The Nahom Follies

[_honorentheos]

Hey mg,

I think that over time, for me, the fulcrum has remained, and still does, somewhere towards the middle of the weight bearing structure that rests on it. It moves to the right and/or the left...but up to this point never so far that the fulcrum cannot handle the load on either side. I'd be more likely to use the visual of a balance scale. The scale has not tipped one way or the other to the point that I cannot recalibrate. That's why I'm where I'm at and you're where you're at.

I'm not sure what you are actually saying. It sounds like you are describing the same thing I was - the fulcrum (willingness to believe Joseph Smith might have been a prophet) being adjusted as needed to keep the weight (evidence for or against the Book of Mormon being an actual account of a real people vs. a document fabricated in the 19th Century) in such a way it never leaves equilibrium or something close to it. That's not what a scale is supposed to do. A scale is specifically calibrated to measure even the smallest differences between two things. If we are visualizing a scale, we shouldn't be calibrating to the weights being measured for comparison at all. We should be doing that external to the discussion on the Book of Mormon by way of educating and refining our critical thinking capabilities, in my opinion. You calibrate the scale and only then put the weight on it.

When we read much of the dialog on the Mormon message boards I think we see both sides fussing with the scales on issues as the weights being added and evaluated. And that's fine because that's what people tend to do with issues they feel strongly about. But if one is saying they are honestly interested in truth as a goal, then one should take the opportunity to step back away from the scales after all the recalibrating and extraneous material being added to "unpack" the process and assess how much the scale was manipulated to benefit one side or the other.

In the case of this thread, there has been a lot of unpacking to point out the NHM argument is all about good will towards Joseph Smith and extraneous material and assumptions being granted to make it even kind of work. And even with all that, we have the wiki quote from Givens reminding us that this is still the best piece of archeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon available.

How out of balance did we have to make the scale to create this equilibrium that allows you to entertain possibilities? I'd be honestly interested in how you assess this since it seems we have very different opinions on the matter.

[_honorentheos]

So we have established that however they built the boat it needed to be:

Let's cut out all the 'facts' that are not actually known in their entirety. When all was said and done the ship had to be:

Sllllloooooooooowwwwwwww dooooooooowwwwwwwwnnnnnnn....

If we cut out all the facts that are not actually known in their entirety, we don't have a boat. We don't have a Nephi to build the boat. We don't have a God to direct a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have a set of golden plates that document a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have an angel with custody of a set of golden plates that documents a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have a prophetic calling given as a result of an angel passing on custody of a set of golden plates that documents a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat.

We have....the story of the Book of Mormon as given to us in 1830, and modified a few times since then. And a bunch of personal baggage regarding said Book of Mormon that differs from person to person.

Anyway, carry on.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey mg,

I think that over time, for me, the fulcrum has remained, and still does, somewhere towards the middle of the weight bearing structure that rests on it. It moves to the right and/or the left...but up to this point never so far that the fulcrum cannot handle the load on either side. I'd be more likely to use the visual of a balance scale. The scale has not tipped one way or the other to the point that I cannot recalibrate. That's why I'm where I'm at and you're where you're at.

I'm not sure what you are actually saying. It sounds like you are describing the same thing I was - the fulcrum (willingness to believe Joseph Smith might have been a prophet) being adjusted as needed to keep the weight (evidence for or against the Book of Mormon being an actual account of a real people vs. a document fabricated in the 19th Century) in such a way it never leaves equilibrium or something close to it.

Yes, I can go with that.

That's not what a scale is supposed to do. A scale is specifically calibrated to measure even the smallest differences between two things. If we are visualizing a scale, we shouldn't be calibrating to the weights being measured for comparison at all.

OK. I get what you're saying. I was thinking of the old scales where one would calibrate them with an adjustment screw of some type to bring the scale back to the zero point. But that's done without any weight actually being placed on the scale. I suppose what I was thinking is that now and then I empty the scales. Recalibrate the zero point, and put the weights back on again. I may find that certain weights that were on the scale at one time are no longer there. OTOH, there may be weights on the other side of the scale that have been added. Overall, the balance on the scale waivers somewhere in the middle. Each time I take the weights off, then recalibrate the scale itself (am I starting at the zero sum point each time I go back and reevaluate the weights...the evidence...or am I out of kilter), I can then get a clean measurement. If I leave all the weights on without periodically going back and starting at the zero point I find that I can easily get out of balance/kilter.

Does that help?

We should be doing that external to the discussion on the Book of Mormon by way of educating and refining our critical thinking capabilities, in my opinion. You calibrate the scale and only then put the weight on it.

I agree. My Book of Mormon studies happen between the times I am emptying the scales and recalibrating to start again with a cleaner slate. Some weights, again, are taken off while it is possible that others might be added to one side or the other.

When we read much of the dialog on the Mormon message boards I think we see both sides fussing with the scales on issues as the weights being added and evaluated. And that's fine because that's what people tend to do with issues they feel strongly about. But if one is saying they are honestly interested in truth as a goal, then one should take the opportunity to step back away from the scales after all the recalibrating and extraneous material being added to "unpack" the process and assess how much the scale was manipulated to benefit one side or the other.

I agree.

In the case of this thread, there has been a lot of unpacking to point out the NHM argument is all about good will towards Joseph Smith and extraneous material and assumptions being granted to make it even kind of work.

And I suppose that we need to remember that input and output are interrelated. How much information we have, how we are able/willing to process it at face value and remain as objective as possible, how we are either able or unable to keep other outside influences/distractions from influencing that objective stance, etc.

And even with all that, we have the wiki quote from Givens reminding us that this is still the best piece of archeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon available.

As far as external evidences go, yes.

How out of balance did we have to make the scale to create this equilibrium that allows you to entertain possibilities? I'd be honestly interested in how you assess this since it seems we have very different opinions on the matter.

The balancing of the scales, the recalibration, the weights coming off or being added, happen between the input and the output. I am continually going back to the scales and observing whether or not the scale has become top heavy on the side of questions/doubts. At times it is. It is at those times that I go back and reevaluate...empty the scales as much as I mentally can...reset the scale to zero (see that I am obtaining my information from varied sources, pro and con), then go back and continue the investigation/journey. Up to this point I've been able to avoid the "straw that breaks the camel's back", so to speak, and keep the fulcrum from going too far from one side or the other of the weight bearing structure so as to remain balanced and objective somewhere in the middle. Granted, as I've already alluded to, there are outside factors that come into play also that act as input to the 'subjectivity factor'. But I think that we all have to deal with that to some degree or another.

How can we avoid that?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If we cut out all the facts that are not actually known in their entirety, we don't have a boat.We don't have a Nephi to build the boat. We don't have a God to direct a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have a set of golden plates that document a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have an angel with custody of a set of golden plates that documents a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat.

I'm starting with an assumption that it is possible/plausible that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be. So we have a boat,etc. Yep, I understand that this is a stretch...but at this point in time I'm willing to make it. That's what is going to divide us as to how we look at some of the unknowns that were listed earlier.

There are going to be some unknowns when you play in the sand on the seashore of Bountiful. Like I said, it would be awesome to have access to a time machine and see what all the facts (known and unknown) were that came into alignment to make things as they really were at that time.

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

If we cut out all the facts that are not actually known in their entirety, we don't have a boat.We don't have a Nephi to build the boat. We don't have a God to direct a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have a set of golden plates that document a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have an angel with custody of a set of golden plates that documents a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat.

I'm starting with an assumption that it is possible/plausible that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be. So we have a boat,etc. Yep, I understand that this is a stretch...but at this point in time I'm willing to make it. That's what is going to divide us as to how we look at some of the unknowns that were listed earlier.

There are going to be some unknowns when you play in the sand on the seashore of Bountiful. Like I said, it would be awesome to have access to a time machine and see what all the facts (known and unknown) were that came into alignment to make things as they really were at that time.

Regards,
MG

I suppose the real question is why you make that particular set of assumptions and how far you will stretch it against facts and unknowns, to hold onto that particular set of assumptions?

I am reminded of a little boy who stuck beans up his nose, so far that it took medical care to get them out. His parents asked why he put the beans up his nose. He said his older sister told him to. The parents then asked if he would jump out in front of a speeding truck if his older sister told him to do that. He said no. Obviously, even to a little boy of just 6 years of age, his better judgment would kick in at some point.

So, MG, at what point will your better judgment kick in?

[_honorentheos]

If we cut out all the facts that are not actually known in their entirety, we don't have a boat.We don't have a Nephi to build the boat. We don't have a God to direct a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have a set of golden plates that document a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat. We don't have an angel with custody of a set of golden plates that documents a story about a God directing a Nephi to build a boat.

I'm starting with an assumption that it is possible/plausible that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be. So we have a boat,etc. Yep, I understand that this is a stretch...but at this point in time I'm willing to make it. That's what is going to divide us as to how we look at some of the unknowns that were listed earlier.

There are going to be some unknowns when you play in the sand on the seashore of Bountiful. Like I said, it would be awesome to have access to a time machine and see what all the facts (known and unknown) were that came into alignment to make things as they really were at that time.

Regards,
MG

That's fine. They just fall under the category of unknowns rather than facts is all I was pointing out. Once we grant there might have been a boat to begin with, we're dealing with non-facts and assumptions. The evaluation of what it would take for said transoceanic travels to be made possible in a way that already requires a design given by divine intervention is going to require that. As Chap keeps pointing out, we're in the realm of goddidit from the beginning. Trying to ground the rest of the story in reality is well within the domain governed by fan fiction writing.

[_mentalgymnast]

As Chap keeps pointing out, we're in the realm of goddidit from the beginning.

There will be that divide between folks who take a purely naturalistic view of the world and those that see/look for the hand of God in His creations. When Chap says "goddidit", I'm assuming he's NOT saying that God did it ALL. I would rather look at is as a cooperative effort. Man and God.

That view makes world of difference when it comes to something like revelation, for example. Or Nephi building and launching a boat to the New World.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

So, MG, at what point will your better judgment kick in?

I suppose at that point in which my "better judgment" co-aligns with yours.

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

So, MG, at what point will your better judgment kick in?

I suppose at that point in which my "better judgment" co-aligns with yours.

Regards,
MG

Or perhaps when you stop believing a mythology fed to you by corporate execs in SLC, Utah, with a built in threat of post-death hell, fire and damnation if you don't do what they tell ya.

[_Themis]

There will be that divide between folks who take a purely naturalistic view of the world and those that see/look for the hand of God in His creations.

No, the problem is you do what the church has taught you to do, which is that the spiritual testimony trumps all. This is why you don't go with the facts, and always look for any possibility no mater how bad that supports the church being true. This is why you will jump from should we see any evidence to God needs to hide the evidence. The only consistency is that the church needs to be true.