Simon Southerton

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So the explanations and interpretations of apostles and prophets are meaningless.  Wow we actually agree on something. 😁

Offcourse it isn't. Let me geusse.. you are one of those anti ex Mormons who just love to hate on the church now? 👀 Oh my oh my. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Dario_M

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

It is not what people say and believe. It is what genetic research shows. Abraham and his descendants share unique genetic markers. Melanin is only 0.5% of the total gene pool. So skin color can change and disappear in 2 generations. Not so the rest of the genetic markers. Like I mentioned before, this theme has been argued ad nauseum here in the forum. I am sure you can find the threads. But here is something: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19669163/

That is what Southerton is trying to say, "Cohan" Y chromosomes of kohanim were found in only half of the kohanim tested whose status of a kohen is contingent upon being the male biological descendants of Aaron. Implying that only half of kohanim share some common male ancestry, maybe Aaron. How could it be sufficient evidence required to identify all Israelites from before the Babylonian exile, or the lost tribe of Manasseh without that DNA?

Edited February 23, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1, The church allows my position with the temple recommend interview as the standard. Nothing about literal history.

Ok. Do you tell your bishop you think the BoMis a parable and not historical.

 

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

2. I don't care about what others on this thread say, why should I ? 

I did not say you should.  I just was pointing it out.

 

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

3. Regarding "verifiable claims", we have gone over it again and again that your position of logical positivism is self contradictory in a religious or moral context.

Is murder wrong? What evidence do you have for that? What even are the meanings of right and wrong in your world view? 

You will of course not reply, based on verifiable history of our previous discussions.  Yet I feel a kinship with you; I have "been there" myself 😉.

Best wishes my friend!

I think the BoM verifiable claims are much different than the other things we have discussed such as is there a god.  Does this god have a best religious path to follow. Does this god communicate to humans and how.  But the BoM claims to be a history of a group of Hebrews that immigrated to the Americas and built a nations. Big difference IMO.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Offcoursw it isn't. Let me geusse.. you are own of those anti ex Mormons who just love to hate on the church now? 👀 Oh my oh my. 

Ad hominem.  

[Dario_M]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ad hominem.  

And that means? 

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And that means? 

It suggests you are turning to personal attacks rather than focusing on the issue itself, so he’s not going to engage with you. 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And that means? 

One good way to learn is to look up terms we don't know on the internet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited February 23, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And that means? 

You made a personal attach that you can then use to denigrate any arguments I make.

ad ho·mi·nem

/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

 

adjective

 

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

    

adverb

 

1. 1.

   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"

    
2. 2.

   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

[Dario_M]

I didn't mean to attack you. But for me it felt as if you where hating on the church because you made it clear that our prophets where talking a buch of sensens. Those where your words. Not mine. So i just wonder.... 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think we would be better taking it up with the actual text of the Book of Mormon.

So the explanations and interpretations of apostles and prophets are meaningless. 

I said nothing like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The claim of X (that the land was empty when the Lehite migration arrived) is, at least textually, incoherent.

Thank you for such a clear and logical assessment! 

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I didn't mean to attack you. But for me it felt as if you where hating on the church because you made it clear that our prophets where talking a buch of sensens. Those where your words. Not mine. So i just wonder.... 

Hey new buddy! They might not know that English is your second language, but in more advanced English dialogs we dabble in technical terms and phrases, some from Latin and French.

You aren't wrong to point out he is being "critical" and "biased" (by tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others). It just may not be strictly relevant to point it out. His attacks against the church may seem like personal attacks and it can be triggering you to feel you must respond "in-kind" with a personal attack as you did. But in debates personal attacks are logical "fallacies", called an "ad hominem". A "fallacy" is basically considered nonsense. If someone talks nonsense, you don't have to worry about it. Fallacies are kinds of tricks we all use in our personal lives for getting closer to the truth, but in debates fallacies aren't useful. If you want to disprove his argument, you shouldn't use a personal attack, even if the attack is true, as it does not effectively disprove his statements, because they were about the church, not himself. So, even when he is wrong, and sometimes a fallacy is true, if you rely only on fallacies, expect to be wrong a lot of the time.

I'll post a quick reference list if you'd like to become more familiar with them:

Fallacies of Formal Logic

Basic Fallacies:

MAYBE = ALWAYS: "X can cause Y" means "X did cause Y"
EXISTENTIAL FALLACY: based on an unproved assumption (or on supposed proof that doesn't exist).

The Linguistic Trick:

ACCENT: stress one word or phrase to change the meaning

Confusing Groups and Individuals:

COMPOSITION: if they're good on their own, they're good together - e.g. custard and chips
CONCEALED QUANTIFICATION: "members of X are crooks"
REIFICATION: talking of the ABSTRACT as if it were REAL: "it's not us, it's the marriage/economy/church/etc."

Fallacies of Relevance

Missing Out Important Information:

Change the question: set up a STRAW MAN: a false version of what your opponent says, that's easy to knock down.
BOGUS DILEMMA: if you do X, then EITHER a bad thing will happen OR a worse thing will happen. (In fact there are usually other, less severe alternatives)
REFUTE THE EXAMPLE: attack the illustration, not the idea behind it (or ATTACK TRIVIAL POINTS).

Rely on Ignorance:

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIUM: lack of evidence = proof. i.e. shift the burden of proof
ONE-SIDED ASSESSMENT
UNOBTAINABLE PERFECTION: your idea has faults, so I reject it, even if it's better than what we have now.

Avoid Discussing it at All:

ARGUMENTUM AD LAPIDEM "it just is." (From lapidem = stone: to prove that life isn't an illusion, you kick a stone to show that it's real)
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM - just keep on repeating what you say
LOADED WORDS: imply it without saying it as such.
SHIFT GROUND: "I said it all along" "but this is different" (how?) "what really matters is.."

Fallacies of Intrusion

Using Popularity As a Test of Truth:

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM: appeal to popular prejudices - "everyone does it" / "everyone knows that...."
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM: if "most people" say it, it just be correct.
"TU QOUQUE": = "you too": you yourself do it.

Changing the Subject:

RED HERRING: a very strong idea distracts you
IGNORANTIO ELENCHI: if accused of X, then deny Y (politicians love this one!)

Appeals to Emotion

Appealing to Limited Comprehension:

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORUM: find an example of misery that the idea could cause, even if overall it's better than alternatives.
ARGUMENTUM AD SUPERSTITIONEM: superstition
ARGUMENTUM AD SUPERBIAM: pride

Appealing to Nasty, Weak Feelings:

ARGUMENTUM AD METUM: an appeal to fear
ARGUMENTUM AD INVIDIAM: envy or inferiority
ARGUMENTUM AD ODIUM: hatred
THE GENETIC FALLACY: if a "bad" or "stupid" person said it, then it must be wrong.

Using Sweeping Platitudes:

ARGUMENTUM AD MODUM: "moderation in all things" Or any other nice sounding statement that does not apply in all possible cases

Using Force:

ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM: blackmail
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: (circumstantial): "you are X, so you must agree"
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (abusive): mudslinging - you are a terrible person, so why should I listen?

Using False Authority:

ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM: people with money agree
(or ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM: ordinary, poor people agree)
BLINDING WITH SCIENCE: JARGON; get to territory where they think you know more than they do. Works every time. (Whoops - not that I ever use this trick of course... 
FALSE PRECISION: putting precise numbers to it - makes it sound like a fact, not an opinion. Did you know that 77.6% of all statistics are faked?
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM: appeal to so-called "expert"s.

Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of Newness:

ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM: "if it's new it must be good"
(or ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM: "if it's OLD it must be good")
NON-ANTICIPATION: "if it was good we'd have it already"

Generalizations:

SECUNDUM QUID: a conclusion based upon very few examples.
COMPLEX QUESTION: asking two things at once. E.g."do you still beat your wife: yes or no?"
ANALOGICAL FALLACY: if X is like Y, it is in EVERY way.

Focusing on One Crazy Event:

EX POST FACTO STATISTICS: If you throw five dice enough times, you'll eventually get all sixes. Do you read special significance into that exact throw? The same goes freak weather, road deaths, etc.
ACCIDENT: using an extreme case to justify your position (e.g. "don't do X because look at what happened to Y")
ABUSIVE ANALOGY: sarcasm "this is just like...[insert something offensive]!"

Edited February 24, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MustardSeed]

Wow that was one in depth explanation. 

[webbles]

9 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Lets try and break this down a bit:

Nephites existed:

1. DNA is present
   • It is part of the DNA make up of the native Americans (not what is assumed it should be)
   • We just haven't successfully ID'd yet
   • Haplogroup X2a
   • Other? 
2. DNA is NOT present
   • Lehi's group was too small and intermixed with local population
   • Population was destroyed, no DNA evidence remains
   • Other?

Nephites NEVER existed:

1. DNA is present (Whatever Nephite DNA is "supposed" to look like)
   • Other means for that DNA to appear in the Americas
2. DNA is not present
   • Expected result

 

Over the last 2,500 years, are there any other examples of a large group of people that:

• populated a land
• kept records
• built cities
• built infrastructure, and

We (the world) know that this group of people existed, yet can not pinpoint any definitive evidence of their society/existence?

I was reading the other day about the Babylonians and wandered onto the wikipedia page about the Medes.  It might be a possible example.

Quote

Although they are generally recognized as having an important place in the history of the ancient Near East, the Medes have left no written source to reconstruct their history, which is known only from foreign sources such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Armenians and Greeks, as well as a few Iranian archaeological sites, which are believed to have been occupied by Medes.

From the foreign sources we know that they kept records, built cities, had infrastructure, and populated a land.  It wasn't until the 1960s that we were finally able to find archaeological evidence of them and even that evidence is contested.

[Snodgrassian]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I was reading the other day about the Babylonians and wandered onto the wikipedia page about the Medes.  It might be a possible example.

From the foreign sources we know that they kept records, built cities, had infrastructure, and populated a land.  It wasn't until the 1960s that we were finally able to find archaeological evidence of them and even that evidence is contested.

Sweet! I will have to check that out, thanks for the info

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, Matt Roper:

That rather eviscerates your argument, such as it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

So the words of Spencer Kimball mean nothing to you?  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

So the words of Spencer Kimball mean nothing to you?  

So you are still skinning puppies for fun and profit?

(We're exchanging examples of loaded questions here, right?)

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Strained? Maybe you don't understand. Exactly, what "Nation" did the Clovis represent? With the Clovis there, the land is still undiscovered by any of the "Nations".

The Standard Works are the measuring stick by which we measure every man's doctrine, even President Kimball. President Kimball isn't establishing doctrine; you aren't quoting Kimball from the D&C here and Kimball isn't even quoting your BoM prooftext, therefore not establishing an official interpretation of the BoM verse in question. Just his own thoughts, that for some odd reason, you can't excuse for speaking based on BoM silence and lacking modern information; just because you need that straw to grasp onto. And what? You think I can't say that President Kimball presumed too much where the book is silent about other people? I certainly can, I have the advantage of hindsight, and he is not infallible. You sure exercise great faith in our leaders' whenever you need to use it against them in the court of opinion.

The Introduction to the Book of Mormon was more likely changed because some on your side you saw the word "Principal" which means "the most important" and confused it with "Principle" which would mean single and unique.

Very convincing. You should go with this cobbled together "logic".  

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Hey new buddy!

Hey friend. 🥰

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

They might not know that English is your second language, but in more advanced English dialogs we dabble in technical terms and phrases, some from Latin and French.

Oh is that so? Well...did i not do a good job then? 😇

Edit. I have read your whole post now and clearly i didn't. 

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You aren't wrong to point out he is being "critical" and "biased" (by tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others). It just may not be strictly relevant to point it out. His attacks against the church may seem like personal attacks and it can be triggering you to feel you must respond "in-kind" with a personal attack as you did.

Oh no. Oh my.. i didn't mean to be personal. Okay i shouldn't have called the guy an ex Mormon. Wich i actually not even did i asked him or he is. But okay fine it is not relevant then anyway. 

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 

But in debates personal attacks are logical "fallacies", called an "ad hominem". A "fallacy" is basically considered nonsense. If someone talks nonsense, you don't have to worry about it. Fallacies are kinds of tricks we all use in our personal lives for getting closer to the truth, but in debates fallacies aren't useful. If you want to disprove his argument, you shouldn't use a personal attack, even if the attack is true, as it does not effectively disprove his statements, because they were about the church, not himself. So, even when he is wrong, and sometimes a fallacy is true, if you rely only on fallacies, expect to be wrong a lot of the time.

 

Oh okay i see that now. 

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'll post a quick reference list if you'd like to become more familiar with them:

Fallacies of Formal Logic

Basic Fallacies:

MAYBE = ALWAYS: "X can cause Y" means "X did cause Y"
EXISTENTIAL FALLACY: based on an unproved assumption (or on supposed proof that doesn't exist).

The Linguistic Trick:

ACCENT: stress one word or phrase to change the meaning

Confusing Groups and Individuals:

COMPOSITION: if they're good on their own, they're good together - e.g. custard and chips
CONCEALED QUANTIFICATION: "members of X are crooks"
REIFICATION: talking of the ABSTRACT as if it were REAL: "it's not us, it's the marriage/economy/church/etc."

Fallacies of Relevance

Missing Out Important Information:

Change the question: set up a STRAW MAN: a false version of what your opponent says, that's easy to knock down.
BOGUS DILEMMA: if you do X, then EITHER a bad thing will happen OR a worse thing will happen. (In fact there are usually other, less severe alternatives)
REFUTE THE EXAMPLE: attack the illustration, not the idea behind it (or ATTACK TRIVIAL POINTS).

Rely on Ignorance:

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIUM: lack of evidence = proof. i.e. shift the burden of proof
ONE-SIDED ASSESSMENT
UNOBTAINABLE PERFECTION: your idea has faults, so I reject it, even if it's better than what we have now.

Avoid Discussing it at All:

ARGUMENTUM AD LAPIDEM "it just is." (From lapidem = stone: to prove that life isn't an illusion, you kick a stone to show that it's real)
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM - just keep on repeating what you say
LOADED WORDS: imply it without saying it as such.
SHIFT GROUND: "I said it all along" "but this is different" (how?) "what really matters is.."

Fallacies of Intrusion

Using Popularity As a Test of Truth:

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM: appeal to popular prejudices - "everyone does it" / "everyone knows that...."
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM: if "most people" say it, it just be correct.
"TU QOUQUE": = "you too": you yourself do it.

Changing the Subject:

RED HERRING: a very strong idea distracts you
IGNORANTIO ELENCHI: if accused of X, then deny Y (politicians love this one!)

Appeals to Emotion

Appealing to Limited Comprehension:

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORUM: find an example of misery that the idea could cause, even if overall it's better than alternatives.
ARGUMENTUM AD SUPERSTITIONEM: superstition
ARGUMENTUM AD SUPERBIAM: pride

Appealing to Nasty, Weak Feelings:

ARGUMENTUM AD METUM: an appeal to fear
ARGUMENTUM AD INVIDIAM: envy or inferiority
ARGUMENTUM AD ODIUM: hatred
THE GENETIC FALLACY: if a "bad" or "stupid" person said it, then it must be wrong.

Using Sweeping Platitudes:

ARGUMENTUM AD MODUM: "moderation in all things" Or any other nice sounding statement that does not apply in all possible cases

Using Force:

ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM: blackmail
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: (circumstantial): "you are X, so you must agree"
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (abusive): mudslinging - you are a terrible person, so why should I listen?

Using False Authority:

ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM: people with money agree
(or ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM: ordinary, poor people agree)
BLINDING WITH SCIENCE: JARGON; get to territory where they think you know more than they do. Works every time. (((("Whoops - not that I ever use this trick of course... ))))"

Hmmmm. 👀

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

FALSE PRECISION: putting precise numbers to it - makes it sound like a fact, not an opinion. Did you know that 77.6% of all statistics are faked?
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM: appeal to so-called "expert"s.

Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of Newness:

ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM: "if it's new it must be good"
(or ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM: "if it's OLD it must be good")
NON-ANTICIPATION: "if it was good we'd have it already"

Generalizations:

SECUNDUM QUID: a conclusion based upon very few examples.
COMPLEX QUESTION: asking two things at once. E.g."do you still beat your wife: yes or no?"
ANALOGICAL FALLACY: if X is like Y, it is in EVERY way.

Focusing on One Crazy Event:

EX POST FACTO STATISTICS: If you throw five dice enough times, you'll eventually get all sixes. Do you read special significance into that exact throw? The same goes freak weather, road deaths, etc.
ACCIDENT: using an extreme case to justify your position (e.g. "don't do X because look at what happened to Y")
ABUSIVE ANALOGY: sarcasm "this is just like...[insert something offensive]!"

Thank you so much, how kind of you to teach me a lesson or two.🙏

I now have learnt a whole year of highschool because of one post of yours. 🧠   Benigne Dicis. 🙏

Edited February 24, 2023 by Dario_M

[Craig Speechly]

As I’ve shared on this board before, Simon is a personal friend. 

We are all familiar with the changing nature of BoM people as the science of DNA failed to support BoM claims. 
 

President Kimball's view is far different than President Nielson’s. 

Lamanites used to be found throughout both the north and south hemispheres. Today no one can point to a single descendant of Lehi with any confidence 

If you want to believe in the BoM do it. I fully support you, if you can’t find enough evidence to support faith it the BoM I fully understand that position too.

To create a thread to attack Simon does not speak well of this board  If you have scientific evidence that challenges Simon’s science ok present it, but resorting to ad hominem should be beneath us and undermine your arguments

 

 

[Craig Speechly]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

My position is logically justifiable, yours is not. Besides, I am fine with a non historic BOM, with it being a parable, as you should know already.

Honestly I believe given the evidence or lack there of this is the only logical conclusion 

[Craig Speechly]

On 2/22/2023 at 3:22 PM, Teancum said:

What does the verse mean:

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

You’re waisting your time. The hemisphere devoid of population Mormons have long since died and this new generation has found room for nuance in the BoM verses to allow for belief. The days where Lamanites covered both north and South America are gone. We now live in a world where the BoM could have taken place within a land surrounded by millions of Asian immigrants and overwhelmed their Lehite DNA 

[Craig Speechly]

Religion is filled with unsubstantiated unsupported and unbelievable claims and yet millions believe despite no evidence. Belief in the BoM is no different. It does not require supporting evidence to believe 

[Pyreaux]

8 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Religion is filled with unsubstantiated unsupported and unbelievable claims and yet millions believe despite no evidence. Belief in the BoM is no different. It does not require supporting evidence to believe 

Red flag. No evidence? There is evidence. How strong the evidence is up to you, but to ignore it completely is not intellectually honest.

[JustAnAustralian]

50 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

and this new generation has found room for nuance in the BoM verses to allow for belief.

You do not need any nuance in the "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" bit to explain the existence of other people, when the Book of Mormon literally mentions other nations that are already there.

Edited February 26, 2023 by JustAnAustralian