How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

[_Uncle Ed]

Skousen was not making any compelling argument in support for the Book of Mormon, he was making an observation of anomaly and quirkiness in Joseph Smith's book. The appearance of dead phrases has no explanation, and Skousen said that such content makes the Book of Mormon (at least partially) originate from late Medieval English sources. As I said, conundrums mount the further into examination of the Book of Mormon one goes; and nobody has gone further or spent more of his life doing that than Royal Skousen, in the area of textual analysis.

Can you be so kind as to provide a link to the peer-reviewed journal in which Skousen's article on the "dead phrases" and "late Medieval" linguistic connection to the Book of Mormon text appears? Thanks in advance.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/insights/?vol=25&num=5&id=436 That's the only paper on the subject that I know of....

[_Uncle Ed]

...

Mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA doesn't just disappear. Certain conditions have to happen. The text of the Book of Mormon just does not support this. This is just another bad apologetic of it's not impossible. It some of the worst kind of defenses. You also need to keep up on what is going on in DNA research. I take it you didn't read any of the link I gave you.

...

I see nothing new there. The latest word I've read, somewhere, insists that we don't know what "Lehite" DNA was, so we can't look for what we don't know. Middle Eastern DNA is varied, so we can take any of it that is shown to have existed c. 600 BCE and compare to what exists in the Americas at around the same time and after. As far as I know that has not been done to any in depth extent. What has been done thus far shows later European addition from colonization and conquest, not from ancient immigration.

The whole genetic drift timing issue is at an impasse, since too much of the geologic, archaeological and carbon dating evidence is missing. Going by what has been shown thus far paints a picture of great age based on assumptions of comparison of data. Since a lot will yet be discovered, the "young earth creationists" feel safe to say that science will conform to the word of God, and nothing is going to change their minds anytime soon. This mindset will only die out long after we are all dead and forgotten, I'm guessing....

[_Themis]

I see nothing new there. The latest word I've read, somewhere, insists that we don't know what "Lehite" DNA was, so we can't look for what we don't know. Middle Eastern DNA is varied, so we can take any of it that is shown to have existed c. 600 BCE and compare to what exists in the Americas at around the same time and after. As far as I know that has not been done to any in depth extent. What has been done thus far shows later European addition from colonization and conquest, not from ancient immigration.

The whole genetic drift timing issue is at an impasse, since too much of the geologic, archaeological and carbon dating evidence is missing. Going by what has been shown thus far paints a picture of great age based on assumptions of comparison of data. Since a lot will yet be discovered, the "young earth creationists" feel safe to say that science will conform to the word of God, and nothing is going to change their minds anytime soon. This mindset will only die out long after we are all dead and forgotten, I'm guessing....

I suggest you read more material then what you find from apologetic sites. It's obvious this is where you get your information. First, we can have an idea of what there DNA may look like. They knew what to look for with the lemba people of south Africa. Also they don't even need to know what the DNA looks like to see an infusion of DNA into the population. They also can date when DNA enters a population or diverges from another population. I can still tell you have not read any material from the site I linked. A great example that predates the Book of Mormon claims by thousands of years is a Japanese incursion in South America. At first they noticed pottery that showed up out of no where that resembled that of an area found in japan. Later DNA tests showed that yes Japanese DNA was also found in local populations. I wonder why it didn't disappear.

[_DarkHelmet]

Nice to know that your respect for other people's religious beliefs is on a par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

Religious beliefs should be held to the same standard of truth as anything else. It's not our fault that the truth claims of Mormonism are on par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

[_Chap]

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov?

Yup. Who wouldn't? Same as I'd change my mind about the Tooth Fairy if I found her in the act of taking a tiny discarded incisor from under my child's pillow. Same as I'd change my mind about Santa Claus if I looking up into a Christmas sky and saw ... you get the idea?

What will YOU do given that nobody has ever found such a place yet despite a whole lot of looking? How long does it take without finding anything before that affects YOUR point of view?

My pov doesn't expect any discoveries. Nice to know that your respect for other people's religious beliefs is on a par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

...

My post expresses my commitment to being open to changing my views if new facts become available, but also my judgement that it is overwhelmingly likely that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction.

The question you raised "What would you do if ..." is frequently put by Mormons, who when they receive the polite answer 'yes, new facts might change my views' then nod condescendingly and say something like 'See, you are not really all that sure of your views are you? You have admitted it might be true.' Hence my use of the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus comparison. The possibility of a change of view is only a logical one, not one that need be considered as a serious likelihood.

Now I don't go up to Mormons in the street, or knock on their doors and yell at them "Your religion is as ludicrously improbable as the Tooth Fairy", because that would be rude and unkind. But if people come to a discussion board and put the question you did, there is no reason not to give them the hard (but true) answer.

[_Bazooka]

There is no reason to select LDS beliefs for particular scrutiny or criticism.

Yes there is.
Latter Day Saints claim to belong to the only faith denomination that God see's as His.
Latter Day Saints claim to belong to the only faith denomination that has the whole truth.
Latter Day Saints belong the a faith denomination that believes in sending out tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers to intrusively inform the world that only Mormonism can get you back to live with God.
Mormonism requires that you pay 10% of all your income as a worthiness test that, if failed, would prevent you from living with God in Heaven when you die.
LDS beliefs are, and were, discriminatory against individuals based on skin colour, gender and sexuality - things that are totally unacceptable in today's society.

That's fair list of reasons, for people who have come into contact with Mormonism in one way or another, to scrutinise and criticise.
The other (not insignificant) reason is that Latter Day Saints themselves are encouraged to get people to scrutinise their beliefs.

The contents of LDS scripture are quite impressive on their own to stand up to the definition: origins and historicity claims are aside. That is why comparison to the Bible is apt. Any other religion's "holy books" are likewise comparable. None of them are more than manmade, which is to say, "God breathed" in moments of intense metaphysical pondering. But men wrote them all, and often under circumstances that critics would adequately define as "delusional".

What, specifically, is 'quite impressive' about LDS scripture?

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov? If Jericho was the only positively identified Old Testament site, and none others had left a trace that had been found up to now, would the Bible be verified by one discovered site? Many would think so, others would want more, and still others would continually demand that more needed to be discovered before they would believe any of it as anything more than some kind of weird coincidence created by observer bias....

The problem with what you're arguing here is that Jericho is not the only positively identified Old Testament site and "Zarahemla" or indeed any other site, thing, item etc that would correlate with an immigrant Hebrew civilisation of millions living in the America's (anywhere in the America's) during the Book of Mormon time frame, still evades detection....The real problem is that belief in the Book of Mormon by LDS is not precedent on real evidence, they will believe because someone tells them to believe or because they have a good feeling about it. That's why Ponzi schemes are so successful at separating Mormons from their money.

How many times do we have to dredge Loch Ness before you accept there's no monster?

[_Uncle Ed]

I see nothing new there. The latest word I've read, somewhere, insists that we don't know what "Lehite" DNA was, so we can't look for what we don't know. Middle Eastern DNA is varied, so we can take any of it that is shown to have existed c. 600 BCE and compare to what exists in the Americas at around the same time and after. As far as I know that has not been done to any in depth extent. What has been done thus far shows later European addition from colonization and conquest, not from ancient immigration.

The whole genetic drift timing issue is at an impasse, since too much of the geologic, archaeological and carbon dating evidence is missing. Going by what has been shown thus far paints a picture of great age based on assumptions of comparison of data. Since a lot will yet be discovered, the "young earth creationists" feel safe to say that science will conform to the word of God, and nothing is going to change their minds anytime soon. This mindset will only die out long after we are all dead and forgotten, I'm guessing....

I suggest you read more material then what you find from apologetic sites. It's obvious this is where you get your information. First, we can have an idea of what there DNA may look like. They knew what to look for with the lemba people of south Africa. Also they don't even need to know what the DNA looks like to see an infusion of DNA into the population. They also can date when DNA enters a population or diverges from another population. I can still tell you have not read any material from the site I linked. A great example that predates the Book of Mormon claims by thousands of years is a Japanese incursion in South America. At first they noticed pottery that showed up out of no where that resembled that of an area found in japan. Later DNA tests showed that yes Japanese DNA was also found in local populations. I wonder why it didn't disappear.

I don't read up on DNA issues at apologetic sites. I read that blog page you linked to, hence my comments.

This is the first I've read that Japanese influx into S. America occurred thousands of years before the Book of Mormon claims. Are you not being specific enough? Japanese influx into S. America before the Jaredites even? Was Japan even populated then? And of course we have experts saying all manner of things and not in agreement with each other as well. You can get almost any pov out of all this comparison and debate over the myriad and multiplying evidence. A lay person like me (and I assume yourself) really does not have a clue, and our "knowledge" is altering constantly with the latest "discoveries". I suggest that we just take a nice comfy back seat and listen quietly.

I'm glad that my religious paradigm is not fixed in place by any dogma; that it does not depend upon validation of a physical kind. This puny planet has virtually nothing to do with the reality I am convinced is Infinitely in place. We not only do not see clearly "through a glass darkly", we are blind if we use this planet as the only set of criteria to define "God". Our imaginations are the most godlike trait we possess, and science dismisses everything that cannot be weighed and measured, etc. Without imagination there would be no sciences at all and no need for them, we would be like our cousins the apes, insensible of any of the metaphysical questions that have advanced homo sapiens to the threshold of the cosmos. We are looking for "God". Even atheists are looking for "God", because religions of men are so unsatisfying as a "search engine". Once atheists get beyond the felt need to defend themselves they can admit that "God", the way they individually imagine what that Is, Is a good idea....

[_Themis]

I don't read up on DNA issues at apologetic sites. I read that blog page you linked to, hence my comments.

Apparently not very well, hence you comments.

This is the first I've read that Japanese influx into S. America occurred thousands of years before the Book of Mormon claims. Are you not being specific enough? Japanese influx into S. America before the Jaredites even? Was Japan even populated then?

It helps to read, but yes thousands of years before Book of Mormon claims. And yes japan was populated then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14095&ArticleId=325015
http://suite101.com/a/japanese-origins-from-dna-testing-shows-links-to-native-americans-a234745?page=1

And of course we have experts saying all manner of things and not in agreement with each other as well. You can get almost any pov out of all this comparison and debate over the myriad and multiplying evidence.

Certainly there can be differences of opinion in the scientific community, but more established ideas tend to have less differences. I can even find a person or two with biology degrees that would argue against evolution.

I'm glad that my religious paradigm is not fixed in place by any dogma; that it does not depend upon validation of a physical kind. This puny planet has virtually nothing to do with the reality I am convinced is Infinitely in place. We not only do not see clearly "through a glass darkly", we are blind if we use this planet as the only set of criteria to define "God". Our imaginations are the most godlike trait we possess, and science dismisses everything that cannot be weighed and measured, etc. Without imagination there would be no sciences at all and no need for them, we would be like our cousins the apes, insensible of any of the metaphysical questions that have advanced homo sapiens to the threshold of the cosmos. We are looking for "God". Even atheists are looking for "God", because religions of men are so unsatisfying as a "search engine". Once atheists get beyond the felt need to defend themselves they can admit that "God", the way they individually imagine what that Is, Is a good idea....

Here we go again with the argument for everything, or should I say an argument you can use to argue any idea no matter how silly. I am not sure why atheists would need to think God is a good idea. Divine beings either exist or they don't. Atheists just don't see any evidence for them and think it is best not to believe until sufficient reason is given. I'm sorry but your posts just say you make things up you like.

[_Themis]

Religious beliefs should be held to the same standard of truth as anything else. It's not our fault that the truth claims of Mormonism are on par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

What is funny is that those like Ed who ask this question about Zarahemla won't do the same. It's those who changed their view of LDS truth claims due to the evidence show that they are the ones willing to change beliefs based on new evidence.

[_Uncle Ed]

Religious beliefs should be held to the same standard of truth as anything else. It's not our fault that the truth claims of Mormonism are on par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

What is funny is that those like Ed who ask this question about Zarahemla won't do the same. It's those who changed their view of LDS truth claims due to the evidence show that they are the ones willing to change beliefs based on new evidence.

I already do that. But would you, back again? I wouldn't, not based on any amount of physical evidence. Because "God" isn't some human dogmatic definition, insisting that the masses believe in this "one true God".

Atheists don't need such a being. But we all want an answer to the core question of why existence Is in the first place? Even science would like an answer to that one, since it might show some insight into cause and effect on a cosmic scale, which of course would impact cause and effect on separate planets....