Scottie wrote:charity wrote:I would like to hear what you call chunks. I have read a lot of attempts to chip away, but nothing has stood up. Do you have something new?
Sooo...horses=tapirs is a completely valid and legitimate counter-argument to the claim of no horses in Mesoamerica??
Trevor wrote:Gadianton wrote:Crazy as it sounds, some apologists, one called Juliann for instance, not only believes exactly as Z. Smith does, but then goes on to nag critics about the definition of a prophet, having something in mind similar to what you've paraphrased. Graduate school had given her privilaged access to this definition, one critics couldn't comprehend.
It isn't crazy to me at all. I think it is a legitimate way of looking at things. My only issue with her, as I understand her method, is that she tries to hold Smith and other things as beyond criticism because she takes this view. I should think that one could be more open to criticism of Mormonism from an outsider perspective while holding such a view, but it does not really exempt Mormonism from other kinds of discussion.
Why do you require thousands?charity wrote:Scottie wrote:charity wrote:I would like to hear what you call chunks. I have read a lot of attempts to chip away, but nothing has stood up. Do you have something new?
Sooo...horses=tapirs is a completely valid and legitimate counter-argument to the claim of no horses in Mesoamerica??
Show me thousands of horse carcasses in Central Asia from the Huns. Then lets talk about horse bones.
Don't forget hippopatamusses. Hippopotami?
Jersey Girl wrote:
Look again at what you wrote, charity. There is no possible way for a critic to claim there is "no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon." The Book of Mormon is very definitely historic. I have two on my book shelf. The book itself exists in history.
Some critics challenge the purported historical matter found in the Book of Mormon, it's "bringing forth", if you will, Joseph's role, etc.
No one challenges that the Book of Mormon is a historic piece of literature. It's contents as historical, are what's challenged.
Critics (who aren't specializing in one specific area) take the lack of evidence for it's internal historical content, authorship issues, Joseph's credibility, etc and form an overall picture. When the overall picture is examined, it leads them to conclude that the book is neither divine in nature nor internally historical in it's content.
Just my take.
\richardMdBorn wrote:Why do you require thousands?charity wrote:Scottie wrote:charity wrote:I would like to hear what you call chunks. I have read a lot of attempts to chip away, but nothing has stood up. Do you have something new?
Sooo...horses=tapirs is a completely valid and legitimate counter-argument to the claim of no horses in Mesoamerica??
Show me thousands of horse carcasses in Central Asia from the Huns. Then lets talk about horse bones.
Don't forget hippopatamusses. Hippopotami?
charity wrote:But the real problem is that when you have a witness from God, it is very hard to deny. Some people do, as witnessed here on this thread even. "Reinterpret their experience" is what some have called it. There are two possiblities. One--the person really is denying the Holy Ghost, which is a very serious thing to do because they know they are doing it. There is no question. That, of course, wouldn't be what they told us. Or else they had some experience they had labeled "the witness of the Spirit" but it wasn't, so it isn't that hard to rethink.
Jersey Girl wrote:charity wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:charityYou cannot prove a negative.
Why do you keep saying that?
Because that is the critics' #1 problem. They keep saying that there is no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon. And what is their evidence? We haven't found any proof yet that there is one. Can't you see the flaw in that?
Stop right there, charity. I asked you why you keep saying that you can't prove a negative. Who is schooling you in burden of proof? Whoever it is, they're wrong and you are parroting them.
amantha wrote:
Ergo, the evidence that a person has had "the witness of the Spirit" is that they believe in and live the "restored gospel."
cksalmon wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:charity wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:charityYou cannot prove a negative.
Why do you keep saying that?
Because that is the critics' #1 problem. They keep saying that there is no such thing as a historic Book of Mormon. And what is their evidence? We haven't found any proof yet that there is one. Can't you see the flaw in that?
Stop right there, charity. I asked you why you keep saying that you can't prove a negative. Who is schooling you in burden of proof? Whoever it is, they're wrong and you are parroting them.
Hi Jersey--
In light of the manifest evidence against Book of Mormon's being what it purports to be, I should think the "you-cannot-prove-a-negative" position to be cold comfort indeed to LDS, but Charity is fundamentally correct here.
Excepting logically-demonstrable absurdities (e.g., "A bachelor is not unmarried"), proving a negative hypothesis (e.g., "The Book of Mormon is not a book of ancient history" or "God does not exist") is finitely impossible.
One can certainly disprove a negative hypothesis (e.g., "The Huns left no horse remains"--in fact, they did), but, assuming the lack of evidence to the contrary, one would not be able to prove that hypothesis.
Best.
Chris
charity wrote:amantha wrote:
Ergo, the evidence that a person has had "the witness of the Spirit" is that they believe in and live the "restored gospel."
No. The evidence that the person has had a witness of the Spirit is that they don't deny it, even if they become disaffected from the Church, inactive, whatever. The model for this are the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Many of them did become disaffected. But none of them denied their witnesses, even when it would have been of financial and social benefit to themselves.