tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post113073700018708330..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Powerful Evidence Against the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12527709426204775252011-06-22T11:25:34.377-05:002011-06-22T11:25:34.377-05:00Jeff,
I'm a Christian and disagree with your...Jeff, <br /><br />I'm a Christian and disagree with your views regarding Mormonism. However, rather than start a debate with you, I'd like to thank you for this post - although it hasn't changed my opinion, I really appreciate your openness to address some sticky points. I respect that a lot! <br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />DaveDave Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045193583139214300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60994817400661469212011-04-26T17:13:09.243-05:002011-04-26T17:13:09.243-05:00@Daniel Peterson
Your claim that "Such proof...@Daniel Peterson<br /><br />Your claim that "Such proof does not currently exist, and it is very unlikely that it will be found. (It is also unlikely that disproof of historicity will be found" is illogical if the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" ever written, and superior to the Bible and covering hundreds of years of history of large and extensive cultures. If the Bible, covering a tiny nation over thousands of years has countless evidences to support it archeology, why wouldn't the Book of Mormon have at least as much for it's hundreds?:<br /><br />http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/BookOfMormon/No_Longer_Believe_12.html<br /><br />Your lack of faith and casual presumption for someone who claims the Book of Mormon is true is contradictory and says a lot about the Mormon cult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1684574107576418042010-03-16T11:57:46.807-05:002010-03-16T11:57:46.807-05:00As a Buddhist, I would like to see more blogs, com...As a Buddhist, I would like to see more blogs, comments, views, articles, opinions, discussion and other forms of faith and opinion begin to create how we as people can find similar ground. We are all one. One world, one people and one world. And, the world is not going to recover from our religious wars, consumption of coal and oil and continued defense of this term - "My God is the true God". The middle east has killed many babies over that phrase. Please think.Tom Kicmolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160039174449459638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80067788010528726492008-12-23T13:13:00.000-06:002008-12-23T13:13:00.000-06:00Keep up the good work!In Christs Love,B.DKeep up the good work!<BR/>In Christs Love,<BR/>B.DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15364596672288314082008-05-27T17:10:00.000-05:002008-05-27T17:10:00.000-05:00this is a different anonymous, not the one everyon...this is a different anonymous, not the one everyone is getting mad at.<BR/><BR/>there is a lot of hate and arguments in this forum, some plausible, some not.<BR/><BR/>truthfully, you can have all of the historical evidence you want, proving anything you want it to prove.<BR/><BR/>however, you can never prove any religion is right or wrong, especially christian/judaic religions, as what you really need to prove/disprove is one thing. that jesus was the son of god, and rose from the dead. or, for that matter, that god exists. this is something that no one will ever be able to prove/disprove, and i'm not siding either way. it just seems that all of these arguments are trivial, when no one will ever know for sure until they're dead.<BR/><BR/>as i said before, this mainly applies to the christian/judaic religions. anything else, such as more eastern asian religions, or animistic religions in africa, for example, may need to prove other things, but i wont comment to avoid angering anyone.<BR/><BR/>ultimately, it is known that none of this can ever be proved. that's why it's called FAITH, believing in something despite the arguments for/against it. everyone is entitled to their own faith, so just let it be. you may agree or disagree, but you don't need to push that on someone else.<BR/><BR/>and just for the record, i'm jewish, and am trying to be as unbiased as possible in this comment, although removing all bias is also impossible...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46227612413055363282008-03-25T10:51:00.000-05:002008-03-25T10:51:00.000-05:00It has since been pointed out to me by one of you ...It has since been pointed out to me by one of you that I was not clear about the relationship between my statements and the topic of this thread and not in a polite manner. Let me be unmistakably clear. The topic of discussion needs no science and no scrutiny of the book at all! The bible states very clearly that we are to know who is with us and who is against by the acts they do. This clearly is applicable to all who claim to be prophets. Even on this day your prophets will endeavor to defy God by denying mankind freedom to chose. This act colors the claims of your so called prophets so they may be seen for what they are. They sit at 90 degrees to the actions of God. By this it is known they are not prophets at all but men of deception. I for one will fight to the death for your right to discern for your self and your right to self determination even as I know you will endeavor to take from me that same right once I am dead.<BR/><BR/>We shall know our enemy by their acts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13597819423604657322008-03-24T22:58:00.000-05:002008-03-24T22:58:00.000-05:00so God gave me the freedom to choose; did he not? ...so God gave me the freedom to choose; did he not? When I left a Mormon "fire side open house gathering" with the intent NOT to be baptized I was exercising the use of a God given gift; was I not? Yet the Mormon church practices baptism of the dead and so in 2 or 3 generations I may very well be baptized against my will; mite I not? As a well balanced sudo-atheist catholic I can't help but wonder how do you people justify the theft of a "God given right", or is this freedom only available to those who do as they are told thus nullifying the freedom by definition? It would appear to me that you wait until I have left my house so you can break in and steel that which is of most value to me. If a group of people have the right to take a "God given right" because they have come to an agreement amongst themselves that it needed to be done then it follows: the group of people that took Joseph Smith's right to live from him were in the right, because they were all in agreement that it needed to be done. Is this not so? I have been once again invited to a "fire side open house gathering" by a wonderfully nice 21 year old home-care worker who would be hurt if I do not go. Once again I will keep a respectful silence so as not to lead the young believers from their place of worship by mistake. However this silence can only last so many times wile I sit amongst those who would steel from me. What should I do? Here in Lethbridge it is next to impossible to spit without hitting one of you and all of you want me to be polite but all I can think of is your acts of theft and this come between me and you. what can I do to restore the harmony between us without giving up my rights?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15133072658981678605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78034612291108225582007-10-09T05:22:00.000-05:002007-10-09T05:22:00.000-05:00it seems quite popular to point any deficiencies o...it seems quite popular to point any deficiencies or follies within the church toward the human error of our leadership. i agree, prophets are human of course. the difference between folly with old testament prophets and folly of our leaders in this 'dispensation' is that the follies are claimed to be stamped with the approval of God, even commanded by him. i have no qualms with polygamy, but polygamy as instituted by God is another thing. how many unethical, or embarrassing doctrines, as instituted by God, are needed to come out of a man's mouth to put that man's claim of having a divine 'calling' in serious question? or is that he claimed its divine institution merely a reflection of his human-ness, thus making it all the same. it's not that the doctrine with blacks in the priesthood is embarrassing and should have been ended earlier, it's that it is simply wrong, unethical, and God was manipulated in such a way as to reason and institute such a thing. it points to error and fraudulence of divinity, as authored by the character flaw. the same for polygamy. biblically we see polygamy, but never as instituted from God. there's a big difference. by continually pushing every mistake to our religious leaders human-ness, we can reasonably say religion has never done wrong! and while i agree with cs lewis in that we are the rusty cup holding the pure water, this is simply too diplomatic for my liking. in fact it's absurd! does the caste system imply that some of the early hindu's had imperfections in character, or does it discredit the religion as a whole? a valid question i think. the the fact that the catholic church did what it did in the name of God for so many centuries is proof to me that it just isn't what it claims to be. i'm also aware that taking such an approach to evaluate religion would lead to the conclusion that all religion is corrupt. the point is that there's a difference between mistakes, and mistakes claimed to be backed by God approval. this, and that a religious institution only gets so much slack as pertains to this. i want to stress (and await the response) the major difference between JS and BY practicing polygamy and the fact that they instituted it by God's command. what's more discomforting than the polygamy is the the manipulation of God's name. the crusades (as 'willed by God')don't disprove Christianity, but clearly disprove that the leaders at that time were not so inspired. perhaps some would be willing to argue that they still were, but my goodness you'd have to do it in spite of obvious moral corruptness on their part and your own moral logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132201687885932132005-11-16T22:28:00.000-06:002005-11-16T22:28:00.000-06:00BYU AE: "First off, you ask, "Is the science that...<I>BYU AE: "First off, you ask, "Is the science that settled?" <BR/>Yes, any non-Mormon scientist would agree.</I><BR/><BR/>The Mormon scientists agree, too. To suggest that they don't is to create a straw man. The question is the relevance of broad generalizations about the populating of the Americans 20,000 years ago, or so, to the specific question of whether or not a very small party of Hebrews arrived in the New World around 600 BC. On that point, since they don't have the Book of Mormon in view, the general studies and broad portrayals are silent. It remains for those who are interested specifically in the Book of Mormon to apply those studies to it, or to judge them largely or wholly irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>That's where the controversy lies. BYU AE believes that the broader studies demonstrate the Book of Mormon false. A number of Latter-day Saint scientists (at BYU, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, at a genetics research firm in eastern Canada) with special interest in DNA (and with doctorates in genetics, biological anthropology, molecular biology, and biochemistry) believe that they demonstrate nothing of the kind.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "To me, it simply shows that Joseph lied. He out and out lied. . . . Joseph simply lied."</I><BR/><BR/>This conclusion is characteristically uncareful. At most, genetic disproof of the Book of Mormon, if it existed, would demonstrate the Book of Mormon false. It would not demonstrate that Joseph Smith consciously deceived. He might have been insane, he might have been deceived by conspirators, etc.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Joseph Smith was sincere.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "He certainly had motive to do so."</I><BR/><BR/>It would be interesting to hear more about this alleged motive.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Richard Bushman's <I>Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling</I>, recently published by Alfred E. Knopf Publishers in New York City, is a superb biography by one of the finest living American historians that, to say the least of it, doesn't see any clear evidence that "Joseph lied. He out and out lied. . . . Joseph simply lied."<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "The "truth" he proclaimed is not consistent with reality. Not even close. Examples are, the BOM, the Lamanites, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook, and a multitude of sundry prophecy."</I><BR/><BR/>On these topics, BYU AE is far beyond even his claimed expertise in DNA; there are many scholars with superb credentials who disagree with him in these areas. (He is likely, very soon, to pronounce them dishonest mercenaries, or some such thing.)<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "So even though ancient American history is anything but a closed case, as Mormon apologists try to point out, Joseph's version is beyond salvaging."</I><BR/><BR/>As it turns out, Dr. John Clark, one of the leading Mesoamerican field archaeologists in the United States, believes that the archaeological tide is flowing very much in the direction of the Book of Mormon. He'll have a brief article out on this topic in not the next issue of the <I>Journal of Book of Mormon Studies</I> but the one following it.<BR/><BR/> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132072313498344662005-11-15T10:31:00.000-06:002005-11-15T10:31:00.000-06:00Sam, He has in at least a couple other threads.1....Sam, He has in at least a couple other threads.<BR/><BR/>1. As I understand it, their reasoning is that the church, ever since JS, has stated that the modern Amerindians have the Lamanites as their <I>principal</I> ancestors. <BR/><BR/>2. They assume that if there were pre-existing populations (other than the Jewish Mulekites) in the Americas at the arrival of the Lehites that the Book of Mormon would have mentioned them. <BR/><BR/>3. They assume that if there were subsequent immigrations, Israelite or non-Israelite, during the period 600 BC to 400 AD that the Book of Mormon would have mentioned them.<BR/><BR/>4. Therefore, they assume that Lamanites should be pure Israeli bloodlines at least up to the point of 400 AD.<BR/><BR/>5. They further assume that Lehi's DNA should be close to the DNA found in modern Jewish men, and that Sariah's and Mrs. Ishmaeal's DNA should be close to the DNA found in modern Jewish women.<BR/><BR/>There are problems in all those assumptions.<BR/><BR/>1. Lineage can flow among female lines as well as male lines. Large groups of Lehite men marrying non-Lehite women would cause Lehite mtDNA to eventually disappear. Large groups of Lehite women marrying non-Lehite men would cause Lehite Y-chromosome DNA to eventually disappear. There was approx 2100 years for that to happen, from 600 BC to 1500 AD.<BR/><BR/>Yet all the progeny of those lines would still fully qualify as legitimate descendants of Lehi.<BR/><BR/>2 & 3. The Bible is full of examples of God not fully disclosing things, or telling one group about another group. The fact that characters are missing from the Book of Mormon does not mean they weren't there. I know that really ticks off the antis. They just can't accept the fact that God doesn't tell us everything that we want to know.<BR/><BR/>4. By the close of the Book of Mormon, the term "Lamanite" is clearly not used to strictly mean a descendant of Laman or Lemuel. Mormon and previous record keepers went to great pains to indicate it was a word applied to all those who were not Nephites, as it included Zoramites, dissenters, etc. So if there were populations of Asian origin in the land, which had aligned themselves with the Lamanites, those peoples would have been rightly called Lamanites by the Nephites. Therefore a preponderance of Asian DNA could very well have been found in the group known as the Lamanites by the close of the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>The Amerindians would then be principally descended from that Asian/Lehite mix (still called Lamanite) that existed in 400 AD. <BR/><BR/>Then there was 1100 years, 40 generations, for more mixing, DNA bottlenecks, and who knows what, to occur prior to the arrival of the Spanish.<BR/><BR/>5. Although there is some logic in assuming that Lehi had the same Y-chromosome as Abraham, I see no logic in assuming that Sariah and Mrs. Ishmael should have the same mtDNA as modern Jewish women. <BR/><BR/>Lehi was tribe of Joseph. Joseph married in Egypt. Judah likely married back in Palestine, plus had children by Tamar. We don't know who Joseph's and Judah's descendants married during the Egyptian period.<BR/><BR/>Isaac and Jacob married cousins, but we don't know the matriarchal ancestry of those female cousins.<BR/><BR/>Add to that the non-Israelite female mtDNA thrown in via Ruth. Her sons were considered Jewish, as David was her descendant. She may have had daughters to perpetuate her mtDNA in the Jewish population.<BR/><BR/>Add to that the genetic mixing that occured in the Babylonian captivity, and after the Diaspora of 70 AD; so there is no reason to conclude that modern Jewish women are going to have the same mtDNA of Israelite women of 600 BC.<BR/><BR/>And with all the mixing from the Exodus to 600 BC, and the fact we don't know who Sariah and Mrs. Ishmael were, it is not logical to assume that Sariah and Mrs. Ishmael even had the same mtDNA as the majority of Jewish women in Judah in 600 BC. <BR/><BR/>Not only could Mrs. Ishmael been Asian, we don't know what servants Lehi's party had with them, and one or more of those could have been Asian.<BR/><BR/>BYU-AE is going to say it's more complicated than that. Yes, it is. But at least I've shown that they've had to make some major assumptions in order for them to conclude that DNA evidence "disproves" the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Researchers like BYU-AE like to go by probabilities of what most likely happened. If they can show that there is 99.5% likelihood that their interpretation of the DNA evidence indicates the Book of Mormon is false, they can discount the .5% probability.<BR/><BR/>However, we know that God does not work with probabilities but with possibilities. We know that God can work within that .5%. If it's at least anyway possible, then God can do it.<BR/><BR/>We don't have a slam-dunk answer to the DNA critics. The best we can counter is to bring up possibilities. The best the critics can counter is to say "That's not likely." <BR/><BR/>But in matters of faith, "not likely" leaves a loophole open. Faith resides in possibilities, regardless of how unlikely they are from a scientific viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>In the day when "all things shall be revealed" these things will be made known. There will be a lot of forehead slapping that day. The answers may lie in areas that neither side has considered.<BR/><BR/>I'll still entertain the possibility of divine alteration of Lamanite DNA, and also of Asian DNA at some point in history. If DNA can naturally randomly mutate, then whose hand controls nature and randomness?Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131777928724295632005-11-12T00:45:00.000-06:002005-11-12T00:45:00.000-06:00Story of a 1,400 pound meteorite consisting of mos...Story of a 1,400 pound meteorite consisting of mostly iron-nickel alloy, found recently (Oct 2005) near Greensburg Kansas.<BR/><BR/>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_sc/giant_meteorite_1<BR/>or<BR/><A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_sc/giant_meteorite_1" REL="nofollow"> click here</A>Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131760731645912972005-11-11T19:58:00.000-06:002005-11-11T19:58:00.000-06:00BYU AE: "If your definition [of confirmation bias...<I>BYU AE: "If your definition [of <B>confirmation bias</B>] is the same as mine;ie, 'a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study, or scientific prejudice,' then it's not idiosyncratic."</I><BR/><BR/>I guess not. I was hoping that it was, though, because, otherwise, you seem simply to have misapplied it in the case of my response to Alma 7:10. I hope that you now understand my reasoning with regard to that verse.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, you say that you were a believer when you first encountered the issue of Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon, yet, as I recall, you also told us, some time back, that there were many issues that had bothered you regarding Mormonism prior to that encounter. Thus--and, admittedly, I don't know you, but can only go by what you yourself have said--the situation seems to be a bit more ambiguous than "Blissfully Untroubled True Believer Encounters Fact that Destroys His Testimony." And, indeed, there are several professional geneticists (with doctorates in the field) who, judging from their published articles on the subject, plainly don't view the issue as you do. Accordingly, the difference between your particular response and theirs to the same facts appears difficult to explain by simply appealing to the data commonly available to both you and those who don't share your opinion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131365281508737762005-11-07T06:08:00.000-06:002005-11-07T06:08:00.000-06:00Anon @1:59 PMPlease provide a scientifically-accep...Anon @1:59 PM<BR/>Please provide a <I>scientifically-accepted proof</I> of the Resurection of Jesus Christ. Provide also a <I>scientifically-accepted proof</I> of the parting of the Red Sea. Or should we accept those <I>'facts'</I> from the Bible without question? How do we know these events took place without a <I>scientifically-accepted proof?</I> May I suggest the answer in the writings of Paul to the <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/11/1#1" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Hebrews.</A> If you can grant that amount of faith to the Bible, would it be too much to give it to the Book of Mormon? Whilst there are no so called 'smoking guns' I believe that the elements suggested in this discussion might enable us to think that the Book of Mormon could have been a Mesoamerican record. But the most important aspect of the Book of Mormon its not its historicity, because it is not a history textbook, but rather revealed word of God through prophets to the inhabitants of the American continent. <BR/><BR/>Bro Peterson, do you have more info. on the usage of 'Yahweh'. I am fascinated by it. Hope I am not 'threadjacking'. <BR/><BR/>My two pences on the Alma 7:10. Have you noted how it states that Mary was 'overshadowed' by the Spirit? It states plainly about the virgin birth. You can cross reference it to <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/1/35#35" REL="nofollow"> Luke 1:35.</A> Now if Joseph Smith was inventing all this, why would he put this reference to the virgin birth but 'forget' the obvious Bethlehem bit. Just two pences.AlexGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419111994859972886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131316630625636532005-11-06T16:37:00.000-06:002005-11-06T16:37:00.000-06:00Anon:"Now isn't that convenient? And now I am sure...Anon:<BR/><BR/>"Now isn't that convenient? And now I am sure all the church apologists will just run home since no scientifically-accepted proof of the authenticity of the BoM is now needed." <BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you have distorted Indy's words. As Dan noted, even in modern U.S. history, a subject for which there is ample documentation, there remain gaps in our understanding. I will burden the blog with examples, but U.S. foreign policy is replete with ambiguities about the presidential decision-making at the time of war. We do not even have evidence to prove that Nixon specifically directed Watergate (though, of course, he directed everything that led up to it).<BR/><BR/>Point being, ancient studies will have far more ambiguity than it will have clarity.<BR/><BR/>In case you have not noticed, no proof other than the warm fuzzy kind is required. Never has been and if you go looking for it you will end up looking for truths that are just not "useful". <BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what Mormons you have been talking to. It sounds like their sheep in Mormons' clothing! If indeed they have this "warm-fuzzy" paradigm of revelation, they really need a paradigm shift in the most urgent way. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, you betray your failure to understand the pulse of present-day LDS scholarship. Simply because a Mormon argues a position does not give one license to discredit it based on his religious beliefs alone. While the Book of Mormon presents a special problem to naturalistic historians (its complexity is far too great to be attributed to Joseph alone), dismissing legitimate evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon's historocity (which does indeed exist) out of hand is irresponsible scholarship. <BR/><BR/>A final note: the sacred writings I believe do not disparage academic learning; quite the contrary, they commend and command it. "I will tell you in your MIND and in your heart," the Lord tells Joseph Smith. <BR/><BR/>As to your reference to Boyd K. Packer's statement on truth that is not "useful," just so you know, that sentence was a paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin's opinion on deism (tho' it might true, it is not useful). <BR/><BR/>Again, spare us of the hackneyed description of Mormons as dumb sheep and of revelation as "warm fuzzies." We've heard it all before, as I would guess you are well aware. Such descriptions add nothing new to the conversation and is no better than stereotyping races or ethnicities. I can only assume that you have written it more to vent than to engage in worthwhile debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131294551201876802005-11-06T10:29:00.000-06:002005-11-06T10:29:00.000-06:00While we deny that there is proof for the Book of ...While we deny that there is <I>proof</I> for the Book of Mormon -- just as there is no absolute proof for most large and/or significant historical claims -- we enthusiastically point out <I>evidence</I> for the Book of Mormon, which exists in abundance.<BR/><BR/>Absolute proof is seldom available outside of mathematics, abstract logic, and a few very specific areas within certain kinds of science. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; in civil trials, it is "the preponderance of the evidence."<BR/><BR/>Understanding the distinction between <I>proof</I> and <I>evidence</I> would clear up a lot of problems for some critics of the Church, and spare them much pointless hyperventilating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131280090822920602005-11-06T06:28:00.000-06:002005-11-06T06:28:00.000-06:00Chris/Bill/Andy/etc (or Anonymous RfM-er),Again, y...Chris/Bill/Andy/etc (or Anonymous RfM-er),<BR/><BR/>Again, you mischaracterize.<BR/><BR/>Apologetics is not offering, nor looking for, proof of BoM authenticity.<BR/><BR/>Apologetics attempts to 1) counter the claims of _alleged_ proof that the BoM is false, and 2) offer evidence of plausibility.<BR/><BR/>Jeff and Daniel have made that point repeatedly.<BR/><BR/>Anti: "This thing here proves the BoM is false."<BR/><BR/>Apologist: "That's not correct. And here's why."<BR/><BR/>This lack of "smoking gun" proof (proof either way) is consistent with teachings in the New Testament. <BR/><BR/>But if you are atheist/agnostic/anti-christian in general, please feel free to argue against and point out the alleged errors of some other christian religions.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131271156613614362005-11-06T03:59:00.000-06:002005-11-06T03:59:00.000-06:00"I'm under the impression that BYU's opinion is th..."I'm under the impression that BYU's opinion is that if the Book of Mormon is true, then there should exist evidence that proves it."<BR/><BR/> Is that asking too much? Proof would be nice, other than the warm fuzzy feeling proof.<BR/><BR/>"BYU-AE, are you assuming that LDS apologetics is attempting to prove authenticity of the BoM?"<BR/><BR/> Why wouldn't or shouldn't they? If they could are you saying they wouldn't?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"The "you're trying to 'prove'..." accusation seems to be a straw-man erected by the vociferous anti's and RfM-ers.'<BR/><BR/>Do you ever post without talking about anti's and RfM-ers? What is it you have for them? Didn't you used to be one before? <BR/><BR/>"Until faith is no longer required by God, I don't think there will ever be hard-core scientifically-accepted proof of the authenticity of the BoM." <BR/><BR/>Now isn't that convenient? And now I am sure all the church apologists will just run home since no scientifically-accepted proof of the authenticity of the BoM is now needed. <BR/> In case you have not noticed, no proof other than the warm fuzzy kind is required. Never has been and if you go looking for it you will end up looking for truths that are just not "useful".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131258484714290272005-11-06T00:28:00.000-06:002005-11-06T00:28:00.000-06:00Mormanity is right that it is the anti-Mormons who...Mormanity is right that it is the anti-Mormons who raised Alma 7:10 to prominence, in countless leaflets and lectures and seminars and tabloids and radio shows and videos. Some years back, I even saw a bumper sticker in California that read, in large print, <I>Bethlehem or Jerusalem?</I>, and then, in smaller letters below that, <I>The Jesus of Mormonism, or the Jesus of the Bible?</I><BR/><BR/>But the joke's on them. And that's the point: What seemed to be a glaring mistake is actually a small but interesting item suggesting historical authenticity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131257309611645832005-11-06T00:08:00.000-06:002005-11-06T00:08:00.000-06:00I'm under the impression that BYU's opinion is tha...I'm under the impression that BYU's opinion is that if the Book of Mormon is true, then there should exist evidence that proves it.<BR/><BR/>BYU-AE, are you assuming that LDS apologetics is attempting to <I>prove</I> authenticity of the BoM?<BR/><BR/>I realize that some members think that certain evidence in favor of BoM plausibility equates to "proof", but I don't think the serious apologists are portraying it as that.<BR/><BR/>The "you're trying to 'prove'..." accusation seems to be a straw-man erected by the vociferous anti's and RfM-ers.<BR/><BR/>Until faith is no longer required by God, I don't think there will ever be hard-core scientifically-accepted proof of the authenticity of the BoM. The best that believers can hope for is evidence of plausibility. Just about all evidence purported to disprove authenticity has been explained away.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131249565143431212005-11-05T21:59:00.000-06:002005-11-05T21:59:00.000-06:00Alter, this issue is not one that I have raised as...Alter, this issue is not one that I have raised as some great and glorious evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. It's clearly a minor point, at best an "authentic touch" but hardly the most interesting issue in terms of evidence. But I address the issue because critics have been shouting about it for years. It is listed by critics as one of the key "smoking guns" proving the Book of Mormon is false, right up there with Jacon's "adieu" and several other popular tidbits. Several pages present it as one of the very foremost and first arguments in their war against the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>As with so many other arguments against the Book of Mormon, a little digging shows that the alleged gaffe is actually plausible, and in some cases even provides possible evidence in favor of authenticity. But if it weren't for all the attention critics have given Alma 7:10, it would probably have been overlooked completely by LDS Apologists.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131249470740871082005-11-05T21:57:00.000-06:002005-11-05T21:57:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131169738167336392005-11-04T23:48:00.000-06:002005-11-04T23:48:00.000-06:00Alter Ego:Remarkable AE! We agree on something. ...Alter Ego:<BR/><BR/>Remarkable AE! We agree on something. I also believe that Alma 7:10 is certainly no smoking gun (though I do believe that "land of jerusalem" and "at Jerusalm, WHICH IS THE LAND OF OUR FATHERS" are aboslutely comparable in concept, which is really what we're looking for).<BR/><BR/>I would take issue with your "indications of plausibility argument." Plausibility is the key to the authenticity of any questionable text. If one gets enough lucky guesses going, coupled with the patently unusual process by which the Book of Mormon was transcribed, an unusual explanation suddenly becomes quite plausible. Due to the general weirdness of the circumstances, naturalistic explanations (which, I do admit, I have inclinations towards) become inadequate to explain them. No naturalistic assumption is complex enough or nuanced enough to account for all of the BOM's subtleties. It's simply too bizarre for the historical profession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131169377246437902005-11-04T23:42:00.000-06:002005-11-04T23:42:00.000-06:00You're right, BYU AE, about the fact that I don't ...You're right, BYU AE, about the fact that I don't write platitudinously. Thanks for that. And thanks for discussing actual substance.<BR/><BR/>However, I think you aren't getting the issue relative to Alma 7:10.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "I can't see why this would be an issue for either side of the larger debate.<BR/>It's not a smoking gun for a literary Book of Mormon, nor is it supportive of a divine translation."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, since Alma 7:10 says that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem which is the <B>land</B> of our forefathers," it seems, at first glance, to be a stupid error. On closer inspection, however, since ancient evidence unavailable to Joseph Smith does seem to indicate not only that Bethlehem <B>could</B> be considered within the "land of Jerusalem" but that it actually <B>was</B> so considered, it turns out not to be an obviously stupid error but an unexpected indicator of apparent authentic antiquity.<BR/> <BR/><I>BYU AE: "'Indications of plausibility,' is so hollow. And this particular subject doesn't even allow for that."</I><BR/><BR/>Why not?<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "The New and Old Testaments have the structure 'at Jerusalem' 81 times. The BOM has it 18 times. Why is Alma 7:10 unique?</I><BR/><BR/>Because it puts <B>Bethlehem</B> "at Jerusalem," which it terms not a "city" but a "land."<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "More 'plausible' is that Joseph always referred to the area in a general sense because he was probably ignorant of the details.</I><BR/><BR/>I would need to be convinced that Joseph didn't know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that Jerusalem and Bethelehem are distinct urban areas. If, as you seem to think, he was capable of composing a complex pseudohistorical work like the Book of Mormon and, yet, was so monumentally ignorant of what every Christmas caroler knows as to commit the stupendous blunder of Alma 7:10, he must have been an idiot savant of cosmic proportions.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "I frankly can't think of a time where the BOM ever gets specific about the 'land of our fathers.' Bethany, Bethpage, Bethlehem, Bethel (how's that for alliteration Dan?:P) and other "cities" surrounding Jerusalem are not mentioned anywhere in the BOM."</I> <BR/><BR/>You forget <B>Bethabara</B>, which is mentioned at 1 Nephi 10:9.<BR/><BR/>The issue of lack of specificity regarding Old World microgeography doesn't point specifically to ignorance on Joseph Smith's part. It's at least as likely to point to such ignorance on the part of the ancient Nephites. By the time of Alma 7:10, for instance, the Nephites were more than five hundred years -- half a millennium -- removed from Palestine, and many thousands of miles distant. No living Nephite, nor any of his ancestors for roughly twenty generations, knew those places from personal experience. By the time of the editor Mormon, from whom most of the text as we have it derives, they had been gone for fully a thousand years, or roughly forty generations.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "Also, as an aside, you swith the language in your post to 'Land of Jerusalem' when you refer to the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 'Land of Jerusalem' and 'at Jerusalem' are not the same."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see much substantive difference between <B>the land of Jerusalem</B> and <B>Jerusalem . . . the land</B>. If you <B>do</B>, I hope you'll explain it to me.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "Also, neither structure is unique for the 19th Century vernacular.</I><BR/><BR/>This isn't a matter of idiom or "vernacular." It's a question of whether or not Joseph Smith knew that Bethlehem was considered, anciently, to be part of a "land of Jerusalem."<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "Incidentally the 'Land of Jerusalem' is used in the BOM 41 times.</I><BR/><BR/>As I've explained, that isn't the issue. Anyway, how many times do you find the term <B>land of Jerusalem</B> in the <B>Bible</B>? It occurs in ancient non-biblical texts, and it occurs in the Book of Mormon. Please locate it in the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU AE: "Again, I fail to see why Alma 7:10 is relevant at all, except that it illustrates your own confirmation bias."</I><BR/><BR/>As I say, I believe that you have failed to grasp the significance of this issue.<BR/><BR/>I would, incidentally, appreciate having your definition of <B>confirmation bias</B> as you use it here. It appears to be somewhat idiosyncratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131150960840614722005-11-04T18:36:00.000-06:002005-11-04T18:36:00.000-06:00Indeed you have. I'm sure that I speak for at lea...Indeed you <I>have</I>. I'm sure that I speak for at least certain others when I say that I myself am not only a contemptible hack whom it is proper to hate, but, in fact, a gullible idiot.<BR/><BR/>Where is the proof of this? That's simple: Despite all of the persuasive, rigorous refutations of my position offered above by Patricia and Anonymous, and on the "Lehi as a Visionary Man" thread by Frank, I persist in my opinions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131146807194760542005-11-04T17:26:00.000-06:002005-11-04T17:26:00.000-06:00Anon@2:05:" I highly doubt your statement will aff...Anon@2:05:<BR/>" I highly doubt your statement will affect anyone but the most idiotic among us, or the gullible."<BR/>You have come to the right place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com