Quantum of Evidence Against Major Religions

[_stemelbow]

Well, think of it this way. If you took the Book of Mormon to a scholar whose expertise was in any ancient American civilization, and she new nothing about Mormons or Mormonism, what would she conclude about the book? That it was of ancient origin? No, no one would conclude that. They'd conclude that it was pseudepigrapha, and not of ancient origin.

Pseudepigrapha does not mean not of ancient origin. Indeed pseudepigrapha has a very precise meaning that seems to have escaped you. if there was a scholar whose expertise was in any ancient American civilization that would ocnclude as you suggest then that scholar doesn't know what he/she is saying, in essence. But, to be fair, we don't know of any scholar who is expert in the nephite civilization to begin with.

If you took the Book of Mormon to an expert on 19th century American literature (and she somehow hadn't heard of the Book of Mormon, let's say), what would she conclude about it? She would conclude it was a work of 19th century pseudepigrapha, of course. Is that reasonable to you, Stem, or do I exaggerate?

Well aside from your misunderstand of what is pseudepigrapha, i wouldn't doubt at all that a 19th century american literature expert would conclude the Book of Mormon was from the 19th century. I'mnot sure that means much of anything, but it could happen.

[_Buffalo]

Pseudepigrapha does not mean not of ancient origin. Indeed pseudepigrapha has a very precise meaning that seems to have escaped you. if there was a scholar whose expertise was in any ancient American civilization that would ocnclude as you suggest then that scholar doesn't know what he/she is saying, in essence. But, to be fair, we don't know of any scholar who is expert in the Nephite civilization to begin with.

Yes, Stem, pseudepigrapha can definitely be ancient. If you remember, I mentioned that the Bible contains pseudepigrapha. And, if you'll read carefully what I wrote above:

"They'd conclude that it was pseudepigrapha, and not of ancient origin."

As you can see, there's no need for you to try to explain the meaning of this word to me.

And let's not forget, we don't have experts on Nephite civilizations because no trace of it has ever been found - which is highly significant. But the experts who know a lot about ancient civilizations in the Americas would never mistake the Book of Mormon for an ancient American record.

Let's also not forget that the apologetic theory du jour is that the Nephites integrated so well with existing civilizations that they became practically indistinguishable (this as an ad hoc means of why we find nothing Nephitish anywhere in the Americas). The only problems with that is that a) it doesn't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and b) the culture described in the Book of Mormon in no way resembles ancient American cultures known to be non-fictional.

Well aside from your misunderstand of what is pseudepigrapha, i wouldn't doubt at all that a 19th century american literature expert would conclude the Book of Mormon was from the 19th century. I'mnot sure that means much of anything, but it could happen.

Why don't you think it's meaningful? I assume you mean that the 19th (and 16th) century language is an artifact of translation. But that doesn't explain away the post-enlightenment concepts in the Book of Mormon.

[_bcspace]

Indeed. But I think you misunderstood. That is pretty much the ONLY thing going against the Church and it's not even catastrophic because there doesn't seem to be any modern independent revelation on the subject and the Hebrew text could also imply a local flood.

It is current church doctrine, and it is only a very small piece of evidence in the mountain of evidence against LDS truth claims, not that I would expect you to admit such, even though I know believing members who do.

I find it telling that you can't list another. Perhaps my previous list of non contradictory issues made you shy away?

[_stemelbow]

Yes, Stem, pseudepigrapha can definitely be ancient. If you remember, I mentioned that the Bible contains pseudepigrapha. And, if you'll read carefully what I wrote above:

"They'd conclude that it was pseudepigrapha, and not of ancient origin."

As you can see, there's no need for you to try to explain the meaning of this word to me.

All I can say is its apparent you aren't using the term correctly and that its likely you don't know what the word means. With that, I'll have to move on.

And let's not forget, we don't have experts on Nephite civilizations because no trace of it has ever been found - which is highly significant. But the experts who know a lot about ancient civilizations in the Americas would never mistake the Book of Mormon for an ancient American record.

But there are experts who know a lot about ancient civilizations in the Americas who do mistake the Book of Mormon for an ancient american record. Of course they're Mormon, but that fact disputes your conclusion. If these experts have essentially concluded that the story of the Book of Mormon could possibly be true, then I see no reason to just take your attempt to speak on their behalf all that definitively.

Let's also not forget that the apologetic theory du jour is that the Nephites integrated so well with existing civilizations that they became practically indistinguishable (this as an ad hoc means of why we find nothing Nephitish anywhere in the Americas). The only problems with that is that a) it doesn't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and b) the culture described in the Book of Mormon in no way resembles ancient American cultures known to be non-fictional.

I don't think your statements and claims here have any solid ground, but if you'd do more than make bald assertions I'd be all ears or eyes.

Why don't you think it's meaningful? I assume you mean that the 19th (and 16th) century language is an artifact of translation. But that doesn't explain away the post-enlightenment concepts in the Book of Mormon.

I don't doubt there are a lot of things unexplained in the Book of Mormon.

[_Buffalo]

All I can say is its apparent you aren't using the term correctly and that its likely you don't know what the word means. With that, I'll have to move on.

On the contrary, the problem seems to be you're not carefully reading what I'm writing. And honestly Stem, you know I love you, but I doubt you even new what the word meant before you hastily googled it for this discussion. Call me cynical.

But there are experts who know a lot about ancient civilizations in the Americas who do mistake the Book of Mormon for an ancient american record. Of course they're Mormon, but that fact disputes your conclusion. If these experts have essentially concluded that the story of the Book of Mormon could possibly be true, then I see no reason to just take your attempt to speak on their behalf all that definitively.

Remember the premise here, Stem - we're talking about an expert who'd never heard of Mormons or Mormonism, being introduced to the Book of Mormon for the first. Not someone with a preexisting belief or disbelief. Again, it appears that you're not reading my post carefully before responding.

I don't think your statements and claims here have any solid ground, but if you'd do more than make bald assertions I'd be all ears or eyes.

I don't think I've said anything very bald. The Book of Mormon is completely silent on preexisting civilizations other than the Jaredites, and makes no mention of the Nephites integrating with anyone else. It's also quite obvious that the civilizations in the Book of Mormon display a mix of features - 19th century American protestants, 19th century native Americans mixed in with a bit of ancient Hebrew cribbed from the Old Testament. None of that looks anything like pre-Columbian America.

[_stemelbow]

Remember the premise here, Stem - we're talking about an expert who'd never heard of Mormons or Mormonism, being introduced to the Book of Mormon for the first. Not someone with a preexisting belief or disbelief. Again, it appears that you're not reading my post carefully before responding.

I don't know if such a person exists though, Buffalo. My point is there are experts who can find room to think a Book of Mormon is possible within an American setting. As I have said to you many times in the past, that does not mean there is over-whelming evidence or that its most reasonable to conclude the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient. The point I'd like to make is who knows what an "expert" who has lived in some sort of box would think? It'd be interesting to experiment, but its a pretty unhelpful hypothetical.

[_Buffalo]

Remember the premise here, Stem - we're talking about an expert who'd never heard of Mormons or Mormonism, being introduced to the Book of Mormon for the first. Not someone with a preexisting belief or disbelief. Again, it appears that you're not reading my post carefully before responding.

I don't know if such a person exists though, Buffalo. My point is there are experts who can find room to think a Book of Mormon is possible within an American setting. As I have said to you many times in the past, that does not mean there is over-whelming evidence or that its most reasonable to conclude the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient. The point I'd like to make is who knows what an "expert" who has lived in some sort of box would think? It'd be interesting to experiment, but its a pretty unhelpful hypothetical.

It was a hypothetical scenario, Stem. What do you think they would conclude about the Book of Mormon?

Your example doesn't really hold water. Someone with a preexisting faith position who later goes on to try to harmonize his faith with the facts is not an example of what I'm talking about.

[_MCB]

I'm working on Shakespeare's King Henry IV parallels with Alma Jr. and his friends.

However, we have Gilgamesh, and other near eastern legends, and their parallels with the Bible.

Given Mormon claims for their book, the Book of Mormon winds hands-down for improbability and lack of originality. Nothing is more made-up and unoriginal and improbable than Mormonism. The claims of Scientology win the prize for both creativity and improbability. That is how they differ.

[_sock puppet]

So is the goal here to put a little tick mark for every "evidence against" a religion, add them all up for each religion and see who has the most?

eh...that's just silly. You guys...

Not silly, stem. Not intended for you, necessarily.

In the future, you can simply disregard my threads and posts unless I put "stem" or "stemelbow" in the thread title. Without "stem" or "stemelblow" in the threat title, you can know that a thread started by me or a post I make has not been tailored for your special needs comprehension abilities. So no need for you to post saying you do not understand or you think something is silly. We will all just assume you don't understand such threads/posts of mine and/or find them silly. This will save you a great deal of time. Capice?

RfM might be a good fit for you. It appears you want a sounding board where you can post, "Hey guys, [insert bad thing about Mormonism] is SO stoopid, isn't it!!!" and everyone will come rushing in to pat your back and agree that, yes, indeed, [bad thing] is SOOO stoopid!!

Anyone who disagrees obviously has reading and/or analytical thinking problems.

Thanks for the rfm suggestion. Been there. Did not find it satisfying, either in the way you suspected it might 'fit' or otherwise. Had it worked, it could have been a two-fer: a place I might have liked better and you, Scottie, would not have me for a poster here.

stem pronounces every aspect of Mormonism that is raised in less than singing-hallelujah-praises of it as

(a) something he doesn't understand,
(b) silly, or
(c) not bothering him.

stem does not provide reasons or details. It's just a monotonous skip in the record repeating the same three lines. It's obvious he posts for the sake of obfuscation, and to attempt thereby to derail from the substance of the thread. I personally will not trifle with him, because derailment is the single biggest threat to substantive discussions here at MDB or elsewhere. It is the defender's only effective weapon at keeping a Mormon topic, warts and all, from being delved into.

For my pointing that out, you think I am looking for nothing but atta-boy pats on the back to my posts? Hmmm. If that's what I was looking for, I'd just become part of the subclub that complains and dogpiles if a poster takes another to task on anything. If that were my objective, I would not take anyone to task for being disingenuous or trying to derail a thread. Maybe you're just projecting.

[_Themis]

I actually agree there is evidence against the church's truth claims, Themis. I was hoping to discuss this mounting evidence that some how dwarfs the mounting evidence against other religions. I find it can be an interesting thread, but instead all I get is emptiness in reply for some reason--its silliness.

Again you are the only one being silly and I think dishonest. You never asked to discuss this mounting evdience here.

So is the goal here to put a little tick mark for every "evidence against" a religion, add them all up for each religion and see who has the most?

eh...that's just silly. You guys...

Remember this. If you want to dis=cuss it then ask. All you did was comment you thought we were being silly.

Then you are clearly blind as a bat. I understand your need to see it all that way though.

Obviously you are wrong again(See above). Care to back it up.

You have clearly jumped the gun about me again, Themis. Oh well. I'm not playing the same game. If you wish to reply with something I'm all ears, hey, I might even respond too. But if you wish to complain about me again and again, I'll politely decline participation, even if I mention how silly this has all turned out.

Stem you are the only one playing games here. If you want to discuss then be respectful, and ask. Now I think the LDS church has more evidence against it's truth claims then any other major religion I know. Most of this evidence is in regards to things like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. It's a lot to go over in one thread though. Now can you provide another major religion that has claims that can be even easier to see by the evidence that they are incorrect?