DCP Puts Odd Parameters on Evidence for Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

well, yes, there's a point to that in this arena.

I am not against bringing up plausibility, just not the very unlikely and implausible that people use to maintain belief. I don't know how many times I have been called biased by apologists for going with the evidence and rejecting the implausible.

Could you provide what the point is in this arena?

[_stemelbow]

I am not against bringing up plausibility, just not the very unlikely and implausible that people use to maintain belief. I don't know how many times I have been called biased by apologists for going with the evidence and rejecting the implausible.

Could you provide what the point is in this arena?

I believe I've covered this with ya before, but i don't mind repeatin' it, if need be.

The stance from a critics point of view is, the LDS Church is not the LORD's Church. It is not true.

Okay?

The stance from my perspective in this arena is, I have faith it is true, please demonstrate how my faith is not possible. When critics make an argument that does not defeat the possibility for my faith, then they have, in my eyes, failed to establish faith, and more particularly, my faith is wrong. You see I'm not the one here making claims other than personal faith. The claims are made by the critics in that they suggest my faith is not possible--it is, in fact, false/wrong/misplaced or whatever. yet they can't support their position it seems.

[_Buffalo]

The stance from my perspective in this arena is, I have faith it is true, please demonstrate how my faith is not possible. When critics make an argument that does not defeat the possibility for my faith, then they have, in my eyes, failed to establish faith, and more particularly, my faith is wrong. You see I'm not the one here making claims other than personal faith. The claims are made by the critics in that they suggest my faith is not possible--it is, in fact, false/wrong/misplaced or whatever. yet they can't support their position it seems.

You seem to be mixing up possible with plausible. They're not the same thing.

[_Themis]

I believe I've covered this with ya before, but i don't mind repeatin' it, if need be.

The stance from a critics point of view is, the LDS Church is not the LORD's Church. It is not true.

Okay?

Agreed.

The stance from my perspective in this arena is, I have faith it is true, please demonstrate how my faith is not possible. When critics make an argument that does not defeat the possibility for my faith, then they have, in my eyes, failed to establish faith, and more particularly, my faith is wrong.

It is really about the evidence. Defeating possibilities is not possible, regardless of the claim(ex. Bigfoot). Anyone can create any claim that may not be impossible, but I am interested in what is plausible. I see you making up some very unlikely possibilities just to maintain belief, and I think this is incorrect, although you have every right to do so. :) This is why I call it the possibility game.

You see I'm not the one here making claims other than personal faith. The claims are made by the critics in that they suggest my faith is not possible--it is, in fact, false/wrong/misplaced or whatever. yet they can't support their position it seems.

Critic do support their claims with good evidence all the time. It is apologists and yourself that have to make up the implausible to reject the evidence. Horses are a good example. You sated that maybe they will find some in the future destroying one of the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. While it may not be impossible it is very unlikely and not plausible. This is the kind of stuff used to reject what is more likely. Anachronism is one of the best things scholars look for to see if a document is ancient or not.

The Book of Abraham is another great example. We have the papyri and facsimiles, and they have been translated. They do not translate into the Book of Abraham, but into a common funerary text. Now which really is more likely, that the Egyptology got it all wrong or Joseph did? Now apologists play the possibility game by suggesting missing papyri, even though it is irrelevant since we have the facsimiles. Now some apologists recognize this so they invent a new possibility, one that is also implausible, with the catalyst theory. This is done to maintain faith. I am just interested in the truth, even if it means I have to alter my understanding of it. I have done this with the church and my own spiritual experiences. I have gone with the very likely. Others can play the possibility game all they want if it makes them happy.

[_stemelbow]

The stance from my perspective in this arena is, I have faith it is true, please demonstrate how my faith is not possible. When critics make an argument that does not defeat the possibility for my faith, then they have, in my eyes, failed to establish faith, and more particularly, my faith is wrong.

It is really about the evidence. Defeating possibilities is not possible, regardless of the claim(ex. Bigfoot). Anyone can create any claim that may not be impossible, but I am interested in what is plausible. I see you making up some very unlikely possibilities just to maintain belief, and I think this is incorrect, although you have every right to do so. :) This is why I call it the possibility game.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. I give you why I'm here and what my position is and you seem to suggest that is not my position. Oh well, themis. I know you see it as about the evidence. You want to weigh the claims of the Church against archaeology or other disciplines. That's fine. I don't' mind that people do that. Indeed, I too can agree that if we are to weigh the claims of the Church, like the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, against the achaeology we aren't going to arrive at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

The key here is this. Critics position is that factually speaking the Book of Mormon is not ancient. I say, okay, then go ahead and show me that the Book of Mormon is ancient because my faith suggests otherwise. They give me all their evidence and yet there remains possibility. Thus, they haven't proven their case that the Book of Mormon is not ancient. They have given their opinion and why they hold their opinion which is cool. But that doesn't prove my faith wrong. It may end up proving their methods wrong, but we can't see that now.

[_Themis]

I'm not sure what you want me to say. I give you why I'm here and what my position is and you seem to suggest that is not my position. Oh well, themis.

Could you show me where I did this. I must have missed it.

I know you see it as about the evidence. You want to weigh the claims of the Church against archaeology or other disciplines. That's fine. I don't' mind that people do that. Indeed, I too can agree that if we are to weigh the claims of the Church, like the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, against the achaeology we aren't going to arrive at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

I read this as admitting that when it comes to the evidence, it is showing that the Book of Mormon is not ancient.

The key here is this. Critics position is that factually speaking the Book of Mormon is not ancient. I say, okay, then go ahead and show me that the Book of Mormon is ancient because my faith suggests otherwise. They give me all their evidence and yet there remains possibility.

You seem to be admitting that the evidence is against the Book of Mormon, but that possibility remains. This is the point I have been making all along. Sure you can have possibility for anything. So what. If you want to believe in anything then go ahead. I just think it is incorrect, and obviously so.

Thus, they haven't proven their case that the Book of Mormon is not ancient

Actually they have proven it, but I suspect you may have a different definition of proven. I suspect that you think possibility means unproven. This would be incorrect. There are lots of proofs in science, even though possibilities that they are incorrect will always remain.

They have given their opinion and why they hold their opinion which is cool. But that doesn't prove my faith wrong. It may end up proving their methods wrong, but we can't see that now.

Opinions based on a lot of evidence. Again I will go with the evidence instead of the unlikely. Again I think you mean something else when you say prove. Whats funny is you go with some possibility they will be shown wrong in the future. I see you will not see why it is logically wrong to go with any possibility you can think of. I just see no reason not to go with what is more likely. It is this that made me reevaluate the spiritual and then see that indeed the church has been shown to not be true.

[_stemelbow]

I read this as admitting that when it comes to the evidence, it is showing that the Book of Mormon is not ancient.

Let me clarify. When it comes to the terms of what is evidence in the realm of courtrooms and science labs yes. But, I do consider my faith to be evidence--I do claim evidence beyond the common understanding of the secular world. I can't deny that evidence.

You seem to be admitting that the evidence is against the Book of Mormon, but that possibility remains. This is the point I have been making all along. Sure you can have possibility for anything. So what. If you want to believe in anything then go ahead. I just think it is incorrect, and obviously so.

But, that's really just your opinion. If you can't prove my faith wrong, then why critique it as proven wrong? All you can do is give me the evidence for why youconcluded my faith is wrong and that's it. The actual claim is your opinion and while having some support in evidence is not prove true because there remains the possibility of my faith.

Actually they have proven it, but I suspect you may have a different definition of proven. I suspect that you think possibility means unproven. This would be incorrect. There are lots of proofs in science, even though possibilities that they are incorrect will always remain.

You are correct about one thing--the scientific method applied to my faith from someone on the outside isn't going to prove much of anything. The claim of "proof" then is only applied to the evidence that is in your favor. You can't factor in what I claim as my faith because you can't quantify it, test it, see it, or do anything about it, it seems. Thus, you can't prove my faith wrong.

Opinions based on a lot of evidence. Again I will go with the evidence instead of the unlikely.

I know you will. That's cool. But that doesn't really address my concerns at all. Its merely a game of ego, boasting and scientific pandering, when it comes to applying your personal opinion of Mormonism is wrong to me. Its your opinion. Sure the secular evidence is in your favor. its in your favor when it comes to all of Christianity or any faith. Whoopty.

Again I think you mean something else when you say prove. Whats funny is you go with some possibility they will be shown wrong in the future. I see you will not see why it is logically wrong to go with any possibility you can think of. I just see no reason not to go with what is more likely. It is this that made me reevaluate the spiritual and then see that indeed the church has been shown to not be true.

I noted your personal opinion long ago. Sadly the proof to the claim my faith is wrong has simply not been justified.

[_jon]

Stem,

I have faith that Jennifer Aniston is going to marry me.

It is a possibility.

However, based on all the available information, the odds are stacked heavily against this possibility. Regardless of how strong my faith is, the possibility and the plausibility just do not match up.

Now, as I receive additional factual information about this situation the possibility becomes even less plausible, rather than more plausible.

Now, the comparison of your faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to my faith in marital bliss with Miss Aniston is an exact match in terms of level of possibility and plausibility.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

I have faith that Jennifer Aniston is going to marry me.

It is a possibility.

Sure it is. I don't' know you or her but I suppose its possible.

However, based on all the available information, the odds are stacked heavily against this possibility. Regardless of how strong my faith is, the possibility and the plausibility just do not match up.

Well then, it appears you don't really have faith at all. You're just playing games. Cute.

Now, as I receive additional factual information about this situation the possibility becomes even less plausible, rather than more plausible.

Now, the comparison of your faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to my faith in marital bliss with Miss Aniston is an exact match in terms of level of possibility and plausibility.

So what do you think my faith is? I don't think you have a clue, but I suppose you can feel comfort if you feel this somehow addresses my faith at all. It doesn't but you can feel way if it helps.

[_Some Schmo]

Stem,

I have faith that Jennifer Aniston is going to marry me.

It is a possibility.

However, based on all the available information, the odds are stacked heavily against this possibility. Regardless of how strong my faith is, the possibility and the plausibility just do not match up.

Now, as I receive additional factual information about this situation the possibility becomes even less plausible, rather than more plausible.

Now, the comparison of your faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to my faith in marital bliss with Miss Aniston is an exact match in terms of level of possibility and plausibility.

Actually, your scenario is more plausible. We actually have evidence that Jennifer has gone through a lot of men (hence, I'm waiting for my turn).

The fact that she's never married any of them does hurt the notion's plausibility, though.