Not that I want to turn this thread into a MPSIMSish hugfest, but I also don’t want pplepic feeling left out. Welcome, pplepic. You look like a valuable addition to the board and I hope you stick around.
Many of us don’t see those revelations as “conveniently” given, but rather to be revelations provided to the Saints in repsonse to a real need.
Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that you use the term which I bolded?
I’ve felt that way, also, about Scientology. Since I don’t post much anymore, would you consider starting a thread to discuss that in Great Debates?
Many of us don’t consider his folowers to be naive, but rather to have responded to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Or no matter how valid its beginnings are. 
Works the same way for government bureaucracies, too.
Well I’m just perplexed, baffled, bemused and all-around flummoxed. I don’t mean to drag this thing on forever – so I won’t post again about it unless someone asks me a specific question, but I’m just surprised you can’t seem to understand what I’m saying.
I tried to take the concept out of religion by using the JFK example and showing that **ANY ** argument which gives evidence from only one side is inherently biased - you guys (C K Dexter Haven and paperbackwriter) seem to have just let that argument drop because you are so convinced that there can never in any way be any evidence in favor of a religious question. You seem very hung up on this idea. Evidence is not “proof” - nothing can be a proof ultimately - if you simply choose not to accept it. But most questions have evidence on both sides - even religious questions.
I guess I can sort of see your point - any evidence for any major religion is at least 1000 years old - nothing is scientifically verifiable, the only evidence is the evidence of witnesses long dead - perhaps you have grown used to that fact and knowing that the evidence is somewhat flimsy, decided that it’s really nothing at all. Ok, I can relate to that - I used to feel that way.
But the exception that proves the rule is Mormonism. There is not scientific proof of God and angels, and never will be. But the evidence is the same as would be presented in a legal trial - sometimes the evidence is circumstantial and sometimes it relies on biased witnesses - but that is still evidence anyway. Nothing proves Scott Peterson murdered Lacy, but there is evidence that points both ways. And people need to admit complete ignorance or hear at least a summary of both sides.
Paperbackwriter you wrote - “There isn’t any evidence in [the Book of Mormon]'s favor … That is, the only evidence isn’t evidence as you used the term yourself; it’s the claims of Smith and his family and followers” That is simply not true - In the case of Mormonism -there is eye-witness evidence but there is also forensic and archeological evidence; some of which I’ve pointed out.
First off - eye-witness evidence doesn’t cease to be evidence just because. Book of Mormon eyewitness’s are unique for a religion because details of their lives are extreamly well documented - and documented deathbed confessions are still powerful evidences used in legal trials. But setting that aside the Book of Mormon itself is the main evidence.
As I mentioned before The Book of Mormon is known to have been published in 1830 - yet it claims to be an ancient book. Just like any other book it can be examined by experts and evidence - “real evidence” can be found for BOTH sides of the argument. There is a whole science that devotes itself to scientific analysis to authenticate documents and determine if they are forged or are genuinely ancient - even without the original. The way things are written can not be completely faked. Wordprint studies show that each author has a unique “fingerprint” - and like voiceprint analysis - even when attempting to copy someone else’s style they can not disguise their own “voice”. In 1830 much less was known about ancient poetry - even a scholar of that day could not fake what is currently known about the subject. Archeology is much more advanced now than in 1830, so descriptions of places that could have been faked before would now be seen to be complete fantasies.
If evidence exists that the Book of Mormon contains information that could have been known by an ancient writer - but could not have been known to a modern writer - that is very strong evidence (not proof) that the document is of ancient origin. Evidence that the book is ancient is evidence on behalf of the witness’s claims of where it came from.
C K Dexter Haven wrote- “Asking for evidence, IMHO, is ultimately self-defeating from the perspective of any religion”. That’s because you assume a priori that there can not be any. IMHO, the evidence that the Book of Mormon is from an ancient source is so strong, and the opposing evidence so weak, that only a fool would think otherwise. Now some think the opposite - that the evidence points so strongly in the other direction only a fool would accept it as ancient. That’s ok - my whole point is that since there is actual forensic evidence on BOTH sides it is biased and ultimately dishonest to present evidence for just one side.
I suppose that the only way to show you what I mean is to recast the existing article in something that presents a more balanced view - then you guys can rip it apart. Since you also seem to think I’m suggesting an encyclopedic volume - I’ll try to use about the same space Rico did.
cadolphin - Maybe I’ll give the Board a try for a while - but I’ve gotten in trouble before by spending too much time on this kind of thing. Just so you know - I’m not nuts, I didn’t sit around counting words and characters for hours - I let my computer do the counting so that bit of triviality simply becomes trivial to do.
In the first place, I still don’t understand your beef. The Staff Report DID provide the arguments of both sides of the question. No, it did not provide counter-argument, rebuttal, reply, etc ad infinitam. I explained why. Your JFK example is the same. All that a Staff Report could do is provide the arguments of both sides. To present the counter-arguments and rebuttals and counter-counter-arguments would take volumes. And there are volumes written. We are what we are: we provide a quick overview. If you want to hear more of the counter-arguments on both sides, then: Go and learn. There are plenty of sources around.
The second problem is, who judges what’s called “evidence”? You seem to assume all evidence is equal. I think we’re trying to be polite in saying, NO. False statements made by biased sources are not evidence that we need to (or want to) waste time on. The archaeological evidence is clear and unambiguous. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Book of Mormon is from an “ancient source.” There is only belief. And further, there’s only belief from those within the religion.
And yes, I do assume a priori that there’s no evidence of divine intervention on earth. I think it’s fairly clear that, if there is a God, He does NOT want us to have such evidence – or else it would have turned up, indisputable and manifold. I also have, of course, several thousand years of “evidence” to support my contentions that all the efforts to produce “evidence” of God, angels, whatnot, have been lies, distoritions, misinterpretations and just plain stubbornness.
I do not mean to drag this on further myself, but I feel I owe Chemish the courtesy of a reply. It’s not that I am unable to understand the grounds of your objection. Bluntly put, I think you are wrong in attempting to justify a religion through legalistic or historical grounds.
I have previously refrained from challenging your beliefs because there is a different forum on this Board devoted to just such questions. You will find innumerable dialogues and debates in that forum on the proof for or against each and every contemporary religion.
You will not find me in those debates. As I’ve said above, religion is at its core a set of personal beliefs. I avoid challenging other people’s belief systems, unless there are ramifications of that belief system that affect me.
In my preceeding posts in this thread, I have tried to avoid criticising any of the core beliefs of Mormonism, confining myself instead to discussions of proof. If I have inadvertently criticised the religion itself, I apologize.
I would only reiterate that your focus on evidence and proof favoring the orthodox LDS Church is ultimately futile and an inappropriate goal for the article to which you originally objected. You speak of testimony in evidence, which is acceptable in a court of law[sup]1[/sup]. The fact that this is allowed in a law court is wholly immaterial. The offering of this testimony is subject to the jury’s assessment of its credibility. We are not in a court of law, so the credibility of the testimony of Smith and his earliest disciples is assessed by each individual personally and separately. What I am saying is that there is no agreed-upon standard or guidlines by which this credibility can be measured. Therefore, we are once again back to individual, idiosyncratic, irrational questions of faith and belief.
All that can be expected of a neutral article on such evidence is that the claims be presented neither positively nor negatively. Rico laid out these beliefs and the testimony without ridicule, sarcasm, or deprecation; neither did he proselytize for them.
Your argument, however, has effectively asked why he did not do both. That is not neutrality, that is debate. To return to your political metaphor, the presence of screaming heads from both parties does not mean that Crossfire takes a neutral position. By its very nature, it demarcates positions on opposite ends of a spectrum. It then invites the view to identify with one side or the other, and to judge between them. It is a subjective exercise.
A neutral discussion of a political question, or a religious one, does not invite such a judgement. If you want to pursue your advocacy of a judgment on Smith’s story, there are places where that is invited and encouraged. Such is not the function of an article that reaches for objectivity.
[sup]1[/sup]I also read your comments about the Scott Peterson case. I dispute your implicit characterization of that case as one where the evidence was limited to testimony. There was forensic and physical evidence typing Peterson to his wife’s murder (the boat, cement, fishing equipment, etc.). Forensic and physical evidence for the existance of the original “Golden Plates” is absent from the historical and archeological record. The arguments of Mormon scholars concerning physical evidence for the Book of Mormon is entirely focused on explaining away its absence, such as when you (demonstrably incorrectly) claimed that research on MesoAmerican cultures is in its “infancy”.