Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Bishka]

What astonishes me, is that in this modern age, you can be sold that dross.

The same could be said about your pagan beliefs.

 

[Melissa G]

The difference is I enjoy the myths, I don't invest them with a literal reality.

 

[Autodidact]

If you had been, do you think I'd be asking the question? :sarcastic

O.K. Here's my point:

The archeological evidence does not support the assertions that the Book of Mormon makes about the history of America.

 

[nutshell]

The difference is I enjoy the myths, I don't invest them with a literal reality.

As do I. Don't paint us with such a broad brush. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when that happens with you and...big surprise! we don't either.

 

[nutshell]

O.K. Here's my point:

The archeological evidence does not support the assertions that the Book of Mormon makes about the history of America.

No - you support the evidence that supports your view and refuse to acknowledge evidence contrary to your view.

 

[madhatter85]

The difference is I enjoy the myths, I don't invest them with a literal reality.

so you are an athiest then. you should change your "religion" to match what you truely are.

 

[Popeyesays]

The fact is there is no current archeological evidence to support the claim. On the other hand, there is no archeological claim to support a lot of Biblical claims either--we find Jericho and see that the walls have come down multiple times--under attack.

There is no archeological evidence to support the Exodus either. No trace in Egyptian records.

It's a matter offaith and can only be challenged in the most superficial manner by appeal to archeological record.

Regards,
Scott

 

[madhatter85]

The fact is there is no current archeological evidence to support the claim. On the other hand, there is no archeological claim to support a lot of Biblical claims either--we find Jericho and see that the walls have come down multiple times--under attack.

There is no archeological evidence to support the Exodus either. No trace in Egyptian records.

It's a matter offaith and can only be challenged in the most superficial manner by appeal to archeological record.

Regards,
Scott

thanks Scott, that was somewhat nice of you to bring up.

 

[Autodidact]

No - you support the evidence that supports your view and refuse to acknowledge evidence contrary to your view.

What evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

The fact is there is no current archeological evidence to support the claim. On the other hand, there is no archeological claim to support a lot of Biblical claims either--we find Jericho and see that the walls have come down multiple times--under attack.

There is no archeological evidence to support the Exodus either. No trace in Egyptian records.

I know, and as a Jew who has been celebrating Passover all my life, this came as an utter shock to me. Apparently most scholars now do not think the Exodus ever happened. I have adjusted my beliefs accordingly.

It's a matter offaith and can only be challenged in the most superficial manner by appeal to archeological record.

Speak for yourself. I think it's a matter of history, and archeology can be helpful in finding out about some historical questions.

 

[Bishka]

C'mon everyone.

There has been absolutely nothing proven on this thread, but some people just keep brining it back up.

Let's make it 100 pages long!!

 

[Autodidact]

So I was thinking about absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence.

Joe: Where's the bottle opener?
Sue: In the left-hand drawer.
Joe (rummaging.): No, it isn't.
Sue: How do you know?
Joe: I looked. It's not in there.
Sue: Yes it is; absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It could be in the drawer, and you just haven't found it yet. Let me look. (rummages) Well, I haven't found it yet, but I have faith that it's in here, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; my ward leader told me so. So I say it's in here.
Joe: Yeah, well can you get my bottle open for me?
Sue. Sorry, no.

 

[nutshell]

So I was thinking about absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence.

Joe: Where's the bottle opener?
Sue: In the left-hand drawer.
Joe (rummaging.): No, it isn't.
Sue: How do you know?
Joe: I looked. It's not in there.
Sue: Yes it is; absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It could be in the drawer, and you just haven't found it yet. Let me look. (rummages) Well, I haven't found it yet, but I have faith that it's in here, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; my ward leader told me so. So I say it's in here.
Joe: Yeah, well can you get my bottle open for me?
Sue. Sorry, no.

This isn't looking for something in a drawer.

By your reasoning we are currenty able to find evidence of every scientific truth. Do you really believe that?

 

[Autodidact]

This isn't looking for something in a drawer.

By your reasoning we are currenty able to find evidence of every scientific truth. Do you really believe that?

No, it's much more important.
But the idea is the same: we're looking from something, and it isn't there.

No, I didn't say that. But if we have no evidence for it, then it is not a scientific truth. Is it your practice to believe things without evidence? Because I'm from Nigeria, and I have this money in an account in the U.S. By your reasoning, we should believe any random statement, because, after all, we may someday find some evidence in support of it!

In fact it's going the other way. The more evidence we find, the less correct the BoM looks.

 

[nutshell]

But if we have no evidence for it, then it is not a scientific truth.

I'm going to focus on this statement and make things as simple as possible. You (again) are stating that no evidence = no scientific truth. Well, I'm pretty sure scientific truth exists outside our own knowledge of the evidence of it that may or may not be there.

Another example:

It is a scientific truth that genetics play a role in whether a person is homosexual or not. Whether we have evidence of that or not, it's a scientific truth (yet, by your statement above it wouldn't be). Do you see the fallacy?

 

[madhatter85]

I'm going to focus on this statement and make things as simple as possible. You (again) are stating that no evidence = no scientific truth. Well, I'm pretty sure scientific truth exists outside our own knowledge of the evidence of it that may or may not be there.

Another example:

It is a scientific truth that genetics play a role in whether a person is homosexual or not. Whether we have evidence of that or not, it's a scientific truth (yet, by your statement above it wouldn't be). Do you see the fallacy?

i like this statement as it completely makes sense. they argue one side of a stick pointing at one subject, and then flipflop and argue the other side of the stick when pointing at something else.

Fascinating.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm going to focus on this statement and make things as simple as possible. You (again) are stating that no evidence = no scientific truth. Well, I'm pretty sure scientific truth exists outside our own knowledge of the evidence of it that may or may not be there.

Of course there are many truths that we don't know yet, which is fascinating, and for all we know it could turn out to be that everything in the BoM is true. It could also be that Joseph Smith was a complete con and fraud. So let's just deal with what we know now. Lot's of things may be true. It may turn out that the moon is made of green cheese, and we just haven't found the evidence yet. That's no reason to believe it is. In the same way, the BoM may turn out to be true...but there's no reason to believe it is.

It is a scientific truth that genetics play a role in whether a person is homosexual or not. Whether we have evidence of that or not, it's a scientific truth (yet, by your statement above it wouldn't be). Do you see the fallacy?

I don't know that it's a scientific truth or not; the research is still being done. And no, I don't. In general, I think it's most reasonable to base my beliefs on the evidence. You?

If you have to devolve into post-modernist, no way of knowing anything, anybody can believe anything without evidence and it's all equally valid, you should probably go back and examine your motivations, because you're in big trouble.

 

[Autodidact]

i like this statement as it completely makes sense. they argue one side of a stick pointing at one subject, and then flipflop and argue the other side of the stick when pointing at something else.

Fascinating.

What have I flip-flopped on?

If you don't base your beliefs on evidence, what do you base them on, and how do you know whether they're true?

 

[DeepShadow]

Very true. The problem is the huge logical rift between "not a scientific truth" and "scientifically false"! I'm fine with you saying that the Book of Mormon is not scientifically true. The problem is that you say it's scientifically false, and in order to say that, you need to look at more of the evidence.

See, you've come on this thread as the voice of scientific reason, but you aren't playing fair. You say we need to look at all the evidence as a whole, BUT then can't be bothered to look at all the evidence. You say we need to look at the stuff that came after the Book of Mormon was published, BUT you refuse to look at that stuff when it's not in your favor. You say it's weak to say there's a few coincidental mistranslations, BUT then embrace a series of totally unscientific mammoth coincidences yourself.

So what is this you are arbitrarily clinging to?

...not the old world data, because of your self-confessed assumption that we haven't made any significant discoveries in the Middle East in two hundred years.

...not the new world linguistic evidence, because you personally think it's flimsy.

...not the lack of temples or cities, because there are plenty of them in the new world, and you've only disqualified them because of the lack of horses and chariots and whatnot. You can't double dip here; if the horses and chariots were discovered, the cities and temples wouldn't be a problem.

...not gold or silver, because they were found here; not as coins, but then the Book of Mormon doesn't say they were coins.

The steel in the Book of Mormon was only in the earliest parts. We know the Hittite's were iron makers because of a single patch of ruddy earth less than a foot in diameter--no mines, no smelters, none of that. Is it really fair to demand smelters and mines of the Nephites?

The type of armor in the Book of Mormon is never mentioned. It could have been metal, or wood, or padded armor. Mesoamericans used the latter two. Why doesn't it count?

On top of this, you are STILL ignoring New World things that Joseph Smith could have had no knowledge of. What about cement, and roads? Joseph was laughed at by scholars of his day, who knew that the native Americans had neither! How do you explain him getting either of these right?

 

[DeepShadow]

What have I flip-flopped on?

See my post above.

If you don't base your beliefs on evidence, what do you base them on, and how do you know whether they're true?

The big problem here is, you seem to misunderstand the very nature of spiritual beliefs. We don't spend time in classes on Sunday discussing archaeology. We aren't learning history from the Book of Mormon, only the spiritual truths. Asking a Mormon why they believe the Book of Mormon is like asking a Rolling Stones fan why they like the music. You could tear apart the answer using logic, but you'll still miss the point.

The Book of Mormon says that all people are alike unto God--black and white, bond and free, male and female. When I hear that, something stirs in my heart that testifies that it's true, but it's not a scientific truth. It's a spiritual one. Insisting that everyone see the world through the left brain is only going to frustrate everyone, and you'd lose a lot of art and music, a lot of beauty, if you succeeded.

I don't mean to get personal, but I'm trying to find some common ground here. You said you heard there was no evidence for the Exodus story. Doesn't that story still have any meaning for you, even outside logic? I study a lot of folklore and history, and while I use my left brain a lot for that, my right has a great time with it, too. Cutting all that out seems to get rid of a lot of valuable stuff.