A Challenge to Smoot & Rappleye

[_Gadianton]

Oh, by the way, I've seen similar strategies in debates over UFOs. a UFOlogist will gladly scrap 99.9% of all UFO sightings as junk if the skeptic is willing to take the .1 as serious evidence.

[Guest]

Oh, by the way, I've seen similar strategies in debates over UFOs. a UFOlogist will gladly scrap 99.9% of all UFO sightings as junk if the skeptic is willing to take the .1 as serious evidence.

But what we are talking about here, in my humble view, is rhetorical strategy. It is the weakness of our ability to judge accurately and objectively that makes us susceptible to such bogus ploys. Sure, I may be concerned that others will be duped, and it is against my interest that people en masse are duped in certain ways, but the degree to which a person falls for such tricks is a reflection of their intellectual mettle, not the validity of the position in question.

Of course, there are many reasons people choose to believe or to affiliate with a religious group. I don't literally buy into almost any of the claims of Christianity or Mormonism, but I identify as a Mormon (albeit non-LDS). What I don't understand is the need to argue in defense of propositions that are, on their face, extremely improbable.

[_Lemmie]

I don't get the impression that these young Mopologists really care one way or the other about the quality of the evidence per se; whether NHM is on the same level of believability as that film of Bigfoot loping through the woods seems like it would be irrelevant to them. Instead, this seems strictly rhetorical: it's just about getting the critics to say, "Hey, yeah--okay. This is 'evidence.'" From there, they can always revert back and say, "Well, guess what? Critics have already conceded that NHM is 'evidence.'" NHM may very well be the worst evidence that anyone has ever dreamed up in favor of the Book of Mormon, but they don't seem to care. The important point here, per Smoot, is simply that critics acknowledge it *as* evidence.

I would have to agree with this assessment regarding the quality of the evidence. I've been following the discussion of the NHM video on Rappleye's blog and between Smoot, Rappleye, James Cutler, transcript excerpts from the video, and now Warren Aston himself, sometimes they don't even seem to be talking about the same thing. For example, I looked it up and Warren's article dates the tribe to something like 900-800 BC and notes the altars were found a distance from the tribal location, while the video (supposedly based on Warren's article) says its the altars that are 800-900 BC, but that they were found in the Nehem tribal area, which is NOT in agreement with Warren. Rappleye tells Andrew that he trusts Vogel's dating of the altars at 800 BC, while Warren article records Vogel's date at less than 600 BC. I tried for a while to keep track, but it got so bewildering that I gave up, so from memory I'm not sure I'm getting all the differences correct; bottom line is--it was a surprise to see how vehemently they argued for these details when amongst themselves, across the video, articles, and blog entries they weren't in agreement at all.

So I agree, Doctor Scratch, generalized believability-even at the expense of quality and consistency- seems to be the goal for presenting their "evidence."

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In view of Dean Robber’s excellent recent thread on Smoot’s Mormon Interpreter article, I was wondering if anyone knows whether Smoot or Rappleye ever responded to Dr. Scratch’s challenge?

[_Kishkumen]

The best evidence that Joseph Smith was a charlatan is his activity as a treasure seer. You start with the knowledge that he was running this con, and it doesn’t take a genius to see that the church he started was an extension of his disreputable career. Think of it: the book that started the whole thing allegedly came from just one more of his non-existent treasures.

I tend not to view the whole thing quite that negatively, but it is humorous to think that people trusted the guy who was taking money to find pirate treasure in western New York State by looking in a stone.

[_Dr Exiled]

Yes, the extremely weak foundation of seer stones and necromancy cause J.S.'s enterprise to fail. It's easy to see once one allows oneself to doubt the group.

[_Shulem]

I tend not to view the whole thing quite that negatively, but it is humorous to think that people trusted the guy who was taking money to find pirate treasure in western New York State by looking in a stone.

Trust went out the window when the Kirtland bank notes went sour. Haft of the Twelve left the church and Smith couldn't show his face in Kirtland lest he be shot. The Kirtland apostasy was actually the Kirtland awakening. I think we may be facing an awakening in our day with Nelson as he continues to lead the church into confusion by throwing Hinckley and Monson under the bus the first chance he got. Nelson was waiting in the wings, ready to make his move first chance he got.

[_moksha]

Was the NHM inscription on the altar in the Temple of Sheba evidence that it might represent the name Nahom, if the right missing vowels were added and if NHM represented a place name? Those lacking determinations seem like a precursor step for corroborating the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Bumping for Smoot or Rappleye.

[_moksha]

The upheaval at the death of Christ change the entire face of the land.

Good point. After the westernmost lands fell into the sea, all that was left was Middle Earth. Fortunately, many clues as to its past glory could be found in rock outcroppings and mountainsides for those with the inspiration and fortitude to connect the dots.