There is no case to be made for a historical Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

But if you believe in God, all is possible. Of course, this is a problem, not a benefit with attempting to explain the world in terms of an all-powerful agent that can ad hoc plug any explanatory hole with an assertion of magic beyond human comprehension.

That's not the problem I am alluding to. Sure an omnipotent God could make it happen, but it makes God into a Loki Like God. Not the kind of God that Joseph Smith described. My own LDS upbringing taught a certain God not anything like Loki so it didn't make sense to this believer that God would do things like hide all the evidence of a global flood to mess with us.

[_moksha]

You anti-mormons cannot explain the seal of mulek dating to the 6th century BC.

2600-year-old Seal of Mulek has been spotted cavorting
in the Carribean Sea off the shore of the Yucatan,
ponderize that you anti-Mormons!

[_Nevo]

You can say that an already converted Christian has fewer barriers to belief in Book of Mormon historicity than someone unconvinced of Christian theology, but that's not doing enough work to be interesting to say.

To be honest, I ran out of interesting things to say around 2010, which is why I hardly post anymore.

My original intent in joining this thread was to smuggle in my 30-page critique of Book of Mormon historicity, some of which I thought was quite solid. I didn't expect to end up defending the modest observation that a historical Book of Mormon is not impossible if one makes sufficient allowance for the miraculous. I was suprised it drew such a strong response.

Anyway, back to lurking.

[_honorentheos]

My original intent in joining this thread was to smuggle in my 30-page critique of Book of Mormon historicity, some of which I thought was quite solid...Anyway, back to lurking.

You can't lead off with that and then disappear.

[_Jersey Girl]

Anyway, back to lurking.

I wish you would stay, Nevo. You are one of my oldest online friends. I read all of your posts when I see that you are posting. Perhaps there is something in the Paradise Forum you'd be interested in? Gunnar is posting down there.

Yes. That Gunnar.

:-)

[_Kishkumen]

You should watch youtube videos about the resurrection of Jesus. I recommend William L Craig and N. T. Wright. The resurrection is the only way to explain the rise of the church.

Ridiculous. Belief in the resurrection maybe, but even then unlikely to be the only reasonable explanation.

[_EAllusion]

You should watch youtube videos about the resurrection of Jesus. I recommend William L Craig and N. T. Wright. The resurrection is the only way to explain the rise of the church.

Ridiculous. Belief in the resurrection maybe, but even then unlikely to be the only reasonable explanation.

Are you familiar with the Habermas / Craig / Wright arguments Kish? You can probably get the gist of it in reading a single article in 15-30 minutes or so. They're eliminative arguments at their core. Peacemaker's summation is more aggressive and sounds like a second-hand confidence from thinking those arguments are persuasive. They argue that the best explanation for early Christina disciples' ministry is a genuine belief that Jesus was resurrected, which itself is best explained by that actually having happened. A lot of effort in demonstrating this goes into attacking alternative explanations as sufficient.

[_Kishkumen]

To be honest, I ran out of interesting things to say around 2010, which is why I hardly post anymore.

My original intent in joining this thread was to smuggle in my 30-page critique of Book of Mormon historicity, some of which I thought was quite solid. I didn't expect to end up defending the modest observation that a historical Book of Mormon is not impossible if one makes sufficient allowance for the miraculous. I was suprised it drew such a strong response.

Anyway, back to lurking.

I look forward to reading your critique, Nevo. I agree that there is a sliver of a chance that anything could happen. Sure. But is it not also the case that that small probability goes down as the problems with a claim begin to pile up?

In any case, it is good to see you, sir. I hope you do pop in more often. I miss having you around in the conversation.

[_Themis]

I didn't expect to end up defending the modest observation that a historical Book of Mormon is not impossible if one makes sufficient allowance for the miraculous.

Perhaps because you didn't understand that miraculous was never the problem for believing members who have been able to conclude the Book of Mormon is clearly not historical. I never thought that a resurrected Jesus could not appear to people in the new world and give some of the same advice he gave in the old. The problem is the advice we see in the Bible is not going to be accurate of what Jesus really said for various reasons, and should certainly not appear almost the exact same in a claimed translation of record written in the new world. These kind of problems are all over the Book of Mormon that are not explained just by the miraculous, but need A kind of God very different then the one you see in the new testament and LDS theology.

[_Gadianton]

While it’s true that if Jesus is Christ, it raises the possibility of the Book of Mormon being true in some way, in my mind, against the otherwise absurd possibility of it being historical on scientific grounds; that runs against the BoMs own mission statement, which is to independently confirm the reality of Christ. And so it’s paradoxical: if the reality of Christ is the best reason to accept a book Christ himself says was written to convince people of his reality, then the words Christ spoke are suspect and the Book is suspect.

But I do agree in the real world, people accept the Book of Mormon because they first accepted the Bible, in the same way that the various sealed portion attempts are only accepted by people who first believed the Book of Mormon.