A Challenge to Smoot & Rappleye

[Guest]

Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin once bandied around the idea of penning an article entitled, "Bill & Dan's Adventures in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell" (or something like that). The premise was that some anti-Mormon arguments were so bothersome and annoying that they never seemed to die--you know, just like zombies. For those who have been following recent threads, might we ask: is "Nahom" this flip side of this? Maybe so. Maybe so. Like others, I've been intrigued by the "Young Mopologists'" recent efforts to resuscitate the Nahom argument. But I was struck by this comment from Smoot:

""Nahom is evidence but it's not convincing enough for me."

That's fine. It's just so bewildering to me how many people are so dogmatically committed to a sort of Total War against the Book of Mormon that they refuse to acknowledge ANY sort of evidence on its behalf.

This has come up before in this debate--including the one between Hamblin and Jenkins--i.e., the idea that Book of Mormon critics won't acknowledge *any* evidence. The Mopologists want to insist that critics should concede that something--regardless of how far-fetched it is, regardless of how unbelievable or unpersuasive--should still be labeled "evidence." That seems to be Smoot's point.

Thus, I hereby issue a challenge: Which arguments against Mormonism count as "evidence"? Even if Smoot and Rappleye consider that "evidence" to be unpersuasive? Is the flawed Book of Abraham translation "evidence" that the Church is fraudulent? What about the Kinderhook Plates? Or the lack of empirical, historical data in MesoAmerica? All of that is "evidence" as well, right, showing that the Church is false--even if they don't find it convincing? Is View of the Hebrews evidence that the Book of Mormon was made-up, even if the apologists aren't convinced by the claims?

I challenge Smoot and Rappleye to acknowledge which critical arguments contain legitimate "evidence" that the Church is a fraud, even if they don't think the "evidence" is persuasive. Failure to do this on their part will highlight what really has to be seen as some pretty extraordinary hypocrisy on their part.

[_cinepro]

This has come up before in this debate--including the one between Hamblin and Jenkins--i.e., the idea that Book of Mormon critics won't acknowledge *any* evidence. The Mopologists want to insist that critics should concede that something--regardless of how far-fetched it is, regardless of how unbelievable or unpersuasive--should still be labeled "evidence." That seems to be Smoot's point.

Thus, I hereby issue a challenge: Which arguments against Mormonism count as "evidence"? Even if Smoot and Rappleye consider that "evidence" to be unpersuasive? Is the flawed Book of Abraham translation "evidence" that the Church is fraudulent" What about the Kinderhook Plates? Or the lack of empirical, historical date in MesoAmerica? All of that is "evidence" as well, right, showing that the Church is false--even if they don't find is convincing? Is View of the Hebrews evidence that the Book of Mormon was made-up, even if the apologists aren't convinced by the claims?

I challenge Smoot and Rappleye to acknowledge which critical arguments which contain legitimate "evidence" that the Church is a fraud, even if they don't think the "evidence" is persuasive. Failure to do this on their part will highlight was really has to be seen as some pretty extraordinary hypocrisy on their part.

for what it's worth, I attended a study group/ fireside where Bushman was speaking shortly after RSR came out, and during the Q&A someone asked him what he thought the biggest problem was for Joseph Smith, and Bushman quickly said "The Book of Abraham." The person tried to suggest that maybe polygamy was the biggest problem, but Bushman just said "Nope, it's the Book of Abraham."

If you're looking for that kind of frankness from Smoot and Rappleye, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[_EAllusion]

This is a favorite argument of Dr. Peterson's. I think it comes down to what a person means when the talk about evidence. Unfortunately, it gets into the weeds of what it means for something to constitute evidence.

A very quick and dirty version is that if you think evidence is inherently comparative - that some observation S can only be said to be evidence of P if P is a best fit for S among the options, then it is really hard to see much of anything as evidence for the Book of Mormon's historicity because that theory is a terrible fit for the available evidence when considered holistically. NHM isn't evidence of the Book of Mormon in this sense because the best explanation of NHM isn't that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document. If, on the other hand, you think of evidence is an observation that makes a theory more likely to be true than if that observation wasn't the case - that S is evidence of P if P is more probable given S, then lots of things can be said to be evidence of the Book of Mormon. That Smith said the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is evidence of the Book of Mormon in that sense. But then it becomes trivial to say that there is evidence of the Book of Mormon because this is true in the trivial sense that nearly any theory, no matter how absurd, can be said to have some evidence in its favor. The question turns on just how strong the evidence is.

I think what Smoot is after is something more like parity. He wants to be able to say that there is evidence for both sides, therefore opting to believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical document isn't irrational. However, "some evidence" in this weak sense doesn't get you across that river. I always think the best reply to this kind of argument is to simply say that there is evidence for the Book of Mormon just as there is evidence for aliens harvesting our precious life energy to build an intergalactic death ray. Then see how consistent they are with their demands that people admit there is evidence or if their definition of evidence starts shifting.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems to me that people confuse evidence and proof. For apologists, almost any evidence is reassuring that there is room to believe. The arguments for NHM are an excellent example of this. They rejoice at the possibility of this Smith "bullseye." Critics should be more accepting of the existence of evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Evidence, after all, is the material that supplies an argument. Objectivity is the willingness to weigh the evidence.

At the end of the day, one goes with the argument that has the preponderance of evidence in its favor. I don't see what it hurts critics to acknowledge the possibility of NHM being a bullseye, or some other bits. By strenuously objecting to the possibility of evidence, critics look irrational, as Smoot rightly observes. But the truth is that no one who judges the case of the Book of Mormon by a standard of the preponderance of evidence could conclude that it is genuinely ancient, because the evidences of imposture outweigh the evidence for authenticity too greatly.

Apologists basically say to those who believe on irrational grounds that their belief has some possibility of turning out to be true. That's all.

[_Kevin Graham]

It seems to me that people confuse evidence and proof. For apologists, almost any evidence is reassuring that there is room to believe. The arguments for NHM are an excellent example of this. They rejoice at the possibility of this Smith "bullseye." Critics should be more accepting of the existence of evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Evidence, after all, is the material that supplies an argument. Objectivity is the willingness to weigh the evidence.

At the end of the day, one goes with the argument that has the preponderance of evidence in its favor. I don't see what it hurts critics to acknowledge the possibility of NHM being a bullseye, or some other bits. By strenuously objecting to the possibility of evidence, critics look irrational, as Smoot rightly observes. But the truth is that no one who judges the case of the Book of Mormon by a standard of the preponderance of evidence could conclude that it is genuinely ancient, because the evidences of imposture outweigh the evidence for authenticity too greatly.

Apologists basically say to those who believe on irrational grounds that their belief has some possibility of turning out to be true. That's all.

Yeah, I remember making this point to David Bokovoy years ago. I went ahead and adopted his argument and took it to its logical end by saying, "Holy crap, the Book of Mormon mentions Jesus. And the Bible mentions Jesus. The Bible is an ancient Book, therefore the Book of Mormon is an ancient book!" I gave a list of like 20 of these examples to prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient book.

"Holy crap, the Book of Mormon mentions the Holy Ghost. And the Bible mentions the Holy Ghost. The Bible is an ancient Book, therefore the Book of Mormon is an ancient book!"

etc etc

The point was to make these apologists understand that some parallels have more obvious explanations than just "it must be ancient too" argument.

[_Gadianton]

the idea that Book of Mormon critics won't acknowledge *any* evidence.

Good questions and some good answers already.

Is Richard Hoagland's face on mars evidence of a thriving, or once thriving, Martian civilization, even if it's not conclusive proof?

The problem with even trying to answer the question is that when a theory is so preposterous or fringe, that there is a disturbing leverage effect. A tiny bit of pressure against the really long handle of a wrench can loosen the tightest bolt, or snap the head off or strip it. The weirder the theory, the longer the handle.

[_sock puppet]

Does NHM make the claim of Book of Mormon authenticity more likely, even a smidgen more likely than if there was no NHM?

As potential evidence, is NHM more likely discarded as mere coincidence? Particularly given the lack of corroboration?

Decades ago, when I was a TBM and a full-time missionary at that, it was popular among Mormons, including leaders, to explain the value of corroboration. The Book of Mormon itself was corroborative, so the claim went, of the divine mission of Jesus as already told in the Bible. That was a key pitch to other Christians to join the LDS church.

Yet NHM as "evidence" for the Book of Mormon stands alone, an uncorroborated solitaire in a vast void that should be littered with relics.

I find more curious that these 'faith' peddlers were so giddy upon learning of and remain so protective of their precious, their NHM. While feigning dismissals of the need for evidence or leveling criticisms that apostates like me for giving so much credence to evidence, the apologists betray themselves in that regard by their obvious logical need to anchor their beliefs with some shred of 'evidence'.

[_RockSlider]

The average member will quickly acknowledge that the smart ones have found yet another bull's eye, keep up the good work! Their personal rock solid evidence is in that one powerful spiritual experience they had way back when.

Thus Smoot has a win with the Chapel Mormon (all these years later how could there possibly still be Chapel Mormons?) and it irritates the hell out of the critic. Win Win!

[_Nightlion]

The average member will quickly acknowledge that the smart ones have found yet another bull's eye, keep up the good work! Their personal rock solid evidence is in that one powerful spiritual experience they had way back when.

Thus Smoot has a win with the Chapel Mormon (all these years later how could there possibly still be Chapel Mormons?) and it irritates the hell out of the critic. Win Win!

The ridiculousness of apologist attempts to make the Book of Mormon secular fights against God. The Book of Mormon speaks of enchantments that trucked away trinkets. The volcanos, mud slides and jungles of South America have cumbered the ground, not to mention the sheer danger of exploration where drug kings rule. The upheaval at the death of Christ change the entire face of the land. The people lived a Zion afterwards and probably never built much anyways. Meso America is not Book of Mormon lands. Neither is the heartland, except Hagothites could be anywhere North of South America.

You receive no witness until AFTER the trial of your faith. The Mormons of every stripe have yet to bring forth the faith that the Book of Mormon commands. Why should God unlock the secular vindication? That would defeat the efficacy of his purpose.

Forsake the world is the test of this world. Craving the winning of academia is NOT forsaking the world. Stupid Mormons.

Want to prove the Book of Mormon? Become the Zion of our God and of his Christ. The nations will stand back and quiver in fear.
The LDS in particular are fully enamored with the praise of the world. They shove it down the throats of their children with abandon.
Zion will never arise from such a perverse abomination. Carnal proofs of the Book of Mormon would only compound the difficulty of the purposes of the Lord.

The Apocalrock is sufficient for the day unto the evil thereof.

[_Shulem]

Thus, I hereby issue a challenge: Which arguments against Mormonism count as "evidence"? Even if Smoot and Rappleye consider that "evidence" to be unpersuasive? Is the flawed Book of Abraham translation "evidence" that the Church is fraudulent?

I'd like to see Smoot's Egyptology, evidence proving the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are correct as published in the Times & Seasons. Just a single morsel of evidence would be interesting. But not the nonsense that men may have dressed up as women in ancient times to justify the mixing up of the sexes! Give me real evidence, anything, even if it's just a crumb.

Can Smoot do that? Can Smoot step up to the plate and be a real Egyptologist? I don't want faith! I don't want what ifs or silly excuses. I want real evidence.