Physics Guy Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, cdowis said: [T]here are references and hints to"others" in the record. e.g. 1 Ne 18:25 1 Nephi 18:25 seems to mention only animals "in the forests". It says they were "for the use of men", but this would seem to mean only that they were suitable for domestication by the Nephites, not that they had already been domesticated by other people who were already there, because domesticated horses and cattle and goats would not be found in forests. One could perhaps conjecture that the wild horses and cattle of 1 Ne 18:25 had originally run wild from some other ancient American cultures, the way the later wild horses of the American West came from conquistador horses. This hypothesis is a speculation outside the text, though, and it would imply quite large horse and cattle populations in the ancient Americas, which don't seem to be consistent with archaeology. If the idea is that the horses and cattle of verse 18 were not actually horses or cattle, but other species that could be made to fill similar roles, then this makes verse 18 even less of a hint that there were other human settlers in the Americas before the Nephites. Edited September 6, 2017 by Physics Guy
cdowis Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Physics Guy said: But does the text clearly describe short distances, or only fail to mention long distances explicitly? As you say yourself, texts don't often talk much about their settings. Failure to be explicit about large distances wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't there. There are direct and implied references to long distances -- the voyages of Hagoth, and general references to the land northward. But none of these distant locations are included in the BOM narrative, which is consistent with the LGT. The prophetic statements about the Americas being empty may be few, but I think they're important, because they put the whole rest of the story in a grand and glorious light—and I suspect that's why generations of Mormon readers have assumed the hemispheric geography. If the Book of Mormon is the history of a whole continent that is still filled with the descendants of the Book's peoples, then even if the Book's main message is a spiritual one, the framing story for that message is a significant chunk of world history. If on the other hand the Book of Mormon is the story of a small group of isolated interlopers who died in obscurity, then that story is just a historical footnote. It's a bit hard to see why God would bother to send ancient people across an ocean to live out a footnote. They could have done that in villages back in the Old World. I'm not just trying to nitpick the Book of Mormon's plot premise. What I'm saying is that the scale of the setting may only be background to the story, but this background is not just a detail. It makes a big difference to how you take the whole story. I think most Mormon readers have taken the Book of Mormon as a grand historic saga, not just because they read the text carelessly, but because that fits their whole view of God and the world better than a small scale reading does. This is a misconception of the nature of LGT. The LGT does not preclude the hemispheric habitation of Lamanites and Nephites. It merely fits the geographic setting of the BOM narrative. We know there were Nephites in the land northward (Zelph), but we simply do not have their records. Edited September 6, 2017 by cdowis
Physics Guy Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) Quote The LGT does not preclude the hemispheric habitation of Lamanites and Nephites. If there are supposed to have been Lamanites and Nephites spread throughout the hemisphere, even though the Book of Mormon omits their history, then the conflict with DNA evidence would seem to come back. Edited September 6, 2017 by Physics Guy
clarkgoble Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Quote But does the text clearly describe short distances, or only fail to mention long distances explicitly? As you say yourself, texts don't often talk much about their settings. Failure to be explicit about large distances wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't there. It's explicit about short distances. Sorenson's The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book has all of the references. People can and do differ on how to interpret these references but the distances themselves are pretty clear. The text references start on page 216. Sorenson's can be a bit overwhelming (at least it is for me). John Clark's "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies" is shorter and easier to handle. People dispute some of his distances but typically only by a factor of 2 or so. Never orders of magnitudes. Quote The prophetic statements about the Americas being empty may be few, but I think they're important, because they put the whole rest of the story in a grand and glorious light—and I suspect that's why generations of Mormon readers have assumed the hemispheric geography. While I'm sure it contributes, again it contributes via a naive reading. The main reference critics quote is 2 Ne 1:5-11. But note how not only does that not state the land is empty but the narrative of the text has Jaredites and Muelikites in the land at this time - they're simply not yet known by the Nephites and won't be for a several hundred more years. Quote If on the other hand the Book of Mormon is the story of a small group of isolated interlopers who died in obscurity, then that story is just a historical footnote. I don't quite see how that follows. But even if true, that might explain why some were incentivized to not accept what the text says. It doesn't mean they were reading it in a careful way. Quote What I'm saying is that the scale of the setting may only be background to the story, but this background is not just a detail. It makes a big difference to how you take the whole story. I think most Mormon readers have taken the Book of Mormon as a grand historic saga, not just because they read the text carelessly, but because that fits their whole view of God and the world better than a small scale reading does. I don't see how that is not reading the text carelessly. If you impose on the text a grand vision of what you want the text to say rather than paying attention to what the text does say then that seems pretty careless.
clarkgoble Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Physics Guy said: If there are supposed to have been Lamanites and Nephites spread throughout the hemisphere, even though the Book of Mormon omits their history, then the conflict with DNA evidence would seem to come back. Not really if the key DNA was already lost by then. The question is when the spread took place. Now for the record I don't buy this, yet there clearly are many US Indian tribes with traditions ascribing their origin to Mexico.
cdowis Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) Dialogue with a youtube Mormon Critic CRITIC1.) Do you (or do you not) believe in Jesus Christ? 2.) If so, who do you believe He was/is? 3.) What about God? Do you believe in God? 4.) If so, do you believe God is an exalted man? 5.) Do you believe Prophets are for today? 6.) Doesn’t it say somewhere in your Scriptures that the Apostle John never died and that he would live until Christ returns (Doctrine and Covenants, section 7)? 7.) What is the Plan of Salvation, according to your personal beliefs? 8.) Since ‘the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance,’ (Alma 45:16; Doctrine and Covenants 1:31) at what point do I know that I have exercised enough faith in Jesus Christ and repented of my sins enough so that God will grant me eternal life? How do I ‘endure to the end’ if I am still sinning in my thoughts and deeds right up until my death? If I am still a sinner when I find myself on my deathbed, doesn’t that mean that I did not fully repent of all of my sins? How can Christ’s grace be sufficient to cover my sins if Moroni 10:32 is true when it says that I must first ‘deny’ myself of ‘all ungodliness’ before Christ’s grace is ‘sufficient’ for me? How do I deny myself of ‘all’ ungodliness? Have you done that? Do you know anybody who has successfully stopped sinning?” 9.) If you do believe in Jesus Christ, is Jesus sufficient or is He just a necessary step for our salvation? If Jesus is sufficient, why do we need to add our works of righteousness to his payment on the cross? Doesn’t that mean that you believe Jesus is insufficient to make us worthy? RESPONSE Considering the wide breadth of your questions, and that yes o answers would no giv just o hese questions, I suggest that you you do a chat with the missionaries and have them teach you what we believe. CRITIC I disagree that the above questions require a long (or complex) answer. The majority are yes or no. While you may elect to expound upon any given topic, in the majority of the situations it boils down to a simple yes or no. RESPONSEyyyyyyyyyyyyynyyn You now have a total and complete understanding of the Plan of Salvation and Atonement. Edited September 6, 2017 by cdowis
Physics Guy Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, clarkgoble said: It's explicit about short distances. Sorenson's The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book has all of the references. ... John Clark's "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies" is shorter and easier to handle. Thanks for the references. Even the shorter book was a bit too long for me to read carefully, I'm afraid, but I skimmed through it. It seemed fairly thorough and careful in its effort to deduce a rough geography from the Book of Mormon narrative, and that does make it hard to see how one could imagine, say, Zarahemla and Nephi being thousands of miles apart. At the end of John Clark's article, though, he dismisses a bunch of stuff from the book of Helaman about Nephites multiplying and spreading to fill the whole land right out to the sea in all four compass directions. Clark wants to take that vast expansion from Helaman as hyperbole that really only meant "they spread out a whole lot". Well, okay, that could be. If you look up the Helaman passage, it might be read as saying that this great burst of expansion took place in just a few years, and in that case it certainly couldn't have gotten far. But I wouldn't say that it was just careless reading if traditional Mormons instead took that passage more literally, as describing an epoch of immense expansion that began in that one good year but then continued for generations. I'm not going to thresh through the whole Book of Mormon for this, I'm afraid. I'd rather just let this go with a question, and I'll accept whatever answer you give as a reasonable one. Is the Book of Mormon really fully consistent with a small-scale setting, or does it also have a fair number of passages whose most natural reading would suggest something much larger? There's that bit from Helaman 11, and the other from 2 Nephi 1. Are they it, for the large-scale stuff? Or is there enough more to make a significant hook on which to hang the large-scale reading, even if the bulk of the Book of Mormon narrative takes place within a smaller frame (as cdowis said)? Edited September 7, 2017 by Physics Guy
clarkgoble Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 59 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: Clark wants to take that vast expansion from Helaman as hyperbole that really only meant "they spread out a whole lot". Well, okay, that could be. If you look up the Helaman passage, it might be read as saying that this great burst of expansion took place in just a few years, and in that case it certainly couldn't have gotten far. But I wouldn't say that it was just careless reading if traditional Mormons instead took that passage more literally, as describing an epoch of immense expansion that began in that one good year but then continued for generations. The main issue is much less with spreading out than with the presupposition that there wouldn't have been people there already. While I certainly think we ought be cautious in how we read that, that's not really significant for the point I was making which was the Book of Mormon doesn't teach a hemispheric model. But I don't have any problem with people from Nephite centrals emigrated to north or south America. 1 hour ago, Physics Guy said: Is the Book of Mormon really fully consistent with a small-scale setting, or does it also have a fair number of passages whose most natural reading would suggest something much larger? There's that bit from Helaman 11, and the other from 2 Nephi 1. Are they it, for the large-scale stuff? Or is there enough more to make a significant hook on which to hang the large-scale reading, even if the bulk of the Book of Mormon narrative takes place within a smaller frame (as cdowis said)? Well again in what sense? It seems like you're conceding that the bulk of the action takes place in a narrow area, which was one of my main claims. However the more significant question is whether it's fair to assume there's no people already outside of that main area. That's the problem with naive readings, not whether there were periods of emigration outside of the area of the main narration.
Physics Guy Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 I never meant to dispute with any Mormons about where the bulk of the action in the Book of Mormon takes place. For me the issue is genetic dilution. For the Book of Mormon to dodge the DNA bullet, the Nephites and Lamanites have to have been a small drop in the genetic bucket of American peoples. A few emigrants who spilled out of the Limited Geography might well be such a drop. A few emigrants getting absorbed into the large aboriginal cultures around them, however, would not be the kind of grand saga of multiplying in the New World that does seem to be implied by at least a few Book of Mormon verses. Besides Helaman 11 and 2 Nephi 1, how many such verses are there, actually?
smac97 Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) On 9/1/2017 at 10:03 AM, Physics Guy said: Just because there is evidence against something doesn't mean it's not true. Agreed. Quote People go to prison because there is evidence against them, but sometimes those people are actually innocent. Agreed. Quote Evidence against a statement is anything that makes the statement seem less likely to be true than it seemed before we saw the evidence. That is a useful, but incomplete, definition. Quote Strong evidence makes the statement seem a lot less likely to be true; weak evidence only moves the needle slightly. Okay. But what constitutes "strong" and "weak" is rather subjective, particularly as to religious claims, claims about ancient historical events, etc. There are also many factors which can render evidence "strong" or "weak." Where did the evidence come from? Is there a reliable chain of custody for it? What kind of evidence is it? How old is it? Is there corroborating evidence? And so on. Quote How far the needle moves also depends on how much other evidence is already weighing on it. How far the needle moves also depends on how much credence, or probative value, the fact-finder lends to the extant evidence. Quote So even strong evidence against my idea will not necessarily lower its likelihood all that much. Just because I still have a leg on which to stand, however, doesn't mean that I should deny that I've faced adverse evidence. I think most people will respect an opponent who takes hits and fights on, as long as it isn't ridiculous. I quite agree. I've been saying this about Mormonism for years. For example, critics like to make absolute claims like "there is no evidence for the historicity of The Book of Mormon," when plainly there is evidence. Quote The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. No, it's not. "DNA evidence" has nothing to say for or against the historicity of The Book of Mormon. See, e.g., the following: Book of Mormon and DNA Studies Ugo Perego - Book of Mormon and DNA Studies DNA Detective Work with Ugo Perego The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint The Book of Mormon DNA Debate | An Interview With Ugo Perego Why Hasn’t Lehi’s DNA Been Found? Meldrum aside, most Latter-day Saints who have considered the matter have concluded that "DNA evidence" as to The Book of Mormon is . . . inconclusive. See here (from the last link above): Quote In recent decades, some people have wondered if DNA might provide any insight into Book of Mormon origins. Among these, some have proclaimed that DNA science definitively disproves the Book of Mormon, while others have declared just the opposite, arguing that there is positive DNA evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. In 2014, the Church published an essay on LDS.org explaining the most rigorous thinking, current science, and the complicated issues related to testing the Book of Mormon using DNA. As explained in that essay, the actual science is more complicated than both of these extreme views have supposed. To date, genetic studies indicate that Native Americans are most closely related to East Asians, while no clear genetic relationship with the Middle East has been established. However, the best available DNA data has several limitations, making it likely that the migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon would go unnoticed genetically. A key factor is that the Americas were already populated when Book of Mormon peoples first arrived. There is strong evidence that Book of Mormon peoples likely interacted with indigenous peoples almost immediately, forever complicating efforts to trace the DNA lineages of Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their co-travelers. ... These kinds of limitations led DNA scientist Michael F. Whiting to conclude, “It would be the pinnacle of foolishness to base one’s testimony” of the Book of Mormon “on the results of a DNA analysis.” With all the complexities of DNA science in mind, even defenders of the Book of Mormon must be cautious not to claim evidence where none exists. As concluded in the essay published by the Church, “DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.” Faithful Latter-day Saints should not be afraid to honestly admit that DNA analysis is inconclusive. The Book of Mormon holds up well under scrutiny and does not need to be propped up by improper use of science. While genetic studies do not offer the evidence some have hoped for, many other disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, geography, geology, literary studies, and ancient legal studies continue to yield fruitful evidence which both supports and sheds light on Book of Mormon narratives. I think that's about right. Quote The current DNA evidence rules out some of the most natural interpretations of what the Book says, No, it doesn't. You are not presenting evidence. You are making assertions. Quote and that makes the Book seem at least somewhat less likely to be true. No, it doesn't. Again, you are not presenting evidence. Quote This is not conclusive evidence; What is the antecedent for "this"? You have not presented any evidence, only assertions. Quote one can still construct hypothetical scenarios in which the Middle Eastern immigrants described in the Book somehow failed to leave genetic traces in the Americas. These scenarios are more than merely "hypothetical" (if by that term you mean "highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence"). Again, you are not discussing evidence. At all. You are making conclusions based on assertions. Quote One may well then be able to argue that, in light of all the other evidence in favor of BofM historicity, the total likelihood that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate remains high. Whether The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be is principally a question of faith. The weighing of evidence is important, but that weighing is substantively different from the analytical construct you have presented. "The Spirit" is a form of evidence to the Latter-day Saints. It is, for us, the primary means of gaining a testimony about the book. Quote Come on, though. "Come on," indeed. Testing religious truth claims through legalistic exercises? When would that ever work? What testable, empirical "evidence" exists that Christ was born of Mary? That an angel announced His birth? That He turned water to wine, and multiplied the loaves and fishes, and walked on water, and raised the dead, and was Himself resurrected and that He ascended to heaven? None, none and none. And yet billions of people profess belief in these things. Secular evidentiary analysis only has limited utility in terms of evaluating the merits of religious truth claims. Quote We can argue about how strong the DNA evidence is in comparison with other evidence in the opposite direction, You have not presented any "DNA evidence." You have only made assertions about it and conclusions based on those assertions. Quote but there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side. In a very broad, generalized sense, yes. But the quality and probative value and relevance of that "evidence," is very, very low. So much so that I think that such skeptical reliance on it is based far more on squishy, vague, assertions about "evidence" rather than on the evidence itself. When "DNA evidence" is actually (and fairly) examined in the context of proving or disproving The Book of Mormon, the results are . . . inconclusive. Which is the position taken by the LDS Church and the bulk of its adherents who have considered the issue. In other words, the Mormons are assessing the evidence. The critics are relying on wishful thinking. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 8, 2017 by smac97 1
Physics Guy Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 Quote You have not presented any "DNA evidence." You have only made assertions about it and conclusions based on those assertions. Of course I have presented no genetic evidence. I am simply repeating the conclusions of others who have good credentials. I assumed from the rest of this thread that their work was fairly well known. The issues are outlined on Wikipedia, for heaven's sake. I'm afraid you've hit one of my peeves about apologetic argument style, so here is my rant on that subject. "You're only making assertions, not supplying evidence" is a facile rebuttal. It's a lot like accusing people of question-begging, actually. Too often it's just a lazy attempt to misuse a specific fallacy as a blanket defence because it sounds good. Assertions are allowed. If you don't think they are, you are in for some trouble, because every darn thing you say will be an assertion and I can challenge you to supply evidence for every assertion in your evidence until we're ranting about whether there is evidence for A = A. If you doubt an assertion, you can challenge it. If someone is challenged for evidence and fails to do anything whatever towards providing it, but merely repeats the assertion as if their own authority were enough, then that's the fallacy. Hitting someone with the "You're only asserting" stick just because you don't share their conclusion is a misuse of the charge. In this case, I made my assertion just once, and I think we've all seen the same evidence. 15 hours ago, smac97 said: In a very broad, generalized sense, [there is indeed DNA evidence on the skeptical side]. But the quality and probative value and relevance of that "evidence," is very, very low. So much so that I think that such skeptical reliance on it is based far more on squishy, vague, assertions about "evidence" rather than on the evidence itself. When "DNA evidence" is actually (and fairly) examined in the context of proving or disproving The Book of Mormon, the results are . . . [ellpisis in original] inconclusive. ... In other words, the Mormons are assessing the evidence. The critics are relying on wishful thinking. All I actually said was that there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side. I don't know what "broad, generalized sense" means, but it sounds as though you agree. In the previous parts of my post I explained how there is nothing wrong with going against some evidence. So of course Mormons can find the DNA evidence against Book of Mormon historicity to be weak. If skeptics don't find it so weak, I would hardly say that they are indulging in wishful thinking. I don't think we care enough about this point to have wishes for it. To me it was always unlikely that any contemporary DNA evidence could rule out all Middle Eastern migration whatever. To me it's still clear that the DNA evidence does rule out ancient Middle Eastern migration to the Americas on any large scale. If Mormons are happy with a smaller-scale Book of Mormon, then that must be good Mormonism. It's not as though I can tell Mormons what they're supposed to believe. I'm just curious how the Limited Geography model really works for Mormons, when to me it seems kind of a letdown.
smac97 Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) On 9/8/2017 at 3:09 AM, Physics Guy said: Of course I have presented no genetic evidence. I know. That is de rigueur when critics/skeptics talk about this subject. The other common tendency is to contrast "DNA evidence" not with the text of The Book of Mormon, but instead with 19th-century and earlier 20th-century conjecture about the text. Hence we have critics like Simon Southerton who say this: Quote In 600 bc there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. And then immediately follow up with stuff like this: Quote However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years. The Book of Mormon records that soon after their arrival in the Americas, the descendants of Lehi "multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land" (Jarom 1:8). Nothing in the text of The Book of Mormon "states" anything, "plainly" or otherwise, about population genetics. I pretty much agree with the proposition that "DNA evidence" speaks to early LDS assumptions about and interpretations of The Book of Mormon as far as what the text says in terms of population growth, geography, etc. But that is a far, far different scenario from saying that "DNA evidence" has any probative value regarding the historicity of the text. Quote I am simply repeating the conclusions of others who have good credentials. As did I (except that I actually provided specific references). Quote I assumed from the rest of this thread that their work was fairly well known. The issues are outlined on Wikipedia, for heaven's sake. And yet this is a discussion board. Hence my preference to discuss "the evidence" rather than conclusory assertions about "the evidence." This is particularly so when glossing over "the evidence" is a big part of the problem. Quote I'm afraid you've hit one of my peeves about apologetic argument style, so here is my rant on that subject. We'll be exchanging viewpoints, then. Quote "You're only making assertions, not supplying evidence" is a facile rebuttal. No, it's not. Let me lay it out... First, there is no way to "rebut" a post lacking in evidence or argument. You've presented no evidence or reasoned argument based thereon. Instead, you merely assert as a given that which is very much in dispute, to wit: "The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Second, this is a discussion board peopled by folks who are relatively well-informed about the above-referenced disputed topic. We should not be ignoring or glossing over evidence. We should be addressing it head-on. Third, I did supply evidence. I provided a number of links to articles that directly address the point in dispute. Fourth, our respective positions on "the evidence" is very asymmetrical. My position is that "DNA evidence" pertaining to The Book of Mormon is inconclusive. Your position, on the other hand, is much more conclusory ("The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon."). You are making much stronger claims about the probative value of the evidence than I am. Fifth, I see your style of argument in my line of work all the time, and it generally conceals a position of weakness, not strength. In fact, I was working on just such a case yesterday (I am a lawyer). The case involves a plaintiff, a residential loan borrower, who defaulted on his loan years ago and now claims that the statute of limitations has expired, such that my client, the bank, cannot foreclose. I have filed a "Motion to Dismiss" that presents numerous arguments and authorities that address the following issues: What is the correct statute of limitations to be applied to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings? What event or act commences the running of the statute of limitations? What subsequent events or acts toll (pause) the running of the statute of limitations? What subsequent events or actions re-start the running of the statute of limitations? Can the bank foreclose even after the statute of limitations has lapsed? Does the legal doctrine of "equitable estoppel" bar the plaintiff from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to foreclosure? In support of my client's position, I have researched the state statutory provisions pertaining to this issue, as well as state and federal case law which interprets those provisions. I have also presented documents signed by the plaintiff and recorded in the county recorder's office, as well as numerous bankruptcy filings also signed by the plaintiff (these documents, I argue, are relevant because they establish that the plaintiff received the loan, that my client complied with the procedural requirements for foreclosure, that the plaintiff paused and/or re-started the statute of limitations several times, etc.). These are matters of "public record," and as such are generally admissible as "evidence" in a Motion to Dismiss. I have also compiled extensive decisional authorities (case law) in support of my client's position, both mandatory (meaning the court is obligated to follow them) and persuasive (meaning the court can, at its discretion, follow them). Opposing counsel has, for many months now, uniformly ignored the substance of my arguments and cited authorities, and instead has merely asserted over and over, sans evidence or citation to relevant authorities, that the statute of limitations has run and the bank cannot foreclose. We had a hearing on August 7 to address my client's Motion to Dismiss, during which the Court repeatedly invited opposing counsel to explain the basis of his conclusion (that the statute of limitations has run). Opposing counsel responded by . . . repeating his assertion. The judge finally gave up and gave the parties one last chance to present argument in writing on two particular facets of this issue in the form of a supplemental brief (the facets being the "law of the case" doctrine and its application in the context of a Motion to Dismiss, and whether bankruptcy filings can constitute an "acknowledgement" of the debt such as to re-start the statute of limitations). I drafted mine to include extensive citations to additional mandatory and persuasive authorities. And opposing counsel responded by . . . repeating his assertion. Again. I am reasonably confident that my position is superior to my opponent's. Not because I am the best attorney in the world, but because I have heavily researched this topic, because I have litigated it many, many times, because I have prevailed every time I have litigated it, and . . . because my opponent has manifestly failed to marshal evidence or authorities in support of his position, despite his having extensive time and numerous opportunities to do so. His continuing refusal to engage "the evidence" (the recorded documents and the bankruptcy documents, and the case law I have cited), and his alternative course of action of repeating conclusory assertions in his client's favor, has not been availing. I think that's where we are in terms of what "DNA evidence" says or does not say about the historicity of The Book of Mormon. We are in an adversarial construct. We come to this board to discuss and argue. We are both presumably reasonably well-educated and intelligent people. We should focus on the substance of the topics at hand. That critics routinely decline to do so (on this topic, that is), and instead resort to glossing over the evidence and making assertions about it, is not persuasive. Quote It's a lot like accusing people of question-begging, actually. You are begging the question ("a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true"). The "statement under examination" is, briefly stated, whether "DNA evidence" (whatever that means) "is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon." This is a discussion board peopled by folks who have varying opinions on that issue. You, however, have come here and asserted, sans evidence or argument, that it is so. You are begging the question. Quote Too often it's just a lazy attempt to misuse a specific fallacy as a blanket defence because it sounds good. You have come here and asserted, sans evidence or argument, that "[t]he DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon." I have provided numerous citations to articles which specifically and directly and at some length address that issue. Perhaps we should start a thread to address our respective points of view on this topic. How 'bout it? Quote Assertions are allowed. I suppose. I think your assertion is flawed. I have supported my argument with citation to argument and evidence, so mine was not really an "assertion" (as in "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"). Quote If you doubt an assertion, you can challenge it. I did. Quote If someone is challenged for evidence and fails to do anything whatever towards providing it, but merely repeats the assertion as if their own authority were enough, then that's the fallacy. That's an apt characterization of our discussion to date. So the fallacy is, it appears, appropriately raised. Quote Hitting someone with the "You're only asserting" stick just because you don't share their conclusion is a misuse of the charge. We should get past it and address the evidence in a separate thread. Quote In this case, I made my assertion just once, and I think we've all seen the same evidence. And yet it seems that it is usually the critics/skeptics who insist on glossing over the evidence rather than present it, on making assertions about what the evidence "says" instead of engaging the evidence itself. Quote All I actually said was that there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side. And I have said that "DNA evidence" is inconclusive regarding The Book of Mormon. It is not competent evidence either for or against. I think my assessment of the evidence, as to its relevance and probative value, is superior to yours. Quote I don't know what "broad, generalized sense" means, but it sounds as though you agree. In the previous parts of my post I explained how there is nothing wrong with going against some evidence. So of course Mormons can find the DNA evidence against Book of Mormon historicity to be weak. If skeptics don't find it so weak, I would hardly say that they are indulging in wishful thinking. Most Mormons find "DNA evidence" (whatever that means) to be "weak" in the sense that A) such evidence is being misused by critics, who claim it is competent and probative and relevant to the historicity of The Book of Mormon, when B) in contrast they (the Mormons), having reviewed the evidence, find it to be inconclusive, and hence not competent or probative or relevant to the historicity of The Book of Mormon. See remarks by Ugo Perego, Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay, and many others on this point. I think the Mormons have a stronger and more coherent assessment of the evidence. Critics, on the other hand, are telling themselves what they want to hear. I say this because I see them regularly behaving like the opposing attorney described above. They refuse to actually examine and argue the evidence itself, and instead merely assert over and over what the evidence says and expect us to take their say-so as definitive or persuasive. Quote I don't think we care enough about this point to have wishes for it. There are hundreds of websites, message boards, etc. that are critical of the LDS Church, and that harp on what "DNA evidence" supposedly says. So let's not feign indifference. We wouldn't be here arguing the point if we did not have fairly strong opinions about it. It is these strong opinions that make me a Mormon and you a critic. Quote To me it was always unlikely that any contemporary DNA evidence could rule out all Middle Eastern migration whatever. Then "DNA evidence" would be inconclusive, rather than - as you put it - "evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon." I guess, as a technical matter, you are correct. It is "evidence." But it is not competent evidence. It is not relevant evidence. It is not probative evidence. It is "evidence" only the meanest sense of the word. Quote To me it's still clear that the DNA evidence does rule out ancient Middle Eastern migration to the Americas on any large scale. And since The Book of Mormon does not posit any such "large scale" migrations, then what "DNA evidence" says on that subject is not relevant or probative as to the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Quote If Mormons are happy with a smaller-scale Book of Mormon, then that must be good Mormonism. I agree. If we previously had incorrect perceptions about The Book of Mormon, and if we have since enlarged our understanding and gained further knowledge about it and adapted in accordance therewith, then that certainly is "good Mormonism." Course corrections are part of our faith. Seeking further light and knowledge, both through revelation and through study ("seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith"), is what we are supposed to do. Quote It's not as though I can tell Mormons what they're supposed to believe. I'm just curious how the Limited Geography model really works for Mormons, when to me it seems kind of a letdown. For me, the value of The Book of Mormon is not made greater (or lesser) by the actual number of persons involved, or in the geographic scope of the events described in the text. The Four Gospels describe "smaller-scale" events in terms of people (Jesus Christ and His followers), chronology (His ministry lasted about three years), geography (His ministry was confined to Jerusalem and its environs), and so on. And yet Christianity has been one of the greatest forces, perhaps the single greatest force, in history. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. Do Christians resent the fact that Christ's ministry was limited to Palestine, or that His ministry was only three years long? Were these "letdown{s}"? Perhaps the problem here is not The Book of Mormon, but in the reasonableness of expectations and assumptions about it. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 11, 2017 by smac97 3
Recommended Posts