing the numbers in ancient and medieval texts was one of the first things that people like Hans Delbruck did and is considered one of the basic duties of a modern, trained historian. The unreliability of eye witnesses who usually weren't military men and did't have access to orders of battle or even a basic method of counting armies, scribal errors, deliberate exaggeration to  emphasize a moral or political point all combined to make numbers extremely unreliable. For example, a study of the marching style of Persian armies would indicate that the first units would have reached Greece before the last of the million man army started their march!! Obviously the millions listed by Greek historians can be safely reduced without destroying its reliability as a historical document. In fact, having these mistakes actually enhances the BoM's status as a historical document.  http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/12/millions-in-book-of-mormon.html

The Chinese historians operating under a new dynasty often exaggerated the size of the previous dynasties in order to amplify the magnitude of their defeat and the loss of Mandate of Heaven. There is good evidence that in the BoM case the ten thousands in Mormon 6 referred to unit names similar to the Greek Myriad and Roman Century than exact numbers. You can start with A Brent Merrill's article about the decimal units in the BoM. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1108&index=13 The units of ten thousand could have an unspecified number of individuals.  Roman Centuries ended up having 80 men for example, and thats assuming they were at full strength and didn't lose any to sickness and desertion.  (The Theodisian Codes actually allowed up to several years of leave for soldiers.)  

To reassess the armies sizes in the book of Mormon within the Book of Mormon we can also use things like the military participation ratio. This is a percentage of the total population that can be mustered for war. Outside of rare cases that prove the rule, a nation could muster only about 10-15% of their total population.15% of 230,000 is 34,500, which is exactly within the range of soldiers, 30 and 42,000 listed in Mormon 2: 9,25. It doesn't make sense that the Nephites would fight for decades and then suddenly increase the size of their armies by a factor of 7.  But it makes more sense that they started their fight with the most number of soldiers that they had, and that the final battle listed their total population. Mormon 6:7 for example seems to suggest that women and children were among the soldiers.  http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/search?q=military+participation+ratio 

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/07/eat-this-logistics-in-book-of-mormon.html

Granted, some of this goes against the common interpretation of the text. But its seems when reading the BoM that many prefer initial and superficial assessments, no matter or because of how ridiculous they sound instead of trying to diligently read the text and abandoning shallow assumptions of it. Long story short, I'm not really seeing your point about numbers.  Big numbers are listed in the BoM, which have ample precedent in history, but many historical documents list "wrong" numbers, which has many more precedents in historical documents.  There are a variety of very useful analytical approaches we can take to understanding the numbers listed in historical documents, or those purporting to be like the BoM. Demanding to know of battles in history with millions of people is not one of them.  

Again, I didn't read all 20 pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead tapir, but considering I have a chapter on numbers in my second book, and I'm military historian, I thought I could provide some needed perspective to the discussion. I love talking about the BoM so thanks for giving me the chance.  

Thanks for the detail- it has been said that the numbers were exaggerated- great to know we were right.  Robert F. Smith of course gave evidence of that as well but now we have a second witness.