Thoughts on Thoughts on NMS Poll Results

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I have read a lot of the information you have provided and am familiar with the debates.  I simply don't agree with the mormon position on these issues as I think the proof is wanting. 

I can appreciate and respect that.  But you will also understand why conclusory declarations are not going to far on this board.  We're here to discuss "the Mormon position on these issues."  If you'd like to substantively discuss any of them, I am open to such a discussion.  We can do so by recognizing fundamentally different points of view, but nevertheless engaging in substantive discussion and discrete, quantifiable topics and issues.  If that doesn't work, then we can certainly be friends.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I am open to additional information if there is any.  Show me something other than possible parallels and I will take notice.

Additional information about what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

My wife will tell you I am a "glass half empty" kind of person and she is usually right. But isn't it troublesome that 50% of respondents, people who identify as being Mormon, do not believe in all the teachings of the LDS Church? 

On the contrary I find it promising. But then again, my wife would classify me as a glass half full kind of guy.

I would be much much more concerned if 100% of self identified Mormons believed in 100% of the church’s teachings.  If that was the case, I might seriously start to question if I was part of a cult.

Edited December 4, 2017 by pogi

[Exiled]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate and respect that.  But you will also understand why conclusory declarations are not going to far on this board.  We're here to discuss "the Mormon position on these issues."  If you'd like to substantively discuss any of them, I am open to such a discussion.  We can do so by recognizing fundamentally different points of view, but nevertheless engaging in substantive discussion and discrete, quantifiable topics and issues.  If that doesn't work, then we can certainly be friends.

Additional information about what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough. Back to the original topic, you expressed distrust of Jana Riess and her methods, why?

Edited December 4, 2017 by Exiled

[champatsch]

Important to bear in mind in all of this, is that in the case of people such as Dr Coe, they are not free to adopt a position other than the one they do, unless they want to materially marginalize their professional standing in various ways, depending on their current positions within academia.  Therefore we must take their pronouncements with a degree of reserve.  We must ask ourselves, since we know there are strong forces encouraging them to take the positions they do, whether the positions they take are accurate.  This is of course what we must do with any position.  Is it a more likely one than an opposing position?  Initially at least, Brant Gardner was freer than Dr Coe to adopt a different position than the one he ultimately took.  He saw a best fit with Mesoamerica, in a variety of ways, so  he adopted it.  Had he seen a best fit with something else, it is to be hoped that he would have adopted another view.

In my particular case, my initial hypothesis in early 2014 was that the sentence structure of the Book of Mormon was pseudo-biblical, or pseudo-archaic, to use a more neutral term.  The first systematic study I did was on verbal complementation after the verb command.  It came back negative for pseudo-biblical or pseudo-archaic.  So also did the non-emphatic affirmative did syntax of the Book of Mormon.  Of course, I have performed a number of other studies that haven't been published.  One of these, having to do with causative constructions, makes an even stronger case against pseudo-biblicism and pseudo-archaism than the study involving the verb command.

Also, I have recently compared Book of Mormon grammar with pseudo-biblical grammar, studying four prominent texts.  I find that the Book of Mormon easily exceeds each and every one of them in terms of archaic expression, in quite a few different ways.  Next, I have very recently considered whether we can explain Book of Mormon lexis and grammar by biblical hypercorrection.  It is very difficult to do so in a number of cases and domains.  I have carefully studied a December 2016 Purdue University dissertation, which explains Book of Mormon usage as driven by biblical hypercorrection.  It is not too deep a study, since it looks at quite a few different texts, and it both overlooks a lot of Book of Mormon data and fails to adequately deal with data it does discuss in many cases.  Again, the author of this thesis, Dr Bowen, was constrained in his conclusions by academia, similar to how Dr Coe was, and how a host of others have been. Bowen was essentially obliged to come to his conclusion so that he wouldn't jeopardize his ability to obtain an academic post.

In contrast, suppose I had found pseudo-archaism in the Book of Mormon in 2014 and beyond.  I would have felt quite free to publish those findings, since it would have agreed with Gardner's view of Book of Mormon language, which has been the received view.  I would have found several different LDS-related journals willing to publish what I found.

It is also worth noting that I am independent and unaffiliated.  I first met Royal Skousen in August 2014, almost one year after I had begun studying the earliest text, and months after I had performed a number of independent linguistic studies on the text.  My training in the field includes taking classes from linguists at Stanford, MIT, UCLA, and Ohio State, in addition to classes from linguists where I received my doctorate at UCSB (for reasons I will not get into).  My expertise lies in historical syntax and textual analysis, both of which bear directly on my understanding of the earliest text.  From everything I have seen and studied over nearly four years, I have concluded that it is extremely unlikely that Joseph Smith worded the Book of Mormon text.

As a result, people like Exiled and others, who rely on DNA evidence and other things to reject the divinity or historicity of the Book of Mormon, must take a step back and balance favored findings against a fundamental problem: that there is a strong possibility that Joseph did not come up with the words of the text himself, since a large amount of its lexis and grammar was foreign to his 19th-century, biblically influenced way of speaking and writing.  Sound judgment is ultimately required in these weighty matters, for those who have been presented with the data and are able to comprehend the issues at hand.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Fair enough. Back to the original topic, you expressed distrust of Jana Riess and her methods, why?

I do not find her to be well-informed about the Church's doctrines and practices. 

I think she is generally hostile and negative about the Church. 

I think she often makes the worst possible assumptions about the Church and its leaders and their decisions, and works hard to cast the Church in the worst possible light "before the world," while also setting herself apart as having a loftier understanding (as compared to the Church and its leaders) and moral position on controversial issues.

I think she privileges her personal opinions and sociopolitical beliefs as being superior to the teachings of the Church. 

I think she essentially exploits her membership in the Church, and her self-deprecating "Flunking Sainthood" designation, to rationalize and justify and privilege her public criticisms against the Church and its leaders.

I think she openly advocates courses of action for Latter-day Saints that are plainly incompatible with discipleship and/or fellowship in the Church (such as openly encouraging members of the Church to go inactive for long periods).

I don't think she demonstrates much in the way of devotion or respect or fealty to the Restored Gospel or the community of the Saints.

There's probably more, but that's probably enough.

I normally don't express such "personal" critiques of fellow Latter-day Saints .  However, she's a public figure.  She's putting herself and her positions out there, presumably for scrutiny and critique.  That kinda makes her opinions and attitudes toward the Church "fair game."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Important to bear in mind in all of this, is that in the case of people such as Dr Coe, they are not free to adopt a position other than the one they do, unless they want to materially marginalize their professional standing in various ways, depending on their current positions within academia. 

Yep.  Brant Gardner made a similar point some years ago (see here):

Quote

Smac97: Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

Gardner: That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

Smac97: So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

Gardner: Yes. Dangerous.

Smac97: The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Gardner: Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.

The Book of Mormon is "dangerous" to the career of someone like Michael Coe.

That is not to say, however, that he does not or cannot have legitimate and well-reasoned reasons for rejecting The Book of Mormon (although in all candor, it seems like John Sorenson really took him to the proverbial woodshed over his (Coe's) Mormon Stories podcast interview).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Properly dealt with being the operative phrase here.

In other words, worked through and resolved, as one would approach any other problem or difficulty. Not endlessly wallowed in, savored, celebrated, perpetuated, promulgated, advocated, boasted about, or, as some here might put it, "cherished."

An itch needs to be scratched. A wound needs to be dressed and eventually healed. An ache needs to be relieved. And yes, doubts need eventually to be resolved, the sooner the better.

Of course, but we do need to be patient and long-suffering in the face of frankly expressed doubts, without being enablers or co-dependents.  I am referring to honest doubts, not to militant anti-Mormons whose only desire is to destroy faith out of spite and contempt.  The word "tolerance" comes to mind.  I fully expect that some doubters will never resolve their problems, and that some will even leave the faith entirely.  That doesn't bother me at all, and is to be expected.  The hope should be that we can remain friends and have mutual respect.  Naturally, that will not always be possible, and I recall several very angry people who were once on this board.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think for some, this idea of diversity of thought and differences of opinion is actually perceived as a threat to their worldview.  I think its a common position in orthodox Mormonism to take, and I've heard it from many people.  I first came across this idea of a pre-critical naivete when reading Marcus Borg or James Fowler (can't remember which), and I think that description is an accurate one.  

Otherwise known as "group think."

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Brant Gardner made a similar point some years ago (see here):

The Book of Mormon is "dangerous" to the career of someone like Michael Coe.

That is not to say, however, that he does not or cannot have legitimate and well-reasoned reasons for rejecting The Book of Mormon (although in all candor, it seems like John Sorenson really took him to the proverbial woodshed over his (Coe's) Mormon Stories podcast interview).

A point I have also made repeatedly here on this board (I wasn't here when Brant first said that in 2007).

[Exiled]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not find her to be well-informed about the Church's doctrines and practices. 

I think she is generally hostile and negative about the Church. 

I think she often makes the worst possible assumptions about the Church and its leaders and their decisions, and works hard to cast the Church in the worst possible light "before the world," while also setting herself apart as having a loftier understanding (as compared to the Church and its leaders) and moral position on controversial issues.

I think she privileges her personal opinions and sociopolitical beliefs as being superior to the teachings of the Church. 

I think she essentially exploits her membership in the Church, and her self-deprecating "Flunking Sainthood" designation, to rationalize and justify and privilege her public criticisms against the Church and its leaders.

I think she openly advocates courses of action for Latter-day Saints that are plainly incompatible with discipleship and/or fellowship in the Church (such as openly encouraging members of the Church to go inactive for long periods).

I don't think she demonstrates much in the way of devotion or respect or fealty to the Restored Gospel or the community of the Saints.

There's probably more, but that's probably enough.

I normally don't express such "personal" critiques of fellow Latter-day Saints .  However, she's a public figure.  She's putting herself and her positions out there, presumably for scrutiny and critique.  That kinda makes her opinions and attitudes toward the Church "fair game."

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't really know her that well to form an opinion.  She does seem to be trying to make it work in a NOMish sense and the articles I have read of hers seemed pretty fair, even though coming from the left.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, but we do need to be patient and long-suffering in the face of frankly expressed doubts, without being enablers or co-dependents.  I am referring to honest doubts, not to militant anti-Mormons whose only desire is to destroy faith out of spite and contempt.  The word "tolerance" comes to mind.  I fully expect that some doubters will never resolve their problems, and that some will even leave the faith entirely.  That doesn't bother me at all, and is to be expected.  The hope should be that we can remain friends and have mutual respect.  Naturally, that will not always be possible, and I recall several very angry people who were once on this board.

What you refer to here as "honest doubts" may indeed be what Elder Oaks refers to as questioning. The demarcation you draw here between honest doubters and the contemptuous and spiteful may in fact be what Elder Oaks meant. This all might be a matter of semantics.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I do not find her to be well-informed about the Church's doctrines and practices. 

I think she is generally hostile and negative about the Church. 

I think she often makes the worst possible assumptions about the Church and its leaders and their decisions, and works hard to cast the Church in the worst possible light "before the world," while also setting herself apart as having a loftier understanding (as compared to the Church and its leaders) and moral position on controversial issues.

I think she privileges her personal opinions and sociopolitical beliefs as being superior to the teachings of the Church. 

I think she essentially exploits her membership in the Church, and her self-deprecating "Flunking Sainthood" designation, to rationalize and justify and privilege her public criticisms against the Church and its leaders.

I think she openly advocates courses of action for Latter-day Saints that are plainly incompatible with discipleship and/or fellowship in the Church (such as openly encouraging members of the Church to go inactive for long periods).

I don't think she demonstrates much in the way of devotion or respect or fealty to the Restored Gospel or the community of the Saints.

There's probably more, but that's probably enough.

I normally don't express such "personal" critiques of fellow Latter-day Saints .  However, she's a public figure.  She's putting herself and her positions out there, presumably for scrutiny and critique.  That kinda makes her opinions and attitudes toward the Church "fair game."

Thanks,

-Smac

I very much agree, and I would add that your description here strikes me as applying to a doubter as opposed to a questioner (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

45 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't really know her that well to form an opinion.

Don't let that stop you. It doesn't stop anyone else.

Personally, I am grateful for Jana Riess—for her compassion, courage, and humility. She discusses her beliefs here, if you're interested: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/148-20-26.pdf.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the "five days a week" reference pertains not to getting up early to go to the temple, but getting up early to go to seminary.

In other words, the Mormon kids in Utah grumble about getting up early once or twice a year for religious observances (attend the temple), when kids outside of Utah get up early regularly to do so (attend seminary).

Thanks,

-Smac

This is what I meant.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is what I meant.  

So it was apples to oranges, then.

Again, early-morning seminary is very much a custom in Utah, though there is the option to schedule one's seminary class during the school day. So poking fun at Church members in Utah under the assumption that their teens don't have or don't attend early-morning seminary is not only laboring under a false premise, it betrays one's own provincialism.

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Don't let that stop you. It doesn't stop anyone else.

Personally, I am grateful for Jana Riess—for her compassion, courage, and humility. She discusses her beliefs here, if you're interested: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/148-20-26.pdf.

That was 2007, which means to me it is a very good starting place, but in ten years beliefs often change, sometimes significantly.

I don't view her in the same was as Smac, but I do prefer to look directly at the data rather than her interpretation of it because on occasion I find I view it quite differently.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/3/2017 at 3:01 PM, Exiled said:

The source is friends and family pirating what they interpret leaders as saying.  How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?  Isn't the common response that we will find it in the future sometime or to go into questions about what even constitutes "evidence"?  Their DNA seems to have disappeared.  Isn't the response to that question that dna science will vindicate joseph smith someday in the future? 

Oh man, you are arguing with the wrong guy if you are trying to debate historical evidence for the BOM.  Popcorn time.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

My wife will tell you I am a "glass half empty" kind of person and she is usually right. But isn't it troublesome that 50% of respondents, people who identify as being Mormon, do not believe in all the teachings of the LDS Church? 

I think that we would be very hard put to find any Mormon who agrees 100% of the time with every claimed doctrine.  Not sure which Mormon Church you have in mind, Steve.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, champatsch said:

.............................................................

Also, I have recently compared Book of Mormon grammar with pseudo-biblical grammar, studying four prominent texts.  I find that the Book of Mormon easily exceeds each and every one of them in terms of archaic expression, in quite a few different ways.  Next, I have very recently considered whether we can explain Book of Mormon lexis and grammar by biblical hypercorrection.  It is very difficult to do so in a number of cases and domains.  I have carefully studied a December 2016 Purdue University dissertation, which explains Book of Mormon usage as driven by biblical hypercorrection.  It is not too deep a study, since it looks at quite a few different texts, and it both overlooks a lot of Book of Mormon data and fails to adequately deal with data it does discuss in many cases.  Again, the author of this thesis, Dr Bowen, was constrained in his conclusions by academia, similar to how Dr Coe was, and how a host of others have been. Bowen was essentially obliged to come to his conclusion so that he wouldn't jeopardize his ability to obtain an academic post...............................................

Part of the abstract for Gregory A. Bowen, “Sounding sacred: The adoption of biblical archaisms in the Book of Mormon and other 19th century texts,” Ph.D. dissertation (Purdue Univ., Dec 2016), says of both the Book of Mormon and the Shaker Holy Roll (1842),

Quote

Smith and the other prophetic writer [Philemon Stewart] lacked credentials as religious clergy, and lacked the education in historic English of the translators. Their use of archaisms shows the most reliance on the King James Bible in particular. This inexpert use by writers with a need to establish a sense of spiritual authority indicates that biblical imitation was an active choice used to project an identity as a prophet.   http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI10246905/ .

Bowen both admits that Joseph Smith lacked the education to have employed archaisms, and then claims that Joseph simply imitated the KJV -- which cannot account for the true archaisms -- as though Bowen is completely unfamiiiar with recent Book of Mormon scholarship.  Astonishing.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

Let me tell you where I am coming from and maybe we can continue or not.  I represent debtors primarily in my practice and periodically they come to me with questionable theories on how the IRS is not legitimate or talk about the sovereign citizen movement and want me to represent them basing the representation on those theories.  I have engaged in consultations with some of them trying to see what the theories are about even though these have been soundly debunked by the outside world.  I did so because I wanted to be better able to advise clients who had questions about whether or not these theories had any meat on the bones or not.  Within this world, however, there are many who cling to these theories because there is some truth to them, if one changes the paradigm, and this is key.  The paradigm has to be changed in order for the theory to become "truth."  If the 16th Amendment had not been passed, then maybe income taxes are not legitimate, but it did pass.  Fiat money and the federal reserve is a problematic system in some respects but becoming a sovereign citizen and trying to claim everything belongs in Admiralty Court is not going to get one very far.  Just pay my small fee and I will easily discharge the debt.

You obviously live in the real world, in which the "truth" of the law is what you can be arrested and convicted for.  I used to regularly visit former LDS members in Federal Prison who believed in some of that claptrap.  One was an angry lawyer.  Your expertise in that area helps you make a realistic and honest evaluation of such nonsense claims.  In order to properly evaluate Mormon claims (on a scientific basis), you would need similar expertise in history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, and the like.  Since most people lack those qualifications, they must approach it as a matter of faith-based assumptions -- accepting traditional claims, or bearing witness via the Holy Spirit.  Or simply rejecting such beliefs out of hand, with no supporting argument.

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

I have read a lot of the information you have provided and am familiar with the debates.  I simply don't agree with the mormon position on these issues as I think the proof is wanting.  I am open to additional information if there is any.  Show me something other than possible parallels and I will take notice.

Since you exhibit no familiarity with scientific evaluations of Mormon claims, I would suggest that you first familiarize yourself with the considerable literature on the subject, and then give us your "Cliff's Notes" version of what the means.  Or you could give us a substantive summary right now, on this board.  Only then will it become clear whether you have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that we would be very hard put to find any Mormon who agrees 100% of the time with every claimed doctrine.  Not sure which Mormon Church you have in mind, Steve.

I will submit myself as an example of one who believes every authoritative and authentic doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. But I don’t hold with folk doctrines, nor do I sustain conjecture. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You obviously live in the real world, in which the "truth" of the law is what you can be arrested and convicted for.  I used to regularly visit former LDS members in Federal Prison who believed in some of that claptrap.  One was an angry lawyer.  Your expertise in that area helps you make a realistic and honest evaluation of such nonsense claims.  In order to properly evaluate Mormon claims (on a scientific basis), you would need similar expertise in history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, and the like.  Since most people lack those qualifications, they must approach it as a matter of faith-based assumptions -- accepting traditional claims, or bearing witness via the Holy Spirit.  Or simply rejecting such beliefs out of hand, with no supporting argument.

Since you exhibit no familiarity with scientific evaluations of Mormon claims, I would suggest that you first familiarize yourself with the considerable literature on the subject, and then give us your "Cliff's Notes" version of what the means.  Or you could give us a substantive summary right now, on this board.  Only then will it become clear whether you have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

I didn't realize I was supposed to prove to you if my personal beliefs were legitimate or not.  Are you like the sheriff in these parts? All I know Robert is that what I have read, my experience, my reflection, has made me agnostic and also highly skeptical of religious claims.  In any event, I am not here to cause a disturbance or raise the latest polemic.  Like I said on another thread to Meercat, I am past my anger phase and now want to see if I can communicate with my family who are still believers.  Maybe some here will be proxy for family.  If you want to prove something to me, I will listen.  However, I deal with trials all day long and don't want this place to be a constant place of *** for tat that I deal with at work.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't really know her that well to form an opinion. 

I don't know her, either.  Just her published stuff.

16 hours ago, Exiled said:

She does seem to be trying to make it work in a NOMish sense and the articles I have read of hers seemed pretty fair, even though coming from the left.

I admire people who strive to apply the Restored Gospel in their lives.

People who actively work against the Gospel, who actively encourage others to disobey portions of it, who set themselves up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren . . . that is problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know her, either.  Just her published stuff.

I admire people who strive to apply the Restored Gospel in their lives.

People who actively work against the Gospel, who actively encourage others to disobey portions of it, who set themselves up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren . . . that is problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

She does seem to be like some would call a "caferteria mormon."  What do you think of those who still consider themselves mormon but don't really follow, like so many jews or catholics? Should these just resign already? Would you be for taking these people off of the rolls or should they be left on even though they have alternative ideas? I guess my question is one that I brought up once to the class in gospel doctrine when I was teaching. 

The church tells the youth and the members seemingly conflicting messages: be in the world but not of it, be careful who your friends are, etc., yet go out and befriend non-members for missionary work and try and bring back the less active by being their friends. How is that resolved in your mind? There is always the danger that the missionary will be converted to Jana Riess' brand of mormonism, yet is she worthy of leaving the 99 to seek her out or is there too much of a danger there?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

I didn't realize I was supposed to prove to you if my personal beliefs were legitimate or not.  Are you like the sheriff in these parts? All I know Robert is that what I have read, my experience, my reflection, has made me agnostic and also highly skeptical of religious claims.  In any event, I am not here to cause a disturbance or raise the latest polemic.  Like I said on another thread to Meercat, I am past my anger phase and now want to see if I can communicate with my family who are still believers.  Maybe some here will be proxy for family.  If you want to prove something to me, I will listen.  However, I deal with trials all day long and don't want this place to be a constant place of *** for tat that I deal with at work.

You completely misunderstood me, Exiled.  You made some intemperate statements and I simply called upon you to back them up in some reasonable way.  We do have a rule here on this board that if someone asks you to back up your claims, you are obligated to do so -- a citation or two might help.

Instead, you have turned that around and suggested that maybe I could "prove" something to you.  However, I don't think that "proofs" are ever part of this discussion.  I certainly don't deal in them.  Instead, what most scholars deal with is plausibility.  We take hard evidence from a variety of areas and try to employ standard methods of evaluation.  That might help us move forward.

I think that you are right to be skeptical of religious claims, and I have no problem with you being agnostic.  It is wise to be reasonably cautious when faced with extraordinary claims.  But just shooting from the hip won't cut it, good buddy.