Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Volcanic Ice Cores, Revisited

Having just learned that the Maxwell Institute (FARMS) has revised their Website so that most previous links to PDF files no longer work (ouch - but I'm genuinely relieved it's only PDF files this time), I've begin the process of fixing my numerous links to those files. One of the first I dug up again is one that I should share here as well: Volcanic Destruction in the Book of Mormon: Possible Evidence from Ice Cores by Benjamin Jordan. (One of the many shreds that have surely been carefully considered by those who shout that there isn't a shred of evidence in favor of anything the Book of Mormon.) Coupled with additional data on volcanic activity consistent with the description in Third Nephi, it's an interesting avenue to ponder.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

OK! OK! - You got a shred of evidence. And the Moon is made of Cheese. I know that the evidence is at this point is lacking, but I got faith. Did they do any real scientific exploration when they landed on the moon? Look at it tonight, doesn't it look like cheese.
Visit my new website: themoonismadeofcheese.com for a shred of riveting evidence to support my faith. Someday, I'm going to be blessed.

Anonymous said...

Now remember when your looking at the moon tonight. Pray real hard with a sincere heart and ask God if it's made out of cheese. If you get a burning sensation in your bosom then come back to my other website, i.can.take.you.anywhere.i.want.dotcom. For those of you that don't get the feeling, then you just ain't praying hard enough and are weak. Keep praying to show yourself approved to God so He will forgive you of your sin of unbelief.

Marc said...

How puerile!

Elmo said...

And ASININE.

Willis said...

A deliberate attempt to inflame the the dialouge in an attempt to get a vehement response posted in comments by an unamed source. Twice. I beleive that is evidence of a troll.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bookslinger said...

Didn't the American Dairy Association pay homage to the Book of Mormon when they did a commercial that said "Behold, the power of cheese!"

Mormanity said...

Well, you're seeing the classic "rabid anti-Mormon" response. Not a dialog, not genuine discussion, but name calling, ignoring the evidence, and really juvenile behavior. This guy sounds like the street preachers who wave underwear in people's faces while shouting.

Those who disagree and engage in meaningful, honest, two-way discussion with an ounce of civility are of an entirely different class, and are welcome here.

J. Rice said...

This Ice Core article is completely fascinating. Thanks for pointing us to it.

Bookslinger said...

Jeff,

[sniff, sniff] I respectfully disagree. I think this guy's snideness (comments #1 and #2) smells more like a bitter ex-mo, not the Bible-thumping type of anti.

Joe said...

OK, so Jeff,

Volcano eruptions happen. And if one happened during the "time period in question" - well yeah, so what?

Does it really have any more significance than it would have meant if the findings had indicated no volcanic activity during the "time period in question"?

I think this may qualify as straw-grasping.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ltbugaf said...

Joe, are you serious? You don't really need to have this spelled out for you, do you?

If the volcanic activity was happening during the "time in question" then it points to the plausibility of the various forms of destruction described in 3 Nephi as having been brought about through means of volcanic activity.

But somehow, I think you already knew that...

ama said...

Joe,

You said "so there's volcanoes, so what?"

This is a very interesting thing to say, and i think you have a good point.

While I found this article very interesting, I side with you in the fact that this evidence doesn't really lead one to faith, etc.

I think this is a very interesting article, but if one is sincere about finding faith, one doesn't need to have a bunch of scientific evidence. Faith is the substance of unseen things.

www.graceforgrace.com

Anonymous said...

Joe, said:


"Volcano eruptions happen. And if one happened during the "time period in question" - well yeah, so what?"

"Does it really have any more significance than it would have meant if the findings had indicated no volcanic activity during the "time period in question"?"

"I think this may qualify as straw-grasping."


COMET DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed by debris from
a comet, startling new archaeological and astronomical
research suggests. Another bombardment from space may
have brought on the Dark Ages.


To Joe and those that think the moon is made of chees this the same type of studies they do to show support for events in the Bible. Right or wrong these same methods are used with other Roman and acient documents to try to tie in dates and events that might explain if the document is viable.

Anonymous said...

This is simply another example of the LDS apologist "doctrine" of throwing everything against the wall....hoping something will stick.

bassooner said...

I make this comment with some hesitancy because I don't have a solid source but please keep in mind that none of my hearsay sources are from inside the church.

I live in a region of the desert in California at China Lake. China Lake is a dry lake bed which is part of a series of three lakes that were connected; China Lake, Searles Lake, and another one I can't remember (this is from a pamphlet I read a few years ago. One of the first things I learned when I came here is that about 2000 years ago these three lakes suddenly emptied.

There is also a great collection of petroglyphs nearby and this region had a fair sized indian population until the lakes drained.

This area was formerly volcanically active with lots and lots of lava flows still visible and a volcanic cinder cone that is a popular place for hikers to go. I believe that the geography of this region did change drastically about 2000 years ago from the material I've read and the data I've heard throughout my years here.

Now please, nobody rip me for not having solid sources, I already have admitted that.

Anonymous said...

ama said...Faith is the substance of unseen things.

You butcher the biblical definition of faith to give yourself a license for blind faith. But let's look at the complete verse.


True faith is grounded in evidence. Hebrews 11:1 is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises.

True faith is not esposing something as truth when there is insufficient evidence. Or is it a lack of faith when one does not take the "leap of faith" and believe. God is just and does not require us to accept anything as true for which there is insufficient evidence.

Anonymous said...

In response to anonymous 8/3 @1:05 -

Didn't God expect the people of Old Testament times to have faith that the Messiah, even Jesus Christ, would come to the world in flesh and atone for the sins of the world? What evidence were they to rely on as a basis of their faith?

Anonymous said...

Anon (8/3, 1:05pm) said:
"True faith is not esposing something as truth when there is insufficient evidence."

Where is the sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead? Aside from the eyewitness accounts in the Bible, as it would be circular reasoning to use these accounts.

Where is the evidence that Moses and the Israelites crossed the parted Red Sea? Moses is popularly accepted to have written the first five books of the Bible so, we really have to take his word for it.

As Jeff said, archaeological evidence that a place existed is not also evidence that a specific miraculous event occurred there.

I honestly believe the Bible to be the word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Savior of the World. But my faith is not built on archaeological studies but rather on a witness of the Holy Spirit, "even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)

This is an evil generation; they seek a sign.

patrick said...

One man's evidence is another man's who cares. Religious testimony based on physical evidence alone is of no more worth than the crown awarded during a beauty contest. Requiring physical evidence alone makes choosing a religion, a church, or a life philosophy nothing more than a popularity contest. Until the Holy Spirit confirms your choice you'll be changing church addresses the rest of your life. Just ask Bart Ehrman.

Anonymous said...

"This is simply another example of the LDS apologist "doctrine" of throwing everything against the wall....hoping something will stick."


COMET DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAH

This is simply my hope that the stories of the Bible can be proven by science.

Bookslinger said...

Is "spiritual evidence" (or spiritual experiences) still "evidence"?

Does the "evidence" that generates faith have to be tangible, measureable, identifiable, categorizable?

Or can the "evidence" that generates faith be spiritual in nature, entirely internal to the person?

What kind of "evidences" are ya'll referring to?

Back when I was a 14 year-old Jesus-freak in the 1970's, going to "hands waving in the air" type of evangelical churches, all the evidence for my faith was internal to me. I couldn't replicate it, measure it, present it, illustrate it, or literally show it to anyone else.

I think that I was pretty much the kind of Christian that Mr. Buckna, NM, and Terrano 4x4 say that people should be.

And there's practically nothing that I believed in back then -- God, Christ, faith, repentance, the atonement, forgiveness, baptism, striving to keep the Lord's commandments, spiritual gifts, prayer, answers to prayer, miracles, the scriptures -- that required giving up in order to embrace the restored gospel as presented by the LDS church.

The LDS missionaries basically said "Lookee here! We got all that good stuff you loved, and even more!"

And since I investigated information presented by the LDS missionaries, I've received more of the exact same kinds of "spiritual/internal evidences" for this "additional information" as what I had for the basic stuff I believed as a 14 year-old.

Therefore, if my testimony/evidence of the old was correct, then my testimony/evidence of the new/additional is correct.

And if I've been deceived by this more recent "spiritual/internal evidence", and the LDS information is wrong, then the information I believed as a 14 year-old had to have been wrong too.

Perhaps those who transfer from other Christian denominations to LDS have something in common: they didn't assume they (or their denomination) had all the answers or all the information.

I can see how those who assume their denomination/religion has all the answers, and is "exhaustive" of all truth, can't envision that there exists more truth out there, and therefore they can't exercise the faith that there even might be more truth out there.

When I received a spiritual witness of Christ while standing in some evangelical church, it never occurred to me that that particular church was the be-all and end-all of all churches. That issue was not my prayer, and was not part of the answer.

LDS believe that there is still more truth to be revealed. And we believe that authorized prophets of God are the ones who will reveal that additional truth, just like in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Many sincere people pray and have religious experiences, many of which do not lead to the book of Mormon. They will all testify they asked God. Some will testify they experienced a "burning bosom" as evidence for receiving revelation from the Spirit. So likewise one man's spiritual revelation is another's mans deception.

You ask "How can we know that Moses did indeed part the Red Sea?"

It starts in Roman's 1: What may be known of God, what is knowable, what is apprehendable to the senses of man can be known.

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

So what is knowable about God, now mark it, His divine power and divine nature has been revealed to all men so they’re without excuse. And not only ... now watch this, not only is it revealed unto them as an external reality but in them as an apprehended perception. They see it and they know it to be Him.

And so you know God is, and if you know God is you know God is powerful, and you know God is divine. And that’s why the end of verse 20 says, “Men are without excuse.” Everybody living on the face of this earth has experienced God, His wisdom, His power, His generosity in every moment of their existence though they have not recognized Him He’s been there, He has bounded their lives, He’s been sustaining them, He’s been enriching them, He’s been giving Himself to them, and in their senses they have perceived Him. So that they are without excuse.

The evidence has always been there. Some deny it, but the just shall live by faith. Faith?

True faith is grounded in evidence. Hebrews 11:1 is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed by debris from
a comet, startling new archaeological and astronomical
research suggests. Another bombardment from space may
have brought on the Dark Ages."

Is there any evidence for the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction by fire and brimstone (sulfur)?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

Shawn said...

anon 8:17 said "So likewise one man's spiritual revelation is another's mans deception."

I couldn't agree more. You have been deceived. When you are ready to serve Christ, the missionaries will be at your door.

anon 8:17 also said "You ask 'How can we know that Moses did indeed part the Red Sea?'"

From your answer, I guess you don't know either.

...

Sorry for the inflammatory remarks. IMHO, it is a very risky business to speak as an authority on someone else's faith and their belief system (if not down-right moronic).

All of the venomous, critiquing "Christians" out there, sowing the seeds of confusion, trying to "correct" the belief systems of others are not serving Christ. Many, searching for hope, see the behavior as repulsive and end up shunning religion altogether.

Christ asked us to come unto Him. He did not ask us to belittle and judge those around us.

Sincerely,
Shawn


P.S. In regards to the just living by faith, who are the just? What does it mean to be just?

I'm partial to James 2:24 in KJV... "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Serve those around you and they'll see the light of Christ in you. Tear down someone else's faith and many will only see bitterness and the hypocrisy in religion.

Anonymous said...

Ignatius Donnelly had tons evidence that the New World was really the lost City of Atlantis. I am sure Solomon Spalding could have found shreds evidence with out end proving Roman Soldiers roamed the New World long before Columbus. Point is, there is not a single theory for which one could find supporting shreds of evidence. To pretend that discussion of obscure shreds of evidence constitutes genuine, constructive dialogue is both puerile and asinine.

Bookslinger said...

Brother Buckna:

"True faith is grounded in evidence. Hebrews 11:1 is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence)..."

Again, you're leaving the big question un-asked and un-answered: What "evidence", or even what "kind" of evidence are you talking about?

One of the hints you gave: "...not only is it revealed unto them as an external reality but in them as an apprehended perception. They see it and they know it to be Him."

sounds a lot like what Mormons call a "spiritual impression."

So, what is the _nature_ of your evidence, and what exactly is your _evidence_?

And how do you propose that people _discern_ which evidence is legitimate? And how do you propose that people _interpret_ the evidence?

The Bible? Just words on paper, a copy of a copy of a copy, many times removed from the original.

Modern day preachers? Which ones? And why? Who authorized them?

Institutions? Which ones? The institution of the Catholic church? They seem to have a good claim to authority going back to Saint Peter through the bishop of Rome.

Any of the various protestant denominations? Where'd they get authority? The catholic church never gave them authority, because they rebelled.

Brother Buckna, you seem to have an evangelical bent or flavor to the beliefs that you've shared here. Which church/denomination, exactly which organization are you afilliated with?

If you are evangelical like I suspect, have you read the amazing passages in the Book of Mormon that teach about some principles of the gospel that are almost 100% in line with evangelicalism?

Have you read 2 Nephi 31:13, where it talks about speaking in the tongue of angels and shouting praises to God?

Have you read Moroni 10:7-19 where it talks about the _power_ of the Holy Ghost, and it lists the spiritual gifts, and how that spiritual gifts will never be done away with except according to unbelief?

I find that there is a lot of material in the Book of Mormon that falls within the evangelical take or interpretation of the Bible.

Instead of bashing Mormons for being so wrong, maybe you'd make more headway by pointing out stuff that you agree with

Anonymous said...

"And we believe that authorized prophets of God are the ones who will reveal that additional truth"

Then that prophet will have to be a notch better than "I don't know" Hinckley. Repeatedly, when asked a substantive question, the answer was "I don't know".....hard to reveal add'l truth when he doesn't know. ;)

Anonymous said...

Tertullian the great early church father has much to say about this conviction that God can be revealed in creation. He says, “It was not the pen of Moses that initiated the knowledge of the Creator. The vast majority of mankind though they had never heard the name of Moses, to say nothing of his Book know the God of Moses nonetheless. And nature (he said) is the teacher, and the soul is the pupil. One flower of a hedge by itself, I think and I do not say a flower of the meadow, one shell of any sea you like and I do not say a pearl from the Red Sea, one feather of a Murre fowl to say nothing of a peacock, will they speak to you of a Creator? If I offer you a rose will you scorn its Maker?” In other words creation manifests God. And even for those who appear unable to perceive that creation there is the manifestation of God, within them.

The great story of Helen Keller, the deaf, mute and blind woman. Absolutely no capacity to communicate, until Anne Sullivan spent hours upon hours, days upon days and months upon months to unlock communication, and when Anne attempted to tell Helen Keller about God her response was, “I already know about Him, I just didn’t know His name.”

The commentator Hodge has written, “God therefore has never left Himself without a witness, His existence and perfections have ever been so manifested that His rational creatures are bound to acknowledge and worship Him as the true and only God.” End quote.

Acts 14:16, and here Paul is speaking and talking about God and how God reveals Himself, and in verse 15 he talks about “the living God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them;” And then he says, “Who in time past allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness, (how?) in that he did good,” did He make a good earth? Yes. He “gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,” and He “filled our hearts with food and with gladness.” In other words the very goodness of life speaks of the goodness of God, the food and the rain and the seasons, and the joy of ‘living all speak of a beneficent, loving, gracious Creator.

Now go to the 17th chapter of Acts, and Paul preaching to the philosophers on Mars’ Hill in Athens, verse 23, says you have here an unknown God, which by the way was reflective of their understanding of the true God though they didn’t know His name. You ignorantly worship Him, so I’m going to tell you about Him, you know He exists and you’ve got an unknown God statue just to cover Him but you don’t know who He is, but I’ll tell you who He is, “He’s the God who made the world” verse 24, “and all things in it, he’s the Lord of heaven and earth, he dwells not in temples made with hands, He is not worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” They were always accustomed to bringing food and sticking it at the feet of their idols, he said you don’t have to feed this God. “He is made of one blood all nations of (you have) men to dwell on the face of the earth, he has determined the times before a pointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” In other words He controls the nations, their boundaries, He controls time, He controls destiny, He controls everything.

That they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after him,” in other words if men would just feel after Him, if they would just see that He is and reach out for Him, “they would find him, because he is not (what? He’s not) far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” He is right there and He has manifested Himself in an undeniable way. Listen to this remarkable passage of Scripture, John’s gospel, chapter 1, verse 9, listen to what it says, just listen, Christ is that Light, that is lighting all men. Did you hear that? Does that mean all men are saved? No. What it does mean is, that all men are illumined with the knowledge of God. Christ is the Light that is lighting all men. No one has an excuse.

Mormanity said...

The last commenter states "in other words if men would just feel after Him . . . they would find him." He/she cites the example of Helen Keller who without sight, without hearing, without verbal communication from the writings of mortal scholars, sensed and knew there was a God. He/she then tells us to "just listen" and feel after Him, and sense the Light that comes from Christ. Obviously, it is not a tactile or visible light that scientists can detect with their physical instruments to convert doubters, so how is this light perceived? Clearly there is something that we must perceive or feel, something that we must receive from God that transcends visible evidence and verbalized data.

So what is the meaning of all your talk about the need to "feel" after God and sense the divine presence, or perceive the Light of Christ? Feelings? Listening to the Spirit? Receiving revelation from God in the form of divine light and knowledge that transcends our basic senses?

Hey, are you some kind of Mormon troll posing as an Evangelical?

If not, welcome on board! Welcome to the world of personal revelation and personal testimony obtained through the Spirit - the biblical, early Christian way (see 1 Cor. 2). Howdy, fellow Christian!

David said...

Bookslinger said...
Brother Buckna:

"True faith is grounded in evidence. Hebrews 11:1 is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence)..."

[snip]
-----------------------------------
To Bookslinger et al...I haven't been to this blog for awhile. There appears to be be more than one person who posts here as "anonymous" but I always include my real name [David Buckna] at the bottom of my posts. I am NOT the "anonymous" who posted on Aug. 3 (1:05 p.m.):

[True faith is grounded in evidence. Hebrews 11:1 is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence)...]

The reason I haven't posted lately is because Jeff Lindsay has been deleting my posts and so I don't know who has seen them or responded to them. I am endeavouring to post as a blogger (not anonymous)this time and thereafter, but even if that works, Jeff Lindsay will probably just delete it anyway. Let's see if he allows this post to remain.

David Buckna

6:39 PM, August 04, 2008

Mormanity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mormanity said...

As I have explained several times, off-topic comments that just throw out tired old lists of objections to our faith are unwelcome. Comments that go beyond responsive dialog, such as lengthy threadjacks, may be deleted to maintain some minimal standards for this blog.

The comments area is not a blank wall for any kind of hostile graffiti. It's a forum for dialog, preferably brief and responsive dialog.

Anonymous said...

This kind of thing is a problem, and it does appear like a "throw all the noodles against the wall and see what sticks" situation.

Ice cores, apparently, provide possible evidence for the BoM. Ice cores, however, not only show no evidence for a global Noahic flood, they actually show evidence that one didn't occur.

Can you accept ice cores as evidence for one part of the doctrine, but not another? Best to avoid them altogether, and rely up on the Holy Ghost, like Elder Oaks recently preached.

David said...

mormanity said: "The comments area is not a blank wall for any kind of hostile graffiti. It's a forum for dialog, preferably brief and responsive dialog."

But lately it's a Catch 22. When I have asked questions, you have deemed them 'hostile graffiti' and deleted them. How can dialog occur when you do that?

David Buckna

gb said...

David,

This is not a public owned blog site. It belongs to Jeff. He has complete power and dominion here. He has provided general rules for acceptable behavior here.

If you think his administration of those rules are whimsical or subjective, remember that he has complete power and dominion here.

I have dialogged with your type many times before. Although there have been a few exceptions, in general it goes like this.

1)They start out wanting to correct my "mis"understanding of the Bible.

2)I show them that their understanding of the Bible is lacking.

3) They panic and go into the anti-Mormon cut and paste shot gun mode. Throwing any and all anti-Mormon drivel they can find to see if any of it will stick.

4) Although it is possible to go through each and every item of anti-Mormon drivel and address it. (Which has been done many times.) At this point it is obviously a waste of time, because they are not interested in knowing the truth.

The problem with anti-Mormons is that they make several false assumptions about Mormon doctrine and Mormon scholarship.

This has been recognized by real evangelical scholars.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

If you would like to have a reasonable discussion on topic, I am sure Jeff would be amenable.

I suspect that if you have another topic that you would like to discuss, that he would let you bring it up, IF YOU ASKED HIM NICELY.

But don't waste his nor our time with the shotgun cut and paste anti-Mormon mode.

David said...

gb said:

"The problem with anti-Mormons is that they make several false assumptions about Mormon doctrine and Mormon scholarship.

This has been recognized by real evangelical scholars."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
-----------------------------------
The article gb referenced is:

"Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?"
Trinity Journal, Fall 1998 by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen.

Four years later, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, and Frank Beckwith published the book "The New Mormon Challenge"(Zondervan 2002). Other contributors to the book included Paul Copan, Thomas Finley, Stephen Parrish, J.P. Moreland, David J. Shepherd, Jim Adams, Craig Hazen, and Craig Blomberg.

How have Mormon Church officials and/or Mormon apologists responded to the book? Do they think the authors accurately described the Mormon worldview? Do they think that any of the authors'conclusions
or criticisms have any validity?
If yes, why? If no, why not?


For example, in Chapter 5 “A Tale of Two Theisms”, Stephen Parrish and Carl Mosser maintain that the LDS God, as well as the universe, exist for no reason at all and that this view cannot account for the order that exists in the universe or provide any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.


David Buckna

Anonymous said...

Mormanity said...

"So what is the meaning of all your talk about the need to "feel" after God and sense the divine presence, or perceive the Light of Christ? Feelings? Listening to the Spirit? Receiving revelation from God in the form of divine light and knowledge that transcends our basic senses?"


No Jeff, God has already manifested himself to you and all others. You already know that He is, without any such special revelations.

JB said...

Anon @ 4:46--Judging by your last words there, are you saying that God has given you a revelation to reveal to you that there are no more revelations? Cool!
JB

Anonymous said...

No JB, good twist though. I am saying that you and every man brought into the world are without excuse! No revelation required.

Shawn said...

“A Tale of Two Theisms” ... to me it sounds like Stephen Parrish and Carl Mosser can't grasp a simple concept. I guess is they subscribe to the same lazy "do nothing" doctrine that says believe in Christ BUT don't get caught doing works because that's not an exercise in faith. My guess is that the "anonymous" comments regarding "everyone already knows God" is trying to sell the same snake oil. Am I right in understanding we don't have to do anything to build that relationship because it's already there? No worries. Just be happy. It's all taken care of... Do whatever you want. Let evil reign. Nice....

IMHO, that's how one closes the door on the "ultimate solution to the problem of evil" Unless you're saying God's plan is for the majority of His children to fail, not find Christ, and suffer the eternal bonds of Hell.

Regarding the other "anonymous" posts that sound more atheistic than a challenge to Doctrine (i.e. "no shred of evidence" and "no evidence for a global Noahic flood" blah blah blah...) you can swing with your moon is made of cheese analogy but we're finding Velveeta wrappers in all sorts interesting places. :)

Seriously, it took 65 days to transcribe the BOM. Anything that "sticks" is fascinating (and there's a lot more than one).

Shawn

Anthony said...

According to the paper, the strongest evidence comes from the Camp Century ice core which shows an acid spike at 37 or 38AD, with an error of +/- 30-40 years. In other words, the strongest evidence indicates that a volcanic eruption occurred somewhere in the world sometime between 4BC and 78AD, a period during which volcanic eruptions are known to have occurred in the Mediterranean.

Hard for me to get too excited about this one.

gb said...

DB: How have Mormon Church officials and/or Mormon apologists responded to the book?

GB: LDS Church? No!

LDS apologist? Yes!

You will find a sample here;

http://farms.byu.edu/search/?q=%22the+new+mormon+challenge%22

DB: Do they think the authors accurately described the Mormon worldview?

GB: Apparently not! From one of the responses:

Aim 3: As a basis for this critique, to first state Latter-day Saint beliefs accurately and fairly.

To fulfill this aim, it seems to me that evangelicals must state our beliefs to our satisfaction. And here we arrive at what I consider to be a major failing in The New Mormon Challenge. While I find in this book some misstatements of Latter-day Saint beliefs, the primary sin of the editors of The New Mormon Challenge is not so much one of commission as it is of omission. The editors, as they themselves acknowledge, fail to set out our basic beliefs.7 Especially troubling here is their failure to set out our views of Christology, soteriology, and the doctrine of the Trinity, while nonetheless attempting to convince their readers that our faith cannot be considered Christian in "any very useful or theologically significant sense."8 Strange that these nonpresented beliefs should have no theological bearing on whether our faith is Christian. And stranger still that our rejection of two extrabiblical beliefs—creation out of nothing and the classical doctrine of the Trinity—should be theologically decisive for excluding Latter-day Saints from the Christian circle.9

7 Speaking of the beginning chapters of their book, the editors acknowledge, "Neither, however, gives an introductory overview of LDS history and belief. For that we heartily recommend another book which will serve as an excellent companion to this one: Richard and Joan Ostling's Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. PPM, 19; see NMC, 20. See Louis Midgley's review of the Ostling book, "Faulty Topography," in this volume, pp. 139—92, and Raymond Takashi Swenson's review, "Faith without Caricature?" FARMS Review of Books 13/2 (2001): 65—77.

8 PPM, 76; see NMC, 66.

9 The editors describe these beliefs as "absolutely fundamental and nonnegotiable. We do not feel that the status of Mormonism in relation to Christianity can ever change unless there is a willingness within the structures of the LDS Church to reconsider those issues." PPM, 476; see NMC, 400.

DB: Do they think that any of the authors'conclusions
or criticisms have any validity?

If yes, why? If no, why not?

GB: Feel free to do your own research.

David said...

anonymous said: "Ice cores, apparently, provide possible evidence for the BoM. Ice
cores, however, not only show no evidence for a global Noahic flood, they actually show evidence that one didn't occur."

What research articles have you read that has led you to that conclusion?

Dr. Larry Vardiman of www.icr.org has stated that "some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years
or so after the Flood."


David Buckna

Anonymous said...

Dr. Larry Vardiman of www.icr.org has stated that "some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years
or so after the Flood."


Sorry to be terribly skeptical, but the Institute for Creation Research isn't exactly an unbiased scientific institution, whose "models" are readily accepted by the general scientific community.

This raises an interesting issue in view of the number recent threads on evidence for the Book of Mormon. We tend to be selective about what constitutes "evidence". A critic of Mormonism dismisses any evidences out of hand - they contradict his worldview and are not recognized by mainstream authorities in history and archeology. Yet the same critic dramatically lowers his standards of evidence when positing creationism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

Anthony said...

And, "models" which assume the occurrence of the flood don't constitute evidence that the flood occurred. That's circular logic.

Anonymous said...

And, "models" which assume the occurrence of the flood don't constitute evidence that the flood occurred. That's circular logic.

Precisely! ;)

-Anonymous of 5:11 PM, August 07, 2008

David said...

Anthony said "And, "models" which assume the occurrence of the flood don't constitute evidence that the flood occurred. That's circular logic."

What about the circular logic/reasoning used in evolutionary geology?

Evolutionary geologists use rocks to date the fossils, and use fossils to date the rocks. This is a classic case of circular reasoning. J.E. O'Rourke recognizes the problem:

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of timescales." (American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53)

http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21

Ian Taylor writes:

[snip]

2. Fossils & the Geologic Column. The text tells the student that fossils of simple life forms are found in the lowest strata of sedimentary rock (the Cambrian) then they become more complex as the strata become more recent. Usually, there is a diagram with illustrations of sea-bed life forms at the bottom then in rising order: fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man at the top. Textbooks may intend this hypothetical diagram, the geologic column, simply to indicate the life forms typical of each era of earth's history but the reader would naturally perceive this to be the evidence that those life forms did indeed develop in this order. This circular projection is then reinforced when the textbooks also claim this fossil order to be the most powerful evidence for evolution. Historically, it was assumed that life evolved from simple to complex, selected fossil evidence seemed to confirm this, but more often than not the fish, the amphibian, reptile etc were out of order or missing. In recognition of this, more than 150 years ago, geologists began using "index fossils," a series of marine arthropods, crustaceans, brachiopods, molluscs etc all of which are very small but their order was more consistent and, again, this was their assumed order of apearance; many of them still exist today. It is the index fossils that are used to identify the strata. The dating of the strata was initially based upon an assumed rate of deposition of sediment resulting in millions of years for massive beds; claims that radiometric methods confirm these ages are regarded as secondary evidence by geologists. It is now openly admitted that naming and dating rocks by fossils and the fossils by the rocks is mere circular reasoning based upon the assumptions that life appeared in the sequence, simple to complex and the assumed of rates of deposition. When index fossils are found out of order, geologists speak of the strata as an "unconformity" i.e. it does not conform to the theory. In the last decade or so it has been admitted that representatives of every phylum are found fully formed at the Cambrian level (the "Cambrian Explosion") followed by degradation and extinction indicating "bottom-up" regression not Darwinian progression.
David. Kitts. Evolution, 1974, 28:467; Niles Eldredge. Time Frames, 1985, p.52; Tom Kemp. New Scientist, 1985, 108:67; R.H.Rastal. Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed. 10:168; R. Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229; Mark McMenamin. Palaios, 1990, 5:1
---

David Buckna

Anthony said...

David said, "What about the circular logic/reasoning used in evolutionary geology?

Evolutionary geologists use rocks to date the fossils, and use fossils to date the rocks. This is a classic case of circular reasoning."

Just for the record, David is changing the subject and committing the red herring fallacy, but I don't mind.

If geologists only used rock strata to date fossils and fossils to date rock strata without using other methods to corroborate either one, then you would be correct to characterize this as circular reasoning. But they don't, so you aren't (straw man fallacy, for anyone keeping score).

Rock strata dating is corroborated by radiometric methods using a variety of different chemical elements. Radiometric methods in turn are corroborated by helioseismic methods.

erelis said...

When index fossils are found out of order, geologists speak of the strata as an "unconformity" i.e. it does not conform to the theory.

As my obviously heretical Geology 101 professor at BYU taught, criticism of unconformity assumes that newer rock is always found above older rock. Because the Earth's plates are constantly in motion, that isn't always true; thus we find fossil sea life in the Himalayas. Unconformity does not undermine geology.

Cutting and pasting paragraphs from a creationist website is not going to score points with those of us who think that general geological theories are entirely compatible with our religious beliefs.

I find it amusing to be lectured to about the supposed paucity of evidence for the Book of Mormon by a creationist.

Anthony said...

Erelis: "I find it amusing to be lectured to about the supposed paucity of evidence for the Book of Mormon by a creationist."

So do I. Biblical fundamentalists who like to criticize Mormons for having unsupportable beliefs remind me of the hen who is second from the bottom of the pecking order.

David said...

anthony said:

"Rock strata dating is corroborated by radiometric methods using a variety of different chemical elements. Radiometric methods in turn are corroborated by helioseismic methods."

But all radiometric dating methods assume a) that no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated b) that the decay system was closed through the years and c) that the decay rate was constant over time.

What conditions could invalidate these assumptions?


David Buckna

Shayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.