Put it this way: I’m not looking for a fight. If a Mormon writes a “gay people are EE-vul!” post, I’ll be up on that. But until then, I’m content to leave people in peace.
blowero: I knew someone would say that!
ha:)
The point that I set out to make in my previous post is that dismissing as a fairytale something that happened 2000 years ago due to lack of corroborating evidence is of a different quality to dismissing something that happened 170 years ago on the same grounds.
Imagine if Smith had lived and reported his experiences 2000 years ago. And imagine if only the BoM had survived to this day, and we had no corroborating records as to whether other independant witnesses had (in particular) been shown the golden plates. It would be unsafe to sceptically draw the conclusion that there were no golden plates, because there might well have been such corroboration but which had not survived.
But Smith in fact lived and died in the mid 19th century. We know that Smith showed no independent sceptical corroborating witnesses the golden plates. There is no question of the mists of time, or of incomplete records. The fact that he chose not to reveal the golden plates to any outsiders leaves open a particular inference.
If you choose not to make that inference, fine. But it is silly to suggest that such an inference is not open, or that the inference is equally valid/invalid regardless of how long ago the events under scrutiny took place.
To say that “all miracles of any religion are essentially equally plausible (or implausible)” is simplifying too much.
No it’s not. Your hangup on varying possibilities for miracality is specious. Think about the definition of miracle. Then get back to us.
The only thread like that I can remember was a gay Mormon indulging in self-abuse (not meaning masturbation). 
Your thesis seems to be that the more time that has elapsed since a given event, the more believable said event is. By that reasoning, wouldn’t the exploits of the ancient Greek gods be more believable than the miracles of Jesus?
While it is dangerous to interpret someone else’s words, here is what I heard Princhester say…
The more recent the event, then the more likely there is corroborating evidence to support said event.
It is reasonable that events from long ago have no surviving corroborating evidence, so no conclusion can be drawn from the evidence (or lack thereof) about whether or not the event actually occurred.
However, if corroborating evidence for a relatively recent event cannot be found, then (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) it is less likely that the event actually occurred (compared to the long ago event).
Princhester, is that interpretation correct? If so, then I agree with you.
(In spite of his phrasing, I don’t think he was really claiming that long ago miracles are inherently more believable than recent miracles.)
Got it in one, Algernon.
Blowero you have it upside down. I never said that the longer ago an event, the more believable it is. The point I was making was that the more recent it is the greater the inference that can be drawn from a lack of corroborating evidence, and correspondingly, the longer ago the less of an inference can be drawn from a lack of corroborating evidence.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the last sentence of my second paragraph in my previous post. What I meant was “It would be unsafe to sceptically draw the conclusion that there were no golden plates, merely from the lack of corroborating evidence because there might well have been such corroboration but which had not survived.” I thought that was clear from the context, but perhaps not.
I was certainly not trying to suggest that biblical miracles are believable. As I said in my first post, I don’t think any miracles are believable.
Smith could have showed numerous independent sceptical witnesses the golden plates. If he had done so, there would be a wealth of evidence of that, which would have survived the intervening 170 years. I think that a miracle which could easily have been corroborated but which is not so corroborated, is particularly unbelievable.
I have read the threads and am quite disgusted with some of the entries. This is THE only answer that can be correct…
Read the The Book of Mormon with an open and sincere heart, then do what James says in James 1:5:
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.”
OR the promise that Moroni gives at the end of the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10: 3-5
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 only real answer is the one that you receive from God. There really is no point of arguement.
Yes, and I take that to mean that, given 2 alleged events: (1) the resurrection of Jesus in the first century, and (2) the reappearance of Jesus in America much later, NEITHER of which has any corroborating evidence, that we can infer that (2) is less likely to have actually occurred, due to the “greater inference” that may be drawn from the lack of corroborating evidence. And so conversely, if (2) is LESS likely, (1) MUST be more likely to have actually occurred, and hence is more believable.
If this is not your position, please tell me where I have gone astray.
I don’t understand why I need to cite for a ‘proposition’, or is it just an ‘opinion’? However, I admit to being short on explanation. Also I have to apologize for the tardy reply, but this message board often stops responding after just a few minutes online, and then I have wait until the next day to get back on (are the hamsters being overworked?).
OK, cites loaded and ready…
Only in recent times has the forming of religious cults been documented in real time, as opposed to Christianity which wasn’t recorded until decades after its leader supposedly ‘resurrected’ himself, and then only by its own followers (hardly an impartial source).
Rick Ross has an excellent website that follows the exploits of modern cults. There are many examples that show scary similarities. Here are just a few:-
And then there are the misguided individuals who believe that
Barney is Jesus
Evaluate these cults, and compare their claims to those of early christians. The similarities are obvious, despite the fact that most of what we know of early Christianity comes from the Bible as compiled by the Catholic church (anything that didn’t fit their agenda was expunged). So I contend that had the Christian church started up 100 years ago, instead of 2,000 years ago, its claims of miracles, resurrection of its leader etc. would likely be viewed with similar skepticism as were Joseph Smith’s. More importantly, they would have been well documented.
Modern journalism, which arose around the time our friend Mr. Smith was doing his stuff, is the main reason that we are better informed about cult activity.
Ummm, oh yeah - cite
How does this person not have Member under their name?
hamsters…
Oh, fer Chrissakes, this is perfectly simple. When we expect evidence and don’t get it, that’s suggestive. When we don’t expect evidence and don’t get it, that’s not suggestive. One might therefore conclude that given two alleged but uncorroborated events, that when we expect evidence for one but not for the other, the one for which we expect no evidence is more plausible, as you said. One cannot conclude, when we expect evidence for neither, that one is more or less plausible than the other, as you also said (in an earlier post).
First of all, your tone of mock-exasperation is completely unnecessary. Second, I was hoping to get an answer from Princhester. Third, you have failed to address the whole point of our exchange: the effect of the passage of time on the veracity of a given proposition. It may very well be “perfectly simple” IF you ignore the main point of contention, but that has nothing to do with this debate.
Moroni 10:4.
*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. *
Yes, the verse means so much to so many people.
Ask, and if it will be right, you will receive the “burning in the bosom” that tells you that it’s right.
And if you don’t receive it, you’re not asking in full faith, or you’ve sinned and aren’t worthy of an answer, or you have a “wicked heart” and cannot receive the revelation from God that it is true.
Does anyone else see a contradiction between the two? If you receive it, it’s true, if you don’t receive it, it’s still true, but you just haven’t gotten it yet.
It would never be even considered by a member of the LDS church that if a person did not receive the “burning in the bosom,” that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t true! No, the reason you didn’t receive the YES answer is that you’re not worthy!
Members of the LDS church fall for this ploy, despite the warnings in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible ever direct a person to take any religious book and pray about the truthfulness of its contents. While we are told to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), as TheSlammer said, the Biblical directive includes more than this:
*“do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John. 4:1).
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3-4).
“Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5).
“…you put to the test those who call themselves apostles” (Rev. 2:2).
“Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21)*
I’m amazing myself that I even remember half this stuff. It’s been way too long.
And early LDS leaders even urge you to put their beliefs to the test – and not by prayer either!
*“convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 15-16, 1853). *
And since when did open honest discussion about religion become “disgusting,” as TheSlammer said? Even a little humor injected into a discussion does not make it “disgusting.” My opinion? It’s “disgusting” to a member of the LDS faith because it does not agree with their point of view. Lighten up. A good open honest discussion will either strengthen your faith, or maybe open up a few areas of questions that have been sitting in the back of your mind for years, and the discussion may answer one of those questions. Either way, more power to you. Belief and faith are very personal things. And by discussing them openly and honestly we should not be trying to maliciously destroy anything.
But along the same lines, if I have the opinion that something is not right, and state that opinion, why should I be subjected to someone calling my views “disgusting”, and calling people who disagree with their point of view “fools”? Most posters here are simply having a friendly discussion, and for someone to come along and say we’re “disgusting” is not in any spirit of friendship or fellowship that I’ve ever heard of.
I’m tempted to say this will be my last word on this subject, but I’ve learned over the course of my many years to “never say never”…
Sorry about the tone; I am exasperated, because either I’m being incredibly dense (which is exasperating) or else no one is clearly explaining the thesis (which is also exasperating). Pending Princhester’s input, though, I’ll try again, if you don’t mind.
I haven’t ignored the effect of the effects of the passage of time at all, because the passage of time isn’t really the issue (or, if it is really the issue, then yes, I agree, it would be absurd to suggest that all other things being equal, the older unsupported claim is de facto more plausible). The crucial issue is really whether, when a reasonable expectation of evidence exists, said expectation is met or not.
One effect of the passage of time is that at some point there is no reasonable expectation of evidence. It’s hard to say what that point is, and it ought to be taken on a case by case basis (we expect more evidence of the existence of an important historical personage than of Fred the peasant). But, to take an extreme example, we shouldn’t expect written records from 15,000 years ago. We also shouldn’t expect written records from 20,000 years ago. That there is 5000 years difference doesn’t matter; in both cases we expect the same lack of evidence. We cannot therefore say anything whatsoever about the relative plausibilities of alleged events from 15,000 years ago vs 20,000 years ago. Bob’s unsupported claim that his family has lived in America for 15,000 years is neither more nor less implausible than Joe’s unsupported claim that his family has lived in America for 20,000 years.
On the other hand, my unsupported claim that my family has liven in America for 3 years is implausible, because we do expect evidence to have accumulated over those 3 years and it’s unlikely that all such evidence is lost. Thus, my unsupported claim is more implausible than Bob’s, not because Bob’s is older but because while we have evidence for neither, we expect evidence for mine and don’t expect it for his. And of course, the reason we expect evidence to support my claim is because not much time has passed, while the reason we do not expect evidence to support his is that too much time has passed.
I think a better way of phrasing the contention would be that, all else being equal and all evidence being equally non-existent, the more recent of two events is the more implausible, provided that there is a greater probability that evidence would exist for it were it true (which is often but not, of course, always the case).
Which brings us back to my question which was never answered: Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon is less plausible than the New Testament, because we would expect to have more corroborating evidence for the Book of Mormon, but are lacking such evidence. Now, let us similarly compare the New Testament with the various god-stories of ancient Greece, which precede the N.T. by a thousand years or so. Like the N.T., there really isn’t any objective evidence to support the events in the Greek god-stories. The question remains: “Would we expect to find more evidence for the N.T. than for the Greek stories?”, and I believe the answer is “yes”. It certainly is within the realm of possiblity that the Romans, for example, who DID keep records, might have corroborated some of these miracles that supposedly occured; but such evidence is completely lacking. Now, isn’t it much LESS likely that evidence would remain for the Greek gods? There were a thousand or two more years during which evidence could have been lost, and I’m not even sure what other civilizations were around at the time that might have corroborated the stories anyway.
So if we apply your reasoning to this situation, wouldn’t we come to the inescapable yet absurd conclusion that since we EXPECT less evidence for the Greek gods, that they are more plausible?
I do see what you’re saying, but I would think that the chances that, for example, there happened to be Roman record keepers standing around at a Jewish wedding party who saw water get turned into wine, that thought this was worth recording, that said records have survived for 2000 years, and that we’ve found them, are so remote as to be negligible. If the events of the Bible were alleged to have happened 100 years ago, or 300, I would agree with you. As it is, I don’t really expect much more evidence for them (I could, of course, be sadly mistaken in this).
The other thing to remember is the entire “all other things being equal” bit. That is, we have no more evidence that 300 years ago some ancestor of mine was in the English army than we do that Zeus really does exist. Since we might expect more evidence, this taken by itself might suggest that the existence of Zeus is more plausible than the existence of my soldierly ancestor. However… there are certainly other, more vital, considerations, and overall, I’d contend that Zeus’ existence is much less plausible.
Plainly, the absence of expected evidence is not the only consideration and it ought to be, more or less, the very last consideration. But I don’t think it can be ignored entirely.
When my oldest daughter started attending a youth-group at the local Mormon church, I started doing some research, just to make sure she wasn’t going to get herself into trouble. I found some very helpful (and believable) assertations here:
www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
I shared some of these things with her. FWIW, she told the folks at her youth group that she’s happy to hang out and be friends with her, but has no intention of changing her religion. The people at the church who are truly her friends are cool with this (one of her Momon friends even came to the Baha’i retreat in July to see her sign her Declaration. The signing cannot happen until the believer is at least 15, and is the closest thing we have to “baptism”). She has attended Momon dances and other functions, and we, as a family, have attended potluck holiday suppers at the church, and have invited Mormon friends to attend events at our church (some have accepted). As long as everyone agrees that there will be points of disagreement, there’s no reason we can’t all be friends.
You do realize that many of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon (whose testimony is written in the BoM) later became estranged from Smith and the rest of the Mormons? Some were excommunicated. Some returned to the LDS church, but some did not. And yet none of them denied the testimony written in the BoM. Do these count as skeptical witnesses?