The burden of proof


Recommended Posts

LOL.....very loud.

The philistines are a well documented people in the bible. The evidence of their existence is so scanty and flimsy that many scholars will not put their signature to an affidavit about the 2-3 artifacts that exist and attributed to them!!

There are dozens of cities mentioned in the bible and we have no idea where they are. If you need absolute and irrefutable evidence of anything stick to botany or some other discipline. God requires faith and you seem to have quite a deficit in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The burden of proof is on those that make claims regarding the truth.

The burden of accepting proof and judging it is on the individual.

Trying to 'turn' abstract nouns into concrete nouns is the perogative of philosophy and religion.

Science itself tests what is concrete and then turns it into abstract principles or theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DigitalShadow: To whom falls the burden of proof? Must there be absolute proof before a thing is considered? Or believed? Must there be proof before we consider an option to what is established?

No, I don't require absolute proof, but evidence would be nice.

I have attempted to differentiate between proof and evidence in previous posts. In my life I have learned to realize undisputed proof of anything is elusive and often an illusion. More often than not we are left to deal with evidence that even in preponderance is not necessarily conclusive, or as we say in mathematics – the evidence is both necessary and sufficient. But lacking conclusive proof should never deter us from searching and making our best effort to interpret the evidence available to us.

That is true, but again I am at a loss trying to find evidence to intepret.

The question I have for Digital Shadow is this; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to say that you believe there is enough evidence (scientific?) that the Book of Mormon could be true – and then the next step; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to conclude that the Book of Mormon is inspired beyond the capabilities of the boy Joseph Smith of limited education in the frontier of early 19th century America?

If the scientific evidence were converging on what the Book of Mormon claimed, then I would say that is strong evidence. As it is, I see scientific evidence strongly diverging (not disproving) from the claims in the Book of Mormon. The theory proposed by the Book of Mormon for the origins of Native Americans is not even a considered scientific theory because there is no scientific evidence for it.

I ask this because some (even on this forum) would not accept the Book of Mormon as inspired regardless of what-ever scientific evidence was provided. Heaven knows they choke and almost die rather that swallow a drop of evolutionary evidence – let alone the preponderance of evidence available concerning the Book of Mormon. If this is you status then there is no reason to proceed. Since I believe you are willing to discuss evidence and possibilities (as any scientist should) I will proceed.

And there are many who would not accept the Book of Mormon as historically incorrect regardless of what evidence is presented against it. I am always up for discussing evidence and theories as long as there is solid reasoning behind it (which I've seen you demonstrate before, so I will continue discussing).

So let us begin with something chronological and simple concerning evidence associated with the Book of Mormon:

The rise of pre-Classic civilizations of the ancient Americas: From what evidence have you concluded your understanding of the engine of that rise of civilization (especially from what was known in 1820 when Joseph claimed to have translated the record) – was the rise of pre-Classic civilizations triggered from what event(s) among existing indigenous peoples or from migrations caused by what, where and when? How does the evidence which currently holds your attention provide for your skepticism concerning the Book of Mormon?

Indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me where anyone even proposes the theory that any of the Native Americans migrated from Israel based on scientific evidence.

BTW – can we conclude that missing evidence is not really evidence of anything? - That, unless there is specific reason to consider otherwise, we should draw our conclusions from the evidence that exist and the trend in the evidence that is being discovered and not upon evidence that may or may not be an expected missing puzzle piece but cannot be found.

Is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? In my opinion, yes. Does absence of evidence prove anything? No. Do I base any of my conclusions on that? No. That is why I remain agnostic as opposed to strong atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right if you are talking about random data such as clouds and trees. The problem is that with the dog the data is not random it consists of a set of interrelated data (spots arranged to form a picture of a dog) placed in an envirement of random data (unrelated spots). Yes the mind sees what it wants to see but in the case of real data camaflaged by random data of a similar appearance to the single units of the camaflaged data, once the organized data is recognized then it is no longer random and as Brant says as well as others in the field of visual camaflage, it becomes real and you then can not not see the dog. The more the real data appears to be similar to the random data the harder it is to see but that does not preclude its being there.

Larry P

My point is that when looking at grainy data we can just as easily see what is NOT there as what actually IS there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating.

I think the question is valid, and I think we all have to come to our own sense of what is true for us. Within the Church, we call this conversion. A person can be a member all their life...but at some point they must come to know the truth for themselves, separate and apart from what their parents taught them.

How do we find truth? Does it really come down to religion vs. science?

Hmm. I am not so sure. Because I believe that God is the creator of all things...including science.

When a scientist has a hunch about something...what exactly is that "hunch"? What is that feeling that keeps them motivated to keep going to prove their theory despite opposition, hardship, and disbelief?

Is that not the same for those who are religious? They believe something to be true. They have a hunch or feeling that they are right. They continue to explore and dig to find things that support their belief (scriptures, words of the Prophet, direction from leaders, etc.). What is that feeling inside their heart that confirms to them that they are on the right track? Within the Church, we call it the Spirit.

For us, that IS fact. I trust the Spirit. I believe that the Spirit directs me and guides me. For me, it is the same as Heavenly Father Himself standing before me and talking to me and guiding me.

I don't need to be in a lab. For me, the Spirit is as good as any test in a lab.

The difference between science and religion is that science recognizes that hunches can and often are wrong. That is why hunches are then put to the test with reapeatable, observable experiments. Religion on the other hand requires you to follow these hunches and feelings based only on your subjective experience of them.

Science is wonderful. I don't have a problem with science. But too much of it is based on theory. Even within science, there is much contention and disagreement on certain theories. The word theory is NOT synonymous with fact. Theory is merely a word to explain a highly educated guess or idea. That's all. And science has many, many theories. Yes, some things science says are "fact", but so much is merely theory.

Science still can't prove how dinosaurs became extinct. But there are many theories.

Too many times something has been documented as fact, only to later be changed or amended. I own several astronomy books, some say that Pluto is not a planet...others say that it is, or that it is a sub-planet. Who is right?

I don't whole-heartedly believe in the latest scientific theories, but I do whole-heartedly believe in the process and methods of science and I believe that it is a much more self-correcting and reliable method of gaining knowledge than trusting your hunches and feelings as divine knowledge without holding them to the standard of reason.

As an unrelated side-note, the argument over what Pluto is, is purely an argument over the semantics of the word "planet" and what it actually includes. It's not as if "facts" changed, astronomers are simply re-evaluating how exactly a "planet" is defined.

As far as proof...

I do not have proof that my husband is absolutely faithful. However, I do not have proof that he has ever cheated either. But my heart and spirit tell me that he is honest and faithful. I believe this. I trust him. I trust the feeling that I have. Why do I need to dig for "proof" either way, if I am content and all is well? Shouldn't my spirit be trusted to lead me in the right direction for me?

Which goes back to my earlier words...for me, the Spirit is my proof. It works for me. I have a good life and I am happy.

I do not require proof that my wife is faithful either, but that is less a matter of following my "spirit" and more a matter of common sense. If your husband came home trying to hide stains of lipstick and smelling of other women's perfumes, would your "feelings" not change about the matter?

I lived most of my life as agnostic. I remember what it felt like to desire hard facts in regards to God and religion. I am not ashamed of myself for they way I used to be or the way I used to believe, but I now know something, I now feel something, that I never felt before. I no longer question who I am or where I came from. I believe that I have found my proof and I have found my answers. That is good enough for me.

I have yet to find such proof or even evidence, but I am happy that you have found what you were looking for.

This is not a frivolous or dumb topic. It is very serious and very sacred. I do not condemn or ridicule those who are different than me. We all have our own minds and hearts. I love science...so many of the books that I buy from Scholastic Book Clubs through the elementary school are about earth, space, animals, etc. I want my children to know that they do not have to make a choice between religion and science. Heavenly Father organized this planet and all that surrounds it. Though we cannot ever begin to know all of the mysteries of the universe, for we do not have God's omniscience, that does not mean that we cannot appreciate science or the mysteries themselves.

I agree for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of your responses:

No, I don't require absolute proof, but evidence would be nice.

That is true, but again I am at a loss trying to find evidence to intepret.

If the scientific evidence were converging on what the Book of Mormon claimed, then I would say that is strong evidence. As it is, I see scientific evidence strongly diverging (not disproving) from the claims in the Book of Mormon. The theory proposed by the Book of Mormon for the origins of Native Americans is not even a considered scientific theory because there is no scientific evidence for it.

And there are many who would not accept the Book of Mormon as historically incorrect regardless of what evidence is presented against it. I am always up for discussing evidence and theories as long as there is solid reasoning behind it (which I've seen you demonstrate before, so I will continue discussing).

Indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me where anyone even proposes the theory that any of the Native Americans migrated from Israel based on scientific evidence.

The first critics of the Book of Mormon used the “why is there no evidence” argument concerning the vast Nephite civilization clamed by the Book of Mormon. At the time it was said that there were no signs of a civilization of millions of people living in vast cities of hundred of thousand of inhabitants using advanced beyond primitive technologies. It was argued that there were no signs or indications of advanced civilization. Let us look at this convergence or divergence.

There are a lot of theories concerning indigenous peoples in the Americas. The prevailing theories purport two migrations in pre-historic times at about 60,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago. Nice theories but note that such theories disprove the Bible as much as the Book of Mormon. But let us continue.

Prior to the Pre-Classic period of ancient American civilization the indigenous peoples of central and South America were very primitive. They were Stone Age hunter-gathers with limited use of tools and fire. They ate their food raw and did not hunt anything larger than a rat. According to experts these were the migrants of the most recent migration and are identified as the Dine peoples.

At this point I give you the world famous and honored explorer and archaeologist – Thor Heyerdahl (no connection to LDS). He argued that it is a bit ridiculous to argue that the civilizations of the ancient Americas arose from such primitive indigenous peoples that in 100 years or so walked out of the pristine jungles and developed language, built large cities with stone and mortar, domesticated various plants and animals, developed education systems, science, art, vast trading (engineering bridges and highways) and many other things – when such developments took thousands of years every where else in the world. Yet these ancient peoples were successful for 10,000+ years prior as primitive hunter gathers – why did they suddenly advance?

Thor argued that the sudden uprising in technology resulted from a migration. Based on the methods of building temples and other technology he theorized the first migration came from the Western Mediterranean to Persia area around 2,000 to 2,200 BC. In my studies I do not know of any rise of civilization in the Americas prior to this period and I would point out that this converges very quickly on the date, time and place provided in the Book of Mormon. Thor was most interested in a migration around 600 BC (we can talk about that later if you like) that triggered the rise of the Classic civilization. To prove his point and convince critics he built a boat with ancient technologies and sailed to the Americas. I would point out that since his expedition it has been proven that the ancients had more sea worthy vessels than what he was copying – in fact some of the vessels were 3 times the size and more capable than the ships Columbus used to come to America.

I have documented close to 100 ancient facts concerning Arabia that was not know in America at the time of Joseph Smith but are referenced in the Book of Mormon; many of which critics have stated at one time or another; that because such facts were not forth coming and could not be proven at the time of criticism that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true. And as there is continual convergence in time demonstrating the Book of Mormon to be more accurate than it critics - it should cause some to at least soften their view. But in all my experience I have not found once where such critics have been proven to be wrong that any such critic has ever modified their view or criticism.

And so I ask you – what is the point of which you have the most concern that has you convinced that in the last 150 years there has been a divergence away from the Book of Mormon? Is it DNA evidence? Let us look at what was known on that subject and related theories through 150 years and compare that with what is known currently and see if there is convergence or divergence. Let us begin with any one single point of your choosing.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DigitalShadow,

There is so little we know about ancient America at this point. It is quite clear from what we do know that there was war, politics, religion, and vibrant civilizations that just seemed to mysteriously vanish. Of the languages and scripts of Mesoamerica only Mayan script has been deciphered, which although not related to ancient Egyptian, has been described as Egyptian-like hyroglyphics (source). Which is amazing in itself, considering the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that their prophets wrote an adapted Hebrew with a script that was based on a form of Egyptian that was modified to fit their needs. Obviously Mayan doesn't prove anything, but more and more evidence like that is coming forth that seems to make ol' Joe Smith's claims a little less crazy.

I mean Joseph Smith produced a book seemingly out of nowhere that claimed that there were great literate civilizations with incredible agriculture and technology at their disposal, anciently in America, and the critics went crazy. The thing is, we now know that those things are true. Here's a quote from an article by Michael Ash:

"...the Book of Mormon mentions barley which, until recently, was thought not to exist in the ancient Americas. Critics considered barley to be one of the things that "Joseph Smith got wrong." However, pre-Columbian New World barley has now been verified, without people flocking to join the Church because of this discovery. For critics, finding such items are too often seen as "lucky guesses" on the part of Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon mentions cities, trade, warfare, towers, and the use of armor--all of which did exist in the ancient Americas--yet their existence has not convinced critics that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text."(Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon)

To me the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the Book of Mormon considering the short amount of time we have been able to devote to American archaeology compared to other parts of the world, and considering how little Joseph Smith and the world at large would have know about these things at that time. Yet as something is confirmed that the the critics used to point to, they just ignore it and move on to the other points that haven't been confirmed yet. Why not think about all the things the BoM got right? Everything will come to light as science finally catches up to the truth of the matter, if God is willing.

There is also enourmous resistance on the part of non-LDS scholars and scientists to concede any evidence about the Book fo Mormon. The reason for that is quite simple, and righly so.

Just one piece of evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is an actual record of ancient American inhabitants is all it takes to prove to everyone that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that God is the author of the message. Because then the next question that would need to be answered would be, how did he know this stuff to write it down? You would all be left without any excuse not to be baptized and accept the truth! And that would be a damning situation indeed, because many would still reject the message, and many would be baptized with out the proper foundation of faith.

That is why that kind of "proof" is not forthcoming. It would stand in the way of people developing a foundation of faith. It's all about faith for both our edification and protection. Not just any faith, but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. That's really what the Book of Mormon is all about anyway.

According to the writers of the Book, they pruposely left out many of the specifics of their lives, because they wanted the space for writing about their religion. Nephi began recording these things because of a commandment from God, and the plates were passed along from generation to generation with the same instructions. The purpose was for the book to come forth in our day, and it is therefore written for us.

Have you read the Book of Mormon?

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give my own requirement for proof that I would need before again beleiving in the authenticity of the BoM.

1. I would excpect huge cities such as Zarahemla or Bountiful to still stand or atleast evidence of these cities. Afterall Jerusalem does.

2. I would expect some kind of references to these cities to be found, anything.

3. I would expect some references to names found in the BoM. Lehi, Nephi etc.

4. I would expect to have some evidences of the mass battles that took places there, especially Hill Cumorah where millions died.

5. I would expect swords, scimitars, shields, brestplates, arrows, chariots etc to have been found in vast quantities. I would have excpected atleast 1 arrow head. Even a charriot wheen or evidences of wheels.

6. I would expect to find evidences of the technology behind all the metallurgy that apparently happened back then.

7. I would excpet to have found some kind of evidence to back up Nephi's claim of building a temple patterned after solomns. Nothing has ever been found to back this up.

8. I would excpet to have found many many skeletons of horses that according to the BoM were spread throughout the land. Even a painting on a wall.

Basically, there really should be evidences of a mass population, in huge quantities but there is not.

You ask for a lot of things but apparently refuse to accept what is already there. There are massive amounts of evidence but it all comes in bits and pieces. There is no smoking gun.

Brant Gardner explains this better than I can.

Larry P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a scientist has a hunch about something...what exactly is that "hunch"? What is that feeling that keeps them motivated to keep going to prove their theory despite opposition, hardship, and disbelief?

Scientists rarely, if ever base their research on "hunches."

They start by using information usually from the realm of physics, but not always. They then extrapolate a hypothesis based on the information collected, which includes observing phenomena through a number of different scientific methods.

Usually experiments are not designed to confirm or verify the hypothesis; rather, they are designed to test the hypothesis, by attempting to disprove it.

If the hypothesis is determined to be accurate, it is included in what scientists call a "theory." This encompass whole domains of inquiry, which binds the various, and supported hypotheses together into a logical whole.

So, a scientific "theory" is not a theory in the way it is used in the non-scientific world. Scientists determine something is a "theory," based on observed and rigorous testing of all applicable hypotheses. Additionally, mathematics is used to test the hypotheses. When the mathematics is consistent in every test of every hypothesis, this usually proves the hypothesis so that it is moved into being a "theory."

Even within science, there is much contention and disagreement on certain theories.

Obviously there is some, but I would not say "much contention and disagreement."

The word theory is NOT synonymous with fact. Theory is merely a word to explain a highly educated guess or idea. That's all. And science has many, many theories. Yes, some things science says are "fact", but so much is merely theory.

This is not accurate in the scientific realm, as I have explained above.

Science still can't prove how dinosaurs became extinct. But there are many theories.

No, there are not many "theories," though people do often use the word incorrectly.

Too many times something has been documented as fact, only to later be changed or amended. I own several astronomy books, some say that Pluto is not a planet...others say that it is, or that it is a sub-planet.

Who is right?

Pluto is now considered the largest member of a distinct region called the Kuiper Belt, or at least that is what I found in a google search.

I concede that continued study of the universe, as technological advances make it easier to observe, is one area where common beliefs do change often. There is discrepancy amongst astronomers and physicists whether many of these assumptions are hypotheses or theories and I admit I do not know the answer to that.

Actually, there are innumerable ways to observe phenomena in the universe, far more than most people think. This is how the theory of the Big Bang was developed. Obviously I am not qualified to identify them. However, if you google "Big Bang," you'll discover why the scientists believe it is a real event.

BTW: ever noticed how the word omniscience has "science" in it?

No I hadn’t. That is interesting.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Digi.. I can feel your urge to know for sure, see some prof. I can see your honest search for solide proofs. But I can also see how you are not able to see the proof right under your nose.

My advice for you is very difficult. Take it easyfor awhile, live the gospel. Consentrate in living it, you may be suprised.

Proud is a thing that takes many good men to wrong places. We need to look at possibilities like little children, eager, but open, without any preduce.

And remember the proof AREthere thy just have been given names by other than LDS so we can not find them without thinking.

Besides Thor Heyerdahl ...he CHANGED his first book (or took i tout of delivery), because it was SO MUCH like what we preach, he even mentioned reading mormonsbook, BUT he did not want to be looked upon as a mormon or be positive to our religion so he wrote the book over again in the FRAMES of the scolars of the world!!!!!:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has a problem believing the B of M is historically true, then look at it from a different angle. Don't worry about the historical accuracy for now. Just read it as a spiritual guide. Does it bring you closer to God and Christ, to believing in them and knowing them? Does it bring peace into your life? Does it help open up your mind and heart to a more eternal perspective? Does it help answer life questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here is an interesting fact; most "scholars" and researchers are not even themselves religious people!!! You could not find that in any other discipline. How come you ever heard a Doctors say he/she does not believe people should be alive or that they should not live longer?

And yes; they spend their lives digging about here and there looking for what? No other human endevour drives people with such intensity such the urge to prove (or disprove) that God exist. For those that claim they will not believe until "sufficient evidence exist" I'd saying spend your time in something more productive for yourself. All hours accounted in this tasks, you are working for less than minimum wage. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so little we know about ancient America at this point. It is quite clear from what we do know that there was war, politics, religion, and vibrant civilizations that just seemed to mysteriously vanish. Of the languages and scripts of Mesoamerica only Mayan script has been deciphered, which although not related to ancient Egyptian, has been described as Egyptian-like hyroglyphics (source). Which is amazing in itself, considering the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that their prophets wrote an adapted Hebrew with a script that was based on a form of Egyptian that was modified to fit their needs. Obviously Mayan doesn't prove anything, but more and more evidence like that is coming forth that seems to make ol' Joe Smith's claims a little less crazy.

From your source:

Maya writing used logograms complemented by a set of syllabic glyphs, somewhat similar in function to modern Japanese writing. Maya writing was called "hieroglyphics" or "hieroglyphs" by early European explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries who did not understand it but found its general appearance reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs, to which however the Maya writing system is not at all related.

I think your intepretation is a little bit misleading. The explorers probably only related it to Egyptian writing because that was the most well known writing system to them that used glyphs. Functionally it is more similar to the modern japanese writing system.

Also, why would a people completely abandon their old writing system and start using a new one? Why aren't there any writings from the old world found in the Americas?

I mean Joseph Smith produced a book seemingly out of nowhere that claimed that there were great literate civilizations with incredible agriculture and technology at their disposal, anciently in America, and the critics went crazy. The thing is, we now know that those things are true. Here's a quote from an article by Michael Ash:

"...the Book of Mormon mentions barley which, until recently, was thought not to exist in the ancient Americas. Critics considered barley to be one of the things that "Joseph Smith got wrong." However, pre-Columbian New World barley has now been verified, without people flocking to join the Church because of this discovery. For critics, finding such items are too often seen as "lucky guesses" on the part of Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon mentions cities, trade, warfare, towers, and the use of armor--all of which did exist in the ancient Americas--yet their existence has not convinced critics that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text."(Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon)

The Book of Mormon talked about concepts that Joseph Smith was familiar with which is entirely understandable if he made it up. Whether some of those concepts were used to varying degrees by the indiginous people of the Americas does not point to "coincidences" adding up to show the truth of the Book of Mormon.

To me the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the Book of Mormon considering the short amount of time we have been able to devote to American archaeology compared to other parts of the world, and considering how little Joseph Smith and the world at large would have know about these things at that time. Yet as something is confirmed that the the critics used to point to, they just ignore it and move on to the other points that haven't been confirmed yet. Why not think about all the things the BoM got right? Everything will come to light as science finally catches up to the truth of the matter, if God is willing.

I could make 1000 random predictions right now. I guarantee that some of them would be right. Some of them would appear to be obviously wrong and people would criticize me for them, but when one proves to be right despite people criticizing it, can I then point to it and say that this is proof that all of them will be shown to be true in time?

There is also enourmous resistance on the part of non-LDS scholars and scientists to concede any evidence about the Book fo Mormon. The reason for that is quite simple, and righly so.

I've noticed quite a persecution complex when it comes to Mormons. The fact is that many scientists don't even know what LDS stands for or what Mormons believe in let alone resist evidence that might confirm it. Before I came to Utah 3 years ago I didn't even know those commercials that were on late at night talking about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" had anything to do with those Mormons I heard lived in Utah and I certainly had no idea about your beliefs on the origins of Native Americans.

Just one piece of evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is an actual record of ancient American inhabitants is all it takes to prove to everyone that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that God is the author of the message. Because then the next question that would need to be answered would be, how did he know this stuff to write it down? You would all be left without any excuse not to be baptized and accept the truth! And that would be a damning situation indeed, because many would still reject the message, and many would be baptized with out the proper foundation of faith.

That is why that kind of "proof" is not forthcoming. It would stand in the way of people developing a foundation of faith. It's all about faith for both our edification and protection. Not just any faith, but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. That's really what the Book of Mormon is all about anyway.

According to the writers of the Book, they pruposely left out many of the specifics of their lives, because they wanted the space for writing about their religion. Nephi began recording these things because of a commandment from God, and the plates were passed along from generation to generation with the same instructions. The purpose was for the book to come forth in our day, and it is therefore written for us.

The specifics could have been left out so that it is vague enough to not easily be "proven" false, or because there would then be a greater burden on the people who do not accept the Book of Mormon. Again, I find this convenient reasoning, but will give it the benifet of the doubt and wait for my own testimony.

Have you read the Book of Mormon?

In the process of it. Talked to some missionaries yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious Digital, do you believe there is any credible evidence at all in favor of the B of M? You seem to always just discount any evidence that others bring forth. Have you tried taking the other side, and looking for supporting evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here is an interesting fact; most "scholars" and researchers are not even themselves religious people!!! You could not find that in any other discipline. How come you ever heard a Doctors say he/she does not believe people should be alive or that they should not live longer?

Like the rest of the population, most "scholars" and scientists are Christian. Granted there is a slightly higher percent of atheists/agnostics in the scientific community, but it is still well under 15%

The human body is very complex and there is much we still don't know about it. When doctors don't understand what is going on with a patient, it only speaks to their lack of knowledge, not of any "miraculous events". Also keep in mind that for every person that is amazingly still alive, there are plenty of people who just plain die. Does God care less about those people?

And yes; they spend their lives digging about here and there looking for what? No other human endevour drives people with such intensity such the urge to prove (or disprove) that God exist. For those that claim they will not believe until "sufficient evidence exist" I'd saying spend your time in something more productive for yourself. All hours accounted in this tasks, you are working for less than minimum wage. Just a thought.

You seem to be under the false impression that "scholars" sit around all day trying to prove or disprove God, when really there are many areas of study and very few bother with specializing in philosophy. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but your view of the scientific community is severely distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

Like the rest of the population, most "scholars" and scientists are Christian. Granted there is a slightly higher percent of atheists/agnostics in the scientific community, but it is still well under 15%

The human body is very complex and there is much we still don't know about it. When doctors don't understand what is going on with a patient, it only speaks to their lack of knowledge, not of any "miraculous events". Also keep in mind that for every person that is amazingly still alive, there are plenty of people who just plain die. Does God care less about those people?

You seem to be under the false impression that "scholars" sit around all day trying to prove or disprove God, when really there are many areas of study and very few bother with specializing in philosophy. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but your view of the scientific community is severely distorted.

He loves us all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious Digital, do you believe there is any credible evidence at all in favor of the B of M? You seem to always just discount any evidence that others bring forth. Have you tried taking the other side, and looking for supporting evidence?

I know this will be hard for many people to believe, but I really do want to believe, and I really do want the B of M to be true. The problem is that before that can happen, it has to get past the logical side of my brain which is rather difficult. You may see that as a flaw on my part, but I can tell you that if I didn't critically scrutinize these ideas, I would just as easily be a catholic or scientologist by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of your responses:

The first critics of the Book of Mormon used the “why is there no evidence” argument concerning the vast Nephite civilization clamed by the Book of Mormon. At the time it was said that there were no signs of a civilization of millions of people living in vast cities of hundred of thousand of inhabitants using advanced beyond primitive technologies. It was argued that there were no signs or indications of advanced civilization. Let us look at this convergence or divergence.

There are a lot of theories concerning indigenous peoples in the Americas. The prevailing theories purport two migrations in pre-historic times at about 60,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago. Nice theories but note that such theories disprove the Bible as much as the Book of Mormon. But let us continue.

Prior to the Pre-Classic period of ancient American civilization the indigenous peoples of central and South America were very primitive. They were Stone Age hunter-gathers with limited use of tools and fire. They ate their food raw and did not hunt anything larger than a rat. According to experts these were the migrants of the most recent migration and are identified as the Dine peoples.

At this point I give you the world famous and honored explorer and archaeologist – Thor Heyerdahl (no connection to LDS). He argued that it is a bit ridiculous to argue that the civilizations of the ancient Americas arose from such primitive indigenous peoples that in 100 years or so walked out of the pristine jungles and developed language, built large cities with stone and mortar, domesticated various plants and animals, developed education systems, science, art, vast trading (engineering bridges and highways) and many other things – when such developments took thousands of years every where else in the world. Yet these ancient peoples were successful for 10,000+ years prior as primitive hunter gathers – why did they suddenly advance?

Thor argued that the sudden uprising in technology resulted from a migration. Based on the methods of building temples and other technology he theorized the first migration came from the Western Mediterranean to Persia area around 2,000 to 2,200 BC. In my studies I do not know of any rise of civilization in the Americas prior to this period and I would point out that this converges very quickly on the date, time and place provided in the Book of Mormon. Thor was most interested in a migration around 600 BC (we can talk about that later if you like) that triggered the rise of the Classic civilization. To prove his point and convince critics he built a boat with ancient technologies and sailed to the Americas. I would point out that since his expedition it has been proven that the ancients had more sea worthy vessels than what he was copying – in fact some of the vessels were 3 times the size and more capable than the ships Columbus used to come to America.

I have documented close to 100 ancient facts concerning Arabia that was not know in America at the time of Joseph Smith but are referenced in the Book of Mormon; many of which critics have stated at one time or another; that because such facts were not forth coming and could not be proven at the time of criticism that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true. And as there is continual convergence in time demonstrating the Book of Mormon to be more accurate than it critics - it should cause some to at least soften their view. But in all my experience I have not found once where such critics have been proven to be wrong that any such critic has ever modified their view or criticism.

And so I ask you – what is the point of which you have the most concern that has you convinced that in the last 150 years there has been a divergence away from the Book of Mormon? Is it DNA evidence? Let us look at what was known on that subject and related theories through 150 years and compare that with what is known currently and see if there is convergence or divergence. Let us begin with any one single point of your choosing.

The Traveler

Interesting stuff about Thor Heyerdahl. I just spent the last hour looking up stuff about him and reading the wikipedia article on him. I will grant you that his theories and findings are evidence of truth of the Book of Mormon (the first of such evidence I've been presented with). I will retract my statements about there being no evidence and replace it with there being little evidence for the historical truth Book of Mormon.

It may seem like a small change, but I assure you that it is not trivial or sarcastic on my part and that it does mean a lot to me. I sincerely thank you for the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

I know this will be hard for many people to believe, but I really do want to believe, and I really do want the B of M to be true. The problem is that before that can happen, it has to get past the logical side of my brain which is rather difficult. You may see that as a flaw on my part, but I can tell you that if I didn't critically scrutinize these ideas, I would just as easily be a catholic or scientologist by now.

I'm glad to hear that.

And the way that truthfulness is manifested -- the way to get that proof you seek, is laid-out in the Book itself:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The Book of Mormon does not purport to "prove" it's truthfullness in any other ways, although many well-meaning individuals have tried to show evidence for it via the scientific method. But the Book never has claimed that a witness of it's truthfulness can come in any other way except the way it states. That is not to say proof via those other methods does not exist. It only says that a witness of the truthfulness is not given via those means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the way that truthfulness is manifested -- the way to get that proof you seek, is laid-out in the Book itself:

...

The Book of Mormon does not purport to "prove" it's truthfullness in any other ways, although many well-meaning individuals have tried to show evidence for it via the scientific method. But the Book never has claimed that a witness of it's truthfulness can come in any other way except the way it states. That is not to say proof via those other methods does not exist. It only says that a witness of the truthfulness is not given via those means.

If it is true, there will be other ways to evaluate its truth. It is my firm belief that evidence from a single source or method, while sometimes useful, rarely tells the whole story. Concepts that are true can be verified in multiple ways. If there truly is no other way to verify the Book of Mormon, I don't know that I'll ever consider it "true".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

If he truly loves us all the same, I find it more likely that he does not interfere in these life or death situations and people see miracles in the unlikely survival of people because they want miracles to exist :)

Well, I believe a few things are true of God / our mortal experience here.

1) We will go to our graves not understanding why some things happened and some things didn't.

2) This experience is for our benefit, not God's. His work and glory is US.

3) God must honor our agency. He honors it so deeply that He ended-up losing 1/3 of the "hosts of heaven" -- his precious children -- because He honored their decision not to become as He is.

4) People DO live and die every day!!! Nothing ever goes on without His knowledge. If there was some purpose to be served in someone living when all other evidence indicates they should have died -- that person is going to live. If you take a person who under normal circumstances would live, and God needs them home -- that person is going to die despite our best efforts, despite our heaven sent prayers and fasting. Why? Because God doesn't care? Of course not! Because it is that person's time to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff about Thor Heyerdahl. I just spent the last hour looking up stuff about him and reading the wikipedia article on him. I will grant you that his theories and findings are evidence of truth of the Book of Mormon (the first of such evidence I've been presented with). I will retract my statements about there being no evidence and replace it with there being little evidence for the historical truth Book of Mormon.

It may seem like a small change, but I assure you that it is not trivial or sarcastic on my part and that it does mean a lot to me. I sincerely thank you for the information.

That's awesome. I don't count that as just a small change, I think it's a very significant step for you.

If you'd like a really good presentation on evidence for the B of M, I can send you a DVD titled "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography" by Rodney Meldrum (BookofMormonEvidence.org), maybe as an early or late (whichever applies) birthday present. :) It talks about many different things, not just about the DNA stuff. P.M. me your address and I'll send that to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true, there will be other ways to evaluate its truth. It is my firm belief that evidence from a single source or method, while sometimes useful, rarely tells the whole story. Concepts that are true can be verified in multiple ways. If there truly is no other way to verify the Book of Mormon, I don't know that I'll ever consider it "true".

Think about the nature of God. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, almighty and eternal and everlasting.(Just to name a few) That first one all-knowing is the key. This allows us to have the right faith in Him. How can we have faith in a God who might not know the answer? God is perfect. It is the only source we need, because it will always be right. That is, if the answer we receive is from God. Do you not think God has the whole story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

If it is true, there will be other ways to evaluate its truth.

True. All I am saying is that only this one method is given by the Book.

It is my firm belief that evidence from a single source or method, while sometimes useful, rarely tells the whole story.

True.

Concepts that are true can be verified in multiple ways.

True.

If there truly is no other way to verify the Book of Mormon, I don't know that I'll ever consider it "true".

I didn't say there are no other ways to verify the truth of the Book. I am only saying the Book only gives one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share