Peterson the historical skeptic

[Dr Exiled]

I am sure others would agree with me in thanking you for posting here. Your comments, especially because they come from an outsider, really aid in showing how Mormonism's historical claims just don't add up.

You’ve been given the evidence over and over and over again. You just refuse to believe what the evidence shows, which is the Book of Mormon is historical.



- Doc

Luv it.

[Rivendale]

The Book of Mormon reads differently to me from the way most of the Bible reads. The Bible isn’t necessarily any more believable but it seems like more honest and natural myth and legend. A lot of stories are vague, softly focused. When details are offered, they seem to me more picturesque than realistic.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t succeed in being realistic, but it seems to be trying too hard. Noah doesn’t need tools to build his ark. Nephi has a bellows made of animal skins, iron ore accessible from the surface, and a fire that he makes by banging two rocks. As an account of ancient ship-building it’s still ludicrous but it’s also way too much detail. If Nephi smelted iron to forge tools then telling us how he banged rocks is like a modern contractor mentioning that he turned on his power saw.

To say that while much of the Bible reads as myth the Book of Mormon reads like fraud is not just a judgement on Joseph Smith’s character that we can’t make for the unknown authors of Biblical passages. It’s a literary judgement of genre. Between credible realism and myth there is an uncanny valley of detail that is too silly to be real but too much to be innocent. The Book of Mormon is deep in that valley.

Thanks for this. I never even considered it.

[Rivendale]

Noah's ark is an obviously fantastical story, but the details of size are at least good storytelling. They don't strike me as points that are only included to try to convince us that it all really happened, yep, for sure. They're there to make me visualise the giant ark; that's an honest purpose, in a sense at least, even if the storyteller knows it's a

The inconsistent bursts of pedantic detail in the Book of Mormon just don't have that effect at all, for me. Instead they just have the ring of somebody trying to sound realistic, but quickly falling back on vague miracles whenever he realises that he's out of his depth of technical knowledge.

I am sure others would agree with me in thanking you for posting here. Your comments, especially because they come from an outsider, really aid in showing how Mormonism's historical claims just don't add up.

This is gold Jerry Gold.

[2bizE]

Is the moral of this story that is DCP could be so blinded by Trump and his deceptive tactics, that people who believe in the Book of Mormon could also be deceived by Joseph Smith a con artist and deceitful person….or in the case of DCP both?

[huckelberry]

Is the moral of this story that is DCP could be so blinded by Trump and his deceptive tactics, that people who believe in the Book of Mormon could also be deceived by Joseph Smith a con artist and deceitful person….or in the case of DCP both?

Perhaps I miss your meaning but you may have misunderstood. DCP is not a supporter of Trump though the opening post did not clarify that. I think the point was assumed to be known.

Oh, 2bizE
If you have not followed the details of DCP thoughts and conflicts I hardly blame you. There are a good many more interesting topics to be aware of in the world.

[malkie]

Is the moral of this story that is DCP could be so blinded by Trump and his deceptive tactics, that people who believe in the Book of Mormon could also be deceived by Joseph Smith a con artist and deceitful person….or in the case of DCP both?

Perhaps I miss your meaning but you may have misunderstood. DCP is not a supporter of Trump though the opening post did not clarify that. I think the point was assumed to be known.

Oh, 2bizE
If you have not followed the details of DCP thoughts and conflicts I hardly blame you. There are a good many more interesting topics to be aware of in the world.

Surely you're mistaken huckelberry - DCP says we are obsessed with him, so he must be completely fascinating.

And it goes both ways!
If he doesn't talk about us in his blog posts, we at least get a dishonourable mention in his comments on his posts.

[Alphus and Omegus]

I am sure others would agree with me in thanking you for posting here. Your comments, especially because they come from an outsider, really aid in showing how Mormonism's historical claims just don't add up.

You’ve been given the evidence over and over and over again. You just refuse to believe what the evidence shows, which is the Book of Mormon is historical.



- Doc

That's pretty much the best argument one could make about how intellectually lazy the "Pascal wager" is. I've wondered sometimes if he had lived longer, whether he would have seen its absurdity. Alas, that's not what happened.

[drumdude]

Dan has decided this is the way we will communicate back and forth. This forum is open to Daniel's posts, if he had the cajones to post here. But we are not similarly welcome to post on his blog articles.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Fundamentalists' beliefs are illogical, so they must of necessity run from debate. Too bad.

It seems to be a lot more fun to be a Modulated Mormon that thinks for oneself, instead of having to carry water for lazy general authorities who can't be bothered to crack a book. But I guess it would not pay as well for Dan. His finances are directly dependent on subservience to the BYU internal censorship regime.

[Hagoth]

The Book of Mormon doesn’t succeed in being realistic, but it seems to be trying too hard. Noah doesn’t need tools to build his ark. Nephi has a bellows made of animal skins, iron ore accessible from the surface, and a fire that he makes by banging two rocks. As an account of ancient ship-building it’s still ludicrous but it’s also way too much detail. If Nephi smelted iron to forge tools then telling us how he banged rocks is like a modern contractor mentioning that he turned on his power saw.

The Book of Mormon chooses to be specific in the least useful places, but fails to deliver on truly unique information. It goes into a lot more details of the kinds of things Joseph Smith might know than the things he couldn't know. We get all of these details about the building process, but Nephi tells us that he "did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men." But that's the interesting part! It's the part that would make you sit up and notice. Why didn't he bother to explain what made this ship different than all other ships ever built by men, rather than how to make a fire?

Likewise, when Jesus shows up in the Americas, the Nephites go to the trouble to write down the same stuff he said in Jerusalem, but they didn't write "even a hundredth part of the (unique and specific) things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people." Why not? It took up too much room on the plates? But the plates had plenty of room for detailing the Nephite coinage system and telling the stories of antichrists and battles that were basically repeats of the same details. There was enough room to write the Book of Lehi and the Book of Nephi, just in case Joseph need a reason to abandon one for the other.

Don't get me wrong, I think this was a brilliant move on Joseph's part that adds a lot of depth to the book without having to actually come up with anything new and challenging details.