? for scottie

[_beastie]

Scottie,

You've repeatedly said there is evidence for the Book of Mormon. I can't remember if we've discussed the details of this assertion. What do you consider evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

[_Scottie]

NHM, Bountiful, Chaimus, etc.

Basically stuff on Jeff Lindsey's web site.

Now, I should clarify that these aren't great evidences, and compared to the mountains of evidences against the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, it painfully obvious that it is false.

But it is intellectually dishonest to state that there are NO evidences for the Book of Mormon.

[_beastie]

So even if the "evidence" has a totally natural explanation you think it should count as evidence?

In regards to the Mesoamerican side of the equation, you have to be very careful with Lindsay's site. Some of his assertions are just plain wrong or misleading. For a long time he had up as "evidence" a metallurgy site that was discovered several years ago, without bothering to mention it was dated long past the Book of Mormon time period (1200 AD, If I recall correctly).

Bountiful is probably the "best" very weak evidence they have. I remember first reading that in my of my books and chuckling to myself as I imagined the heightened significance believers would give it. I later did see a discussion of it on MAD, and poulsenII was honest enough to admit:

The location of this Bountiful would have been near the city of Nephi-Lehi rather than north of the Land of Zarahemla. This does not discount a possible connection with the Book of Mormon. The Lehites had a custom of naming areas where they settled with the name Bountiful as noted in their travels in Arabia. This would have been near or in the area occupied by the Nephites who returned to the land of their inheritance in the Land of Nephi-Lehi. It is the same area that Nephi and "those who would go with him" called their new land of Inheritance after they lost the area of Lehi's first inheritance due to the iniquity of the majoity who sided with Laman and Lemuel. As I said previously, new cultures who take over an area previously occupied by an older culture, as did the Quiche(see the Popul Vuh), will gloss the names of local features into their own language.

I would give it a low priority if it were not for the finding of such a low incidence of its use outside the Mormon community. Even so, it would be difficult to assess any large amount of significance because it is not located in the same area as the Land Bountiful as described by Mormon in Alma 22:29

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... iful&st=60

There is just a point at which evidence is so weak that it seems misleading to even call it "evidence". For example, the fact that ancient Mesoamericans engaged in a lot of warfare, and they did in the Book of Mormon, too, doesn't deserve to be called "evidence".


How about if critics assert "there is no solid evidence for the Book of Mormon" - would you argue with that?

[_CaliforniaKid]

how about if...and conditionals?

[_beastie]

how about if...and conditionals?

Is that a plug for my website? ;)

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do you discuss "if...and" conditionals on your website?

[_beastie]

Close. My entire website is built around the "if... then" analysis.

[_Scottie]

So even if the "evidence" has a totally natural explanation you think it should count as evidence?

Like what?

Chiasmus could very well, and most likely did have a natural explanation. Perhaps that was simply the way Joseph Smith wrote. However, you still have to weigh it as an evidence.

Alma as a mans name is also another evidence with a more than likely natural explanation. Joseph Smith used 4 letter that fit together well as a name. Yet the apologists love to trumpet that this is a bullseye for the Book of Mormon. I guess I would say this barely even registers on my evidence radar.

If you are sincerely trying to figure out if the Book of Mormon is true, you have to give equal consideration to each and every evidence. As someone that has already made their mind up, it's difficult to look objectively at these and give them proper weight. You have already concluded that there is an alternate explanation.

In regards to the Mesoamerican side of the equation, you have to be very careful with Lindsay's site. Some of his assertions are just plain wrong or misleading. For a long time he had up as "evidence" a metallurgy site that was discovered several years ago, without bothering to mention it was dated long past the Book of Mormon time period (1200 AD, If I recall correctly).

Yeah, I don't see every evidence listed there as an actual evidence.

There is just a point at which evidence is so weak that it seems misleading to even call it "evidence". For example, the fact that ancient Mesoamericans engaged in a lot of warfare, and they did in the Book of Mormon, too, doesn't deserve to be called "evidence".

I can agree with this. A lot of the "evidences" are simply contrived hopes of evidence. Consigliari is especially good at finding evidences that aren't there.

How about if critics assert "there is no solid evidence for the Book of Mormon" - would you argue with that?

Yes, I would agree with this. I believe all the evidences for the Book of Mormon are flimsy at best. And the evidences against, in my opinion, are pretty damned solid.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Does Old World evidence really matter such as NHM? That Jews existed in the Middle East isn't in doubt, but Jews of any name existing in the New World is the main problem with the Book of Mormon in my mind.

[_Scottie]

Does Old World evidence really matter such as NHM? That Jews existed in the Middle East isn't in doubt, but Jews of any name existing in the New World is the main problem with the Book of Mormon in my mind.

Well, to some people it does, to others, no.

This is why I say that the mountains of evidence against the Book of Mormon certainly screams that it is false. But, you can't just claim there is ZERO evidence for the Book of Mormon. There is. Weak as it may be, it does exist.