Simon Southerton's New Book

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Mesoamerican cylinder seals with characters corresponding to the Anthon transcript

I'm familiar with everything you mentioned except this one.  Do you have a reference where I could learn more?

[Kenngo1969]

MF Bukowski:

Suppose Jack is on trial for murder for shooting Bob.  Suppose Fred, a witness for the prosecution, testifies that he saw Jack shoot Bob.  One weakness in the prosecution's case is that the police weren't able to recover Jack's gun, so they weren't able to evaluate any test-fired ammunition from the gun to see if the marks on it match the ones that are on the ammunition that Fred said Jack fired from the gun when he shot Bob.  For all Fred knows, Jack might have thrown the gun into the river after he shot Bob, but, alas, Fred never saw what happened to the gun after Jack used it to shoot Bob. 

To guard against a claim of mistaken identity, the prosecution asks about the relationship between Jack, Bob, and Fred, and he's told that the three often spent time together, that they knew each other well, and that, before that night at least, the three had been friends.  Perhaps jurors will believe Fred, perhaps they won't.  Perhaps he has a strong reputation for honesty as a "straight shooter" (no pun intended) in the community, or perhaps, if he told someone the sun is up, his interlocutor would need to look out the nearest window just to be sure.  Perhaps some will believe the former about him and some the latter, and the jury will deadlock. But, somehow, even in the face of a lack of direct physical evidence (Gee, it sure would be nice if the police had been able to recover that gun, perhaps get fingerprints off of it, could run ballistics tests on it, and so that Fred could identify it!), they have to deal with Fred's testimony.  Where are the plates?  Well, Joseph said Moroni took them back after Joseph was finished with them, but who knows?  Maybe they're rusting in the bottom of the river, right next to that gun.  But somehow, just as jurors have to deal with Fred's testimony, one has to deal with the Book of Mormon witnesses, and with the fact that eight of them said they "saw and handled and hefted" the plates.  And there's even more evidence for the Book of Mormon, in the form of the book itself, than there is direct evidence that Jack shot Bob.

Does the fact that we don't have the plates mean that the Book of Mormon should be dismissed?  Well, as I've said so many times before, each of us is his own trier of fact in matters of faith: Each of us must decide what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, and how much weight he will give to each exhibit he chooses to admit.  There is at least as much evidence that Jack shot Bob as there is for the Book of Mormon.  Does the lack of physical evidence in the former case mean that Jack should be acquitted?  Just as each "juror" in matters of faith must make his own decision, each juror in Jack's case must do the same.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Mesoamerican cylinder seals with characters corresponding to the Anthon transcript

I second this. I would love to learn more about that. 

In general, @Kevin Christensen, that was a wonderful response.  I have struggled with the universality of the "somehow" by which Joseph concocted all these things. It's an effortless handwave that that permits faith in that position but which does not actually explain anything. It's boundary maintenance and nothing more. 

Regarding Kuhn: "Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed."

I find that Moroni 10:3-5 meets this with striking power. How could anyone have predicted the millions which would attest the validity of that statement? Spiritual experiences associated with the Book of Mormon are real to those who experience them. They happen. Mine are real to me; how could anyone have predicted that that would happen in response to earnest prayer about the Book of Mormon during even periods of deep doubt? Whoever wrote this, be it Joseph Smith or Moroni, demonstrates supreme confidence in the fulfillment of this promise. How could someone demonstrate such confidence in that which is baseless? It's one thing to try to explain it away now, using psychological reasoning, since the phenomenon is well and truly established. It's entirely another thing to make that prediction at the time of writing.   

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I'm familiar with everything you mentioned except this one.  Do you have a reference where I could learn more?

Here you go:

https://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As well as necessarily partial, incomplete, and constructed by each writer within his/her own perspectives and biases. The English word fiction arises from the past participle stem of Latin fingere: to shape or form, originally to form out of clay. The simple reality is that all accounts have been shaped in a person's mind first. Fair Dinkum and I would never compose identical accounts of 'reality', and our accounts would probably diverge even further the more 'religious' or 'spiritual' they were.

I sincerely wonder what portion of my life I could support with data that would convince Fair Dinkum that I'm telling the truth. It would be astonishingly small. For example, I positively know that my dinner last night consisted of potato soup with sourdough rye bread and fresh butter. Where are the data for that???

As I explained to a senior Jehovah's Witness years ago as a missionary, my job is not to convince people that I'm right. I share my inherently subjective experiences to invite people to seek for their own. The miracle is just how often this works!

Incidentally, this is exactly what I was trying to say in that Rorty quote below in my siggy.

You said it better for this audience 

Edited May 28, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 5/28/2020 at 10:25 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

MF Bukowski:

Suppose Jack is on trial for murder for shooting Bob.  Suppose Fred, a witness for the prosecution, testifies that he saw Jack shoot Bob.  One weakness in the prosecution's case is that the police weren't able to recover Jack's gun, so they weren't able to evaluate any test-fired ammunition from the gun to see if the marks on it match the ones that are on the ammunition that Fred said Jack fired from the gun when he shot Bob.  For all Fred knows, Jack might have thrown the gun into the river after he shot Bob, but, alas, Fred never saw what happened to the gun after Jack used it to shoot Bob. 

To guard against a claim of mistaken identity, the prosecution asks about the relationship between Jack, Bob, and Fred, and he's told that the three often spent time together, that they knew each other well, and that, before that night at least, the three had been friends.  Perhaps jurors will believe Fred, perhaps they won't.  Perhaps he has a strong reputation for honesty as a "straight shooter" (no pun intended) in the community, or perhaps, if he told someone the sun is up, his interlocutor would need to look out the nearest window just to be sure.  Perhaps some will believe the former about him and some the latter, and the jury will deadlock. But, somehow, even in the face of a lack of direct physical evidence (Gee, it sure would be nice if the police had been able to recover that gun, perhaps get fingerprints off of it, could run ballistics tests on it, and so that Fred could identify it!), they have to deal with Fred's testimony.  Where are the plates?  Well, Joseph said Moroni took them back after Joseph was finished with them, but who knows?  Maybe they're rusting in the bottom of the river, right next to that gun.  But somehow, just as jurors have to deal with Fred's testimony, one has to deal with the Book of Mormon witnesses, and with the fact that eight of them said they "saw and handled and hefted" the plates.  And there's even more evidence for the Book of Mormon, in the form of the book itself, than there is direct evidence that Jack shot Bob.

Does the fact that we don't have the plates mean that the Book of Mormon should be dismissed?  Well, as I've said so many times before, each of us is his own trier of fact in matters of faith: Each of us must decide what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, and how much weight he will give to each exhibit he chooses to admit.  There is at least as much evidence that Jack shot Bob as there is for the Book of Mormon.  Does the lack of physical evidence in the former case mean that Jack should be acquitted?  Just as each "juror" in matters of faith must make his own decision, each juror in Jack's case must do the same.

I didn't see this- I do better if you respond to my post that created your question so I get the context right- AND then I get a notification

Don't tell anyone, but I do not always read every thread all the way through.  Yes I know that is morally reprehensible, but I am, after all human, all too human to coin a phrase.

I am not dismissing anything for "lack of evidence" because I will only question what evidence "counts" and what does not.

In short it depends on context.  Court has its context, but courts would not do well in verifying the BOM as written by God I am afraid.

Spiritual evidence counts in spiritual matters, and courts get to define their own evidence, and hopefully our courts have advanced beyond trial by fire.

Yes she turned me into a newt, but I got better!

The culture decides what constitutes "evidence" .  The reason we differ from a culture like this one, is that our descriptions of the world are different than the characters in this hilarious movie clip.  Note that each member differs in their ability to use their "logic", but when an answer is accepted- we get full acclimation and cheering etc.  The culture approves.  

There is always truth in humor, and the reason this is so hilarious is that we recognize ourselves or people we have met who think on this level.  There is always "truth" in comedy or we would not find it "funny".  It is the incongruity that makes us laugh.  Might as well be a pie in the face, or some other surprise.

I just find these descriptions of the world to be different than my description of the world, but we are still all stuck into our own descriptions of the world, unfortunately, and it is hard to change that. 

Rorty: " The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

MF Bukowski,

Misplaced my phone, Dude!  Sorry.   I did respond to your e-mail.

All the best,

-Ken

[why me]

I kind of feel sorry for Simon. I came across him on a site that was critical of Mormonism years ago when they were advertising his first book about Mormonism and DNA. It had a tremendous impact on lds members. And this was years ago. And he is still at it now. To spend a life trying to debunk a religious faith is a sad occupation. And when one has spent years and years doing it is unfortunate. Sometimes one must just move on and think: if people want to believe in Mormonism, fine let them. If people don't want to believe, fine let them. It is just time to move on now. And enjoy other moments of life.

Edited July 19, 2020 by why me

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, Islamormoyid said:

Thought I'd bump this thread long enough to add to my question.  I find the variants on Rahma to be of some curiosity.  For example, Vladimir Braginsky in his "The Eastern Christian Sources on Medieval Nusantara" shows the variants "Rahma", "Arman" and "Larman". 

Just for fun, I'm playing around with the idea that Qara in the southern Arabian peninsula is a variant of Kala on the Malay Peninsula.  Kala is thought to be Kedah if I've read things right.

I'd had the same thought while reading the Kuria Muria paper. But more likely that Qalah was named after Qara. We know there was a significant amount of trade between Qalah and Qara. One of Muhammad's shamshirs (scimitars) was manufactured in Qalah, he recovered it from an exiled tribe of Jewish traders. 

From several early Arabic accounts we also know that the Malay-Khmer (Kumr) controlled trade in Aden (Yemen), parts of Oman and the entire Indian Ocean. There's a Jebel Qamar in the Qara Mountains. I'bn Said emphasized that qamar does not mean moon in this case, it is instead is named after the Malay-Khmer (Kumr) people. (source)

I'bn Said also stated that the Kumr later fled to an island called Kommoriya. Interesting then that there are traces of proto-Malayo Polynesian in the spoken language of Kuria Muria. Remember that the Comoros Islands were later settled and named by these same people.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

--

Edited July 20, 2020 by Rajah Manchou
Wrong thread