Believing in Mormonism requires believing in....

[_Mister Scratch]

Watching this whole back-and-forth reminds me of the time I conducted an informal poll in order to try and determine why Coggins hadn't ever found "acceptance" amongst Mopologists. A few people voted that it was his lack of bona fides that did him in, but the bulk of those polled simply felt that he was too much of an embarrassment, and that even those quite low down on the MAD totem pole knew better than to associate with him. (This hypothesis was borne out during the whole "Book of Abraham issues have been addressed!" debacle, wherein Coggs was mightily embarrassed by Dartagnan. He went looking for help over at MAD, but was almost totally denied.)

Anyways, as I recall, the sad reality that was revealed by the poll made Coggins, in his own words, "very near profanity." Quite telling, in my opinion.

[_Coggins7]

And I have studied Mesoamerican archeology in a broad sense.

Oh, do tell, what that "broad sense" entails. The kind of "broad sense" that led you to believe metallurgy was a "hit"?

Mettalurgy was a hit. It was unknown in Joseph's day, and he predicted it would be there. Your criticism--really a clever circumvention--of that reality is just a quibble, and based upon only what is known thus far. You just can't get past the fact that tomorrow your metallurgy criticism, as with other such things, may begin listing to port.

[_beastie]

Mettalurgy was a hit. It was unknown in Joseph's day, and he predicted it would be there. Your criticism--really a clever circumvention--of that reality is just a quibble, and based upon only what is known thus far. You just can't get past the fact that tomorrow your metallurgy criticism, as with other such things, may begin listing to port.

Are you insane? There is no evidence of metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica. Are you actually claiming "hits" based on the fact that you predict one day the evidence will show up????

[_Coggins7]

She is obviously VERY well read, and I doubt there are more than a handful of LDS folk who can even remotely come close to her knowledge on the topic

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...the terrible pain...

This is like John Kerry endorsing Ho Chi Minh for Secretary of Defense. You're own knowledge of current and passt LDS scholarship on theses subjects is obviously woefully inadequate in this area, despite what Beastie's may or may not be. Besides Dancer, experts are frequently wrong, that's the nature of the social sciences and humanities, and even the natural sciences must always be open to revision. The realities are as they are: Beasties criticisms are not based upon clear and unambiguous facts and data but upon interpretations of facts and data of various degrees of certitude and intellectual viability.

In other words, if you are arguing a point regarding something Beastie has mentioned, you are arguing the information from, and knowledge of the experts.

And so are FARMS scholars, in the relevant fields.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie

Are you insane?

Rhetorical question?

[_truth dancer]

Loren,

At one point you seem to assert there is enormous evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but now it seems you are saying there may be evidence at some future date?

Is there any evidence you could share with us that may help us understand what it is you believe is actual evidence, if you do indeed think there is some?

~dancer~

[_Brackite]

The Following is Part From an Article, From Wikipedia:

In the early Latter Day Saint movement, seer stones were used as method of divination and played a significant role in its history and theology. Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, owned several seer stones from his earlier career as a "money digger."[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.[2] Seer stones are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and in other Latter Day Saint scriptures. James Strang, who claimed to be Joseph Smith's designated successor, also unearthed what he said were ancient metal plates and translated them using seer stones.

...

Some early nineteenth-century Americans used seer stones in attempt to gain a revelation from God or to find buried treasure.[3] Beginning in the early 1820s, Joseph Smith was paid to act as a "seer" in (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to locate lost items and find precious metals hidden in the earth.[4] Smith's procedure was to place the stone in a white stovepipe hat, put his face over the hat to block the light, and then "see" the necessary information in the stone's reflections.[5] His favored stone, chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[6] was found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[7] In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end."[8]

In translating the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates, Smith said he used "Interpreters", a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles, which he later referred to as the "Urim and Thummim." In 1823 Smith said that an angel told him of the existence of Golden Plates, along with which would be found "two stones in silver bows" fastened to a breastplate, which the angel called the Urim and Thummim and which he said God had prepared for translating the plates.[9] (His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described them as crystal-like: "two smooth three-cornered diamonds.")[10] Smith and his early Mormon contemporaries seem to have used the terms "seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably. Although Smith always referred to the Book of Mormon "interpreters" as the Urim and Thummim, he may or may not have intended to make a distinction between that device and the seer stones that he used in scrying.[11]

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone ... _Saints%29 )

[_Coggins7]

Mettalurgy was a hit. It was unknown in Joseph's day, and he predicted it would be there. Your criticism--really a clever circumvention--of that reality is just a quibble, and based upon only what is known thus far. You just can't get past the fact that tomorrow your metallurgy criticism, as with other such things, may begin listing to port.

Are you insane? There is no evidence of metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica. Are you actually claiming "hits" based on the fact that you predict one day the evidence will show up????

There is metallurgy from 800 AD onward, and this must have developed at some previous time, not simply out of whole cloth. But in any case, the best you can still say is there is no evidence. What you actually mean is, of course, that, at present, there is no evidence, which is not at all the same thing and is all you can actually say with any degree of intellectual honesty.

With sophisticated civilizations going back well before the time of Christ, and indeed, in some cases, thousands of years before that time, in point of fact, anything is possible, especially given the fact that the vast majority of such civilizations have not been as yet investigated. Its also the case that over a long period of time, many sites have been destroyed by looting, neglect, and geological upheavals. Any number of pieces of evidence could be irretrievably buried, which is bad for the BofrM only from the purely intellectual point of view. Whether the evidence is there or not, the absence of evidence will always count against it as long as the "arm of flesh" is the only criteria, even when there is nothing implausible, logically or conceptually, about the Book of Mormon's claims as they are stated.

[_Coggins7]

Loren,

At one point you seem to assert there is enormous evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but now it seems you are saying there may be evidence at some future date?

Is there any evidence you could share with us that may help us understand what it is you believe is actual evidence, if you do indeed think there is some?

~dancer~

There is evidence that that lends plausibility to Book of Mormon claims. I've never said anymore than that. I do think that the hard evidence will eventually be forthcoming, but not until our faith has been tried and refined and that evidence is only kind of a frosting on a cake that's already been baked and eaten. For the Saints, it will be an empirical culmination and appendage to what they already knew was true. What it will not be for the Saints is "evidence" that anything they believe is true. The Lord simply has not structured our mortal experience in this way. We are not here to be spoon fed the answers to the satisfaction of those who refuse to exercise faith until the empirics are all in.

What a waste, really, the mortal probation would be if it were otherwise.

[_Coggins7]

Watching this whole back-and-forth reminds me of the time I conducted an informal poll in order to try and determine why Coggins hadn't ever found "acceptance" amongst Mopologists. A few people voted that it was his lack of bona fides that did him in, but the bulk of those polled simply felt that he was too much of an embarrassment, and that even those quite low down on the MAD totem pole knew better than to associate with him. (This hypothesis was borne out during the whole "Book of Abraham issues have been addressed!" debacle, wherein Coggs was mightily embarrassed by Dartagnan. He went looking for help over at MAD, but was almost totally denied.)

Anyways, as I recall, the sad reality that was revealed by the poll made Coggins, in his own words, "very near profanity." Quite telling, in my opinion.

Would you like to apprise me of just in what manner I have not been "accepted" amongst the apologetic community? I'm on good terms with all of the defenders of the faith at MAD, as far as I'm aware, at least according to the posts I receive in return to my questions and statements. The only people who don't like me there are the same kinds of people I don't get along with here.

But of course, you knew that.

Some day you'll make an intellectually substantive post Scratch, and I won't have to wright any more Paul Shanklinesque parody songs about you.