Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 54 minutes ago, Duncan said: you don't know what the means but maybe you can email a pyschology prof.? a non LDS one too! A classic ad hominem...but the answers to my questions are still...no.
clarkgoble Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: WRT to the text, what about the numerous anachronisms and King James Bible version errors? What about them? Not all anachronisms I'd agree are anachronisms (see some of the other threads where I've made that point) but obviously the text uses the KJV text. That doesn't mean there's not a strong relationship to the underlying text on the gold plates. By way of analogy I can find late pseudopigraphal texts with obvious Christian elements in them. Doesn't mean there wasn't a much older text that was the source for the 3rd or 4th century text. Indeed usually scholars assume that was the case and that while it's been heavily modified by later Christians that it's a version of an earlier Jewish work. So few apologists would deny contemporary elements to the Book of Mormon. But that's never the question for the apologists. I think particularly since Blake Ostler's proposals that most people take for granted the idea the Book of Mormon is a loose, highly interpretive, translation. The analogy I usually make is to Ezra Pound's "translations" of Chinese poetry. Although an other analogy are the various targums and peshers that are Aramaic translations of earlier Hebrew Biblical texts. Edited November 28, 2018 by clarkgoble
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: How dare people ask questions... Don’t try to play the victim. It is pathetic and sad and no one feels sympathy. You are not asking questions. You are presenting a statement and asking others to disprove it in the guise of a question. If you were genuinely asking a question out of ignorance you would be carefully examining the answers. You are not. You reflexively repeat your question and that no one can answer it in the hopes that repetition will grant you victory. You are holding your statement as still not disproven repeatedly no matter what anyone says. You cloak the whole thing in questions because you are a coward. If you were honest you would present your idea that no non-LDS scholars take our scriptures seriously as your hypothesis and ask for evidence for or against and present an actual case. Instead you hide it in questions so that if anyone comes up with a cogent response you do not have to adjust your position because you can claim you do not actually have a position (because you are too cowardly to defend one) and are “just asking questions”. it is a transparent and well-documented rhetorical tactic used by the dishonest, lunatics, trolls, and people who support horrible things. For example it is commonly used when people want to “ask questions” about the reality of the holocaust when they want to covertly convince people the holocaust was a myth. When called on it they insist they do not doubt it but just want to be sure and are just “asking questions”. Glenn Beck uses it by asking questions suggesting nutty conspiracies might be true without actually saying it and risking backlash. Same with TV shows about ancient aliens. There are genuine uses for questions. They can be used correctly for clarification, honest inquiries made in genuine ignorance, and to challenge someone. You can even use leading questions for things like the Socratic method though I personally hate the Socratic method and wonder why no one in the dialogues doesn’t take the opportunity to punch Socrates in the face for being a falsely-modest condescendingly obnoxious know-it-all. Only idiots believe you are “just asking questions”. Only a git uses this tactic in the first place. 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Hoosier said: If there were non-lds archaeologists who believed in the historicity of the BofM, they would be lds by now so you would dismiss them. As for the BofA, from what I've read, there were multiple scrolls along with the mummies that Joseph Smith had, one of which was described as long enough to fill the room when unrolled. All that survived is a small scrap so how does any Egyptologist know if his translation of a scroll was correct. They don't have it. As for there not being a shred of evidence for the BoM, how do you identify it as evidence or not? There could be tons of it. Let's suppose 1,000 years from now archaeologists dig up my neighbor's yard and find a bowl and cup. They could do an analysis and determine what it was made of, date it to roughly late 20th/early 21st century, American culture. By markings on it, they may even be able to tell the manufacturer, production lot number and trace it to the exact employee who made it if they find the manufacturer's records. Now my question to you is, from this archaeological evidence, what religion is my neighbor? That's the kind of thing you're dealing with when you ask for archaeological evidence of Nephites or Lamanites. So, the rest of humanity and science is wrong and only the LDS Church is technically correct? Meaning, anyone who sees the "truth" would inevitably join the church? ALL of the scientific community is just blinded by their logic to base their research on evidence and not faith? That is ridiculous, IMO. The burden of proof is on the church, not me, to provide the evidence to support the BoM and BoA narrative. You can claim faith, prayer, etc., all you want, but that doesn't work for some people. IMO, there is nothing to support the historicity of the BoM or BoA.
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: A classic ad hominem...but the answers to my questions are still...no. Someone being wrong about something is not an ad hominem. I think you might need to read up on your fallacies if you want to be a more entertaining troll.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Don’t try to play the victim. It is pathetic and sad and no one feels sympathy. You are not asking questions. You are presenting a statement and asking others to disprove it in the guise of a question. If you were genuinely asking a question out of ignorance you would be carefully examining the answers. You are not. You reflexively repeat your question and that no one can answer it in the hopes that repetition will grant you victory. You are holding your statement as still not disproven repeatedly no matter what anyone says. You cloak the whole thing in questions because you are a coward. If you were honest you would present your idea that no non-LDS scholars take our scriptures seriously as your hypothesis and ask for evidence for or against and present an actual case. Instead you hide it in questions so that if anyone comes up with a cogent response you do not have to adjust your position because you can claim you do not actually have a position (because you are too cowardly to defend one) and are “just asking questions”. it is a transparent and well-documented rhetorical tactic used by the dishonest, lunatics, trolls, and people who support horrible things. For example it is commonly used when people want to “ask questions” about the reality of the holocaust when they want to covertly convince people the holocaust was a myth. When called on it they insist they do not doubt it but just want to be sure and are just “asking questions”. Glenn Beck uses it by asking questions suggesting nutty conspiracies might be true without actually saying it and risking backlash. Same with TV shows about ancient aliens. There are genuine uses for questions. They can be used correctly for clarification, honest inquiries made in genuine ignorance, and to challenge someone. You can even use leading questions for things like the Socratic method though I personally hate the Socratic method and wonder why no one in the dialogues doesn’t take the opportunity to punch Socrates in the face for being a falsely-modest condescendingly obnoxious know-it-all. Only idiots believe you are “just asking questions”. Only a git uses this tactic in the first place. "Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text? Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA?" Three questions...NO statement... Very legitimate questions, IMO, if the church wants to maintain the historicity of the BoA and BoM. In a court of law, I think it would be a closed case...NO evidence to support these claims, IMO. Edited November 28, 2018 by Ouagadougou
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Someone being wrong about something is not an ad hominem. I think you might need to read up on your fallacies if you want to be a more entertaining troll. Right...still nothing WRT my 3 questions...
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: The burden of proof is on the church, not me, to provide the evidence to support the BoM and BoA narrative. You can claim faith, prayer, etc., all you want, but that doesn't work for some people. IMO, there is nothing to support the historicity of the BoM or BoA. Wrong. The burden of proof is on God as the D&C makes clear with Him claiming that burden himself and He usually works on an individual level. If that method does not work for you that is between you and God. You are screaming at the wrong people. 2
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: "Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text? Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA?" Three questions...NO statement... Very legitimate questions, IMO, if the church wants to maintain the historicity of the BoA and BoM. In a court of law, I think it would be a closed case...NO evidence to support these claims, IMO.
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Right...still nothing WRT my 3 questions... Keep up the repetition. Your mindless devotion to inane repetition is winning hearts and minds by the thousands.
Kevin Christensen Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) Some evidence, which is to say, something is not the same as nothing: http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2017/05/top-10-archaeological-evidences-for.html And a discussion of the nature of evidence, different kinds, from John Welch. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4 Quote The word evidence derives from the Latin ex videns, meaning anything that comes from seeing and also from seeming. Evidence is literally what meets the eye and, more than that, what seems to be from what we see. Evidence is based on hard facts, but even under the best of circumstances it works less automatically and more subjectively than many people realize. If evidence were not such a complicated matter, many things would be much simpler in our courtrooms, legislative sessions, and corporate board rooms as well as in our lecture halls and Gospel Doctrine classrooms. ... 1. Any piece of evidence is deeply intertwined with a question. No real evidence exists until an issue is raised which that evidence tends to prove or disprove. By choosing what questions we will ask, we introduce a subjective element into the inquiry—seeking and asking begin in faith. At the same time, our questions in turn determine what will become evidence—faith begins with asking and seeking. ... 2. Just about anything can serve potentially as evidence, depending on what a person wishes to emphasize. ... 3. For this reason, evidence can almost always be found or generated for and against just about any proposition. Only a very impoverished mind cannot find evidence for just about anything he or she wants. Once again, this points out that evidence is not only discovered but also created. That creation is not arbitrarily ex nihilo, but neither is it impersonally predestined. 4. Different kinds of legal evidence evoke different kinds of responses. The law allows physical evidence, written documents, oral testimony, and so on. But at the same time, different people or legal situations may require or prefer to favor one kind of evidence over another. No rules automatically determine how one kind of evidence stacks up against another or what kind of evidence is best. ... 5. Legal evidence is often circumstantial. The more direct the evidence, the more probative it usually is, and in some courts “circumstantial evidence only raises a probability.”53 But on the other hand, people may also choose to view circumstantial evidence as desirable and even necessary in certain situations. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding a particular event or statement are usually essential to understanding the matter. To quote Henry David Thoreau, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”54 A dictum from the United States Supreme Court explains the power of circumstantial evidence: “Circumstantial evidence is often as convincing to the mind as direct testimony, and often more so. A number of concurrent facts, like rays of light, all converging to the same center, may throw not only a clear light but a burning conviction; a conviction of truth more infallible than the testimony even of two witnesses directly to a fact.”55 Accordingly, the convergence of huge amounts of circumstantial evidence, such as in the astonishingly short time in which the Book of Mormon was translated,56 may be viewed quite favorably, if a person’s spiritual disposition inclines one to receive and value such evidence. 6. Another fascinating and crucial question is, How are we to evaluate the cumulative weight of evidence? Some compilations of evidence are strong; other collections are weak. Yet once again, in most settings, no scale for evaluating the cumulative weight of evidence is readily available. No canons of method answer the question, How much evidence do we need in order to draw a certain conclusion? Answering this question is another choice that combines and bridges faith and evidence. An interesting scale has developed in the law that prescribes specific levels of proof that are required to support certain legal results. The world of evidence is not black and white; there are many shades of gray. Ranging from a high degree of certitude on down, standards of proof on this spectrum include: Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain Competent and substantial evidence, well over half Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility Plausible, reasonably suspected Material, relevant, merely possible. 8. In certain cases, the sum of the evidence may be greater than the total of its individual parts... 9. Another interesting effect occurs when a good case is actually weakened by piling on a few weak additional points. A bad argument may be worse in some minds than no argument at all if the weak arguments tend to undermine confidence in the strong points. ... 10. Similarly, advocacy and rhetoric are virtually part of the evidence. ... 11. Not all evidence ultimately counts. ... 12. Constraints on time and the availability of witnesses or documentary evidence may be completely fortuitous yet also very important. ... There are somethings that I personally think are very important and persuasive that I have never seen any critics mention, discuss, or explain, (say, the Survivor Witness phenomenon in the Book of Mormon). But it's not something that involves any physical evidence. Any I learned on the playgrounds of my elementary school that "So what?" can be used by anyone to dismiss any and all evidence and argument presented. That means no one can be persuaded against their will and desire. Evidence on high stakes matters of faith and community and covenant can invite those receptive to it. It cannot coerce those determined to avoid it. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited November 28, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 1
clarkgoble Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 37 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Right...still nothing WRT my 3 questions... One can question the questions of course, which I think I've done. You're asking questions. I'm asking questions. Questions often presuppose answers to other questions that you are avoiding. 41 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Very legitimate questions, IMO, if the church wants to maintain the historicity of the BoA and BoM. In a court of law, I think it would be a closed case...NO evidence to support these claims, IMO. As others noted, would it be remotely rational for someone to believe the Book of Mormon and not become Mormon in the broader sense you adjusted things to. With your broader definition by definition to believe in the Book of Mormon is to be Mormon of some sort. (Since you broadened it beyond the formal LDS Church) So isn't your question logically problematic on its own terms? You seem to be avoiding that question rather consistently despite many people raising this point. To evidence, the question is what counts as evidence. Again a question many of raised here and you've avoided. As I said, there isn't evidence of a certain sort that is the sort I think you want. (Unambiguous public evidence) That doesn't mean there's not evidence nor does it mean it isn't true. By way of analogy there is zero evidence for Moses or a mass exodus of Jews out of Egypt. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just that there's no evidence. There are many, many truths for which there is insufficient evidence to believe. The evidence for the orbit of Pluto was non-existent in 1700. Didn't mean Pluto wasn't there.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Wrong. The burden of proof is on God as the D&C makes clear with Him claiming that burden himself and He usually works on an individual level. If that method does not work for you that is between you and God. You are screaming at the wrong people. If you are using "spiritual eyes." Some people rely on actual evidence and not warm and fuzzy feelings.
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: If you are using "spiritual eyes." Some people rely on actual evidence and not warm and fuzzy feelings. Well if you find one of these “Some people” invite them here and we can have an actual discussion. Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Well if you find one of these “Some people” invite them here and we can have an actual discussion. Hard pass...you just say things like you need to believe and have faith and just because they haven't found evidence doesn't mean it didn't take place. You can also make the same defense for Star Wars...
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Hard pass...you just say things like you need to believe and have faith and just because they haven't found evidence doesn't mean it didn't take place. You can also make the same defense for Star Wars... CFR that I said those things please. Please answer honestly. I am just asking questions.......... Also, CFR that you can be categorized in the “Some people” category above. The evidence so far suggests otherwise. Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: CFR that I said those things please. Please answer honestly. I am just asking questions.......... Also, CFR that you can be categorized in the “Some people” category above. The evidence so far suggests otherwise. "Wrong. The burden of proof is on God as the D&C makes clear with Him claiming that burden himself and He usually works on an individual level." Meaining God will just tell you through the spirit, right? I don't have to CFR my own beliefs and/or opinions.
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: "Wrong. The burden of proof is on God as the D&C makes clear with Him claiming that burden himself and He usually works on an individual level." Meaining God will just tell you through the spirit, right? I don't have to CFR my own beliefs and/or opinions. Not solely through the spirit but that is a substantial part. You do not have to CFR your belief that I say certain things? In that case you just say things like the holocaust was a lie and Hitler was misunderstood. Don’t ask me to substantiate that assertion. I do not have to prove my belief and opinion on this matter......you Nazi.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Not solely through the spirit but that is a substantial part. You do not have to CFR your belief that I say certain things? In that case you just say things like the holocaust was a lie and Hitler was misunderstood. Don’t ask me to substantiate that assertion. I do not have to prove my belief and opinion on this matter......you Nazi. Wow...calling people Nazis now...stay classy...
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 Just now, Ouagadougou said: Wow...calling people Nazis now...stay classy... Are you a Nazi? I am just asking questions. Nothing wrong with questions. 1
Duncan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said: A classic ad hominem...but the answers to my questions are still...no. You don't know how to ask questions, you need to think them through and check your own assumptions, you've deflected 5 times and you can say what you want but that fact remains
Maestrophil Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 14 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text? Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA? I have not heard of any. There, can we close the thread now? 🙂 2
Gray Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: "Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text? Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA?" Three questions...NO statement... Very legitimate questions, IMO, if the church wants to maintain the historicity of the BoA and BoM. In a court of law, I think it would be a closed case...NO evidence to support these claims, IMO. Why would a court of law be concerned with whether or not a religious text was historical and had historicity? Most religious texts lack the latter to varying degrees. The former is something any of them can acquire with enough time. Edited November 28, 2018 by Gray
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: I have not heard of any. There, can we close the thread now? 🙂 Finally, someone who gave me an actual answer. Thank you.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Are you a Nazi? I am just asking questions. Nothing wrong with questions. Um...nope!
Recommended Posts