Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Greg Trimble's 11 Book of Mormon evidences
If you have Mormon friends on social media, chances are you've been presented with links to some pretty interesting Mormon logic. One post I've recently seen from a popular blog makes the case for The Book of Mormon in 11 poorly thought out proofs. The proofs are stated as questions and are the typical examples offered by general authorities of why The Book of Mormon is true which means they're the kinds of things you can say in church meetings to make yourself feel important and everyone else feel comfortable, but predictably they are not very convincing.
Here are the eleven questions that will prove the authenticity of The Book of Mormon and my brief responses.
1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?
Answer: Yes, absolutely. Please open your copy of the book to essentially any page that isn't copied almost verbatim from the King James Bible (that might be harder than it sounds). Now tell me how many verses you have to read before you find one that sounds like an uneducated young man (calling someone in his early 20s a "boy" is condescending and inaccurate) er-ing and um-ing a dictation from his head. Not many. Joseph Smith loaded his book so full of place keepers, redundancies, filler and slip ups that I'm amazed when I make it through a single verse without feeling the need to edit.
Keep in mind that this is how it reads even after the Church's editing of all the more egregious frontier farmer speech.
2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?
Answer: Easily. He read the Bible a lot. He, like every other human being who reads, would absorb and reproduce the style of what he reads to some degree. As for chiasmus, it's an extremely common organizational tool that certainly appears in Jewish literature but is not in any way limited to it. I made a chiasmus on accident once, others are more carefully thought out. You can find chiasmus in children's literature as easily as you find it in adult literature from all over the world, European literature included. This just came to mind, maybe Jews wrote it:
(A) Hickory dickory dock!
(B)/(C) The mouse went up the clock.
(C) The clock struck one,
(B) The mouse ran down.
(A) Hickory dickory dock!
And quit insisting Joseph was a "boy" when he wrote The Book of Mormon; he was a married man.
3. How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.
Answer: The "knowledge" about the Middle East found in the Book of Mormon could have been derived from having been shown a map. What do you think has been discovered there after the printing of The Book of Mormon that was included in the text? The "NHM" alter? Come on, give us what you've got. Everything apologists have thrown out there has been debunked.
4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?
Answer: He read the Bible a lot. He reused many of those names, modifying them as he saw fit. It wouldn't be hard to throw in a few more made up names that look similar to what's found in the Bible.
5. If you think Joseph Smith couldn’t have written this book, then where did it come from? If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.
Answer: Only a moron would say the devil wrote or inspired the writing of The Book of Mormon. It's origins are clearly early 19th century publications and popular thought.
6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?
Answer: The "Gentiles", in other words, the non-Jews.
7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
Answer: No one has a monopoly on stupidity, ethnocentrism and wishful thinking. The one book you linked us to is very revealing about yourself as a thinker.
8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?
Answer: This is a misinterpretation of the Bible.
9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
Answer: People do and say all sorts of things for friendship, family and their reputation. Historian Dan Vogel has some presented some important information for you to consider.
10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.
Answer: The Book of Mormon is relatively straight forward in its narrative. It basically just tells the same story over and over again. The repetition is numbing, not profound. Despite the simplicity of the repeated narrative, contradictions and errors have in fact been found (you just have to be brave enough to read something other than LDS apologetic literature). It also contradicts known archealogy, natural history, and the history of religious and political thought; it contradicts other Mormon scripture; it contradicts current LDS beliefs (e.g. temporary suffering in hell vs. eternal suffering and the nature of the Godhead).
Even though The Book of Mormon isn't horribly riddled with internal contradictions, why does that somehow make it true? Many authors manage to avoid totally screwing up their stories, does that mean their books are true? Absolutely not.
11. How do I feel while I read the Book of Mormon? Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t trust your feelings. We are spiritual beings, and if we can’t trust our feelings, then what do we have? Over and over again in the Old and New Testament we’re told that we can trust that “still small voice” to guide us in our decisions. (1 Kings 19:12) I can write evidence after evidence to back up the Book of Mormon but each of those evidences I found were only secondary to the whispering of the Spirit I felt that day before I began waxing up my surf board.
Answer: Epistemology is a tricky thing. You're insisting that emotions are all we have. That's an unfortunate move on your part because we have a lot more than that: we have other senses to work with and we have logic. But if you're going to insist on feelings let's look at your feelings. Let's say you wake up from a dream about your wife cheating on you and you feel hurt and angry. You can't look at her the same for weeks. Did she really cheat on you? Are your feelings reliable? And what about others' feelings? Why do you seem so willing to disregard anyone's feelings and impressions that don't align with your own? What makes you think yours are the only true ones when members of essentially every other religion will use the same evidence as proof of their religion being true?
P.S. I wrote this blog immediately after reading the questions. The answers were too easy. I then went back to the blog to read the comments and saw that several people had written their responses as well. Several were similar to my own but I definitely encourage others to read through them.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Persauding men to do good
Even though there is zero evidence for the veracity of The Book of Mormon, could it still be true?
"To those in the last days who might reject the Book of Mormon, God through Moroni warns that they shall be 'accursed' (4:8). Conversely, anyone who wants to know the truth of the book is promised that 'because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leaded men to all good' (4:11-12). In other words, since all good comes from God, and the Book of Mormon tries to persuade humankind to be righteous, it follows that the Book of Mormon is true, independent of its historicity. This statement, together with a similar one in Moroni 7, provides a glimpse into Smith's psyche, particularly the manner by which he might rationalized the use of deception. Although he felt inspired as he dictated the text, he would have known that there weren't any gold plates, and hence, no Nephites and no Jaredites. Still, he was dictating spiritual truths despite the absence of historical authenticity." Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, pg. 348
Friday, August 29, 2014
Quick Guide to Continued Belief
"[T]hose who have been led by the Letter to a CES Director to abandon their faith, should, in my view, reconsider those Mormon claims and the abundant historical support that’s available for them. They simply haven’t studied enough." -Daniel C. Peterson, fairmormon.org.
Mormonism: a gospel "so simple even a child could understand" but so nuanced only a person with the equivalent of a PhD of study of church history could actually convince themselves was true. But what do I know? I'm just another apostate.
P.S. If you're not following Just Another Apostate on Facebook, you probably should.
Labels:
apologetics,
apostates,
atheism,
atheist,
children,
Daniel Peterson,
evidence,
exmormon,
Facebook,
FAIR,
Gospel of Jesus Christ,
history,
justanotherapostate,
logic,
Mormons,
research,
study,
testimony
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Heavenly fatherliness #26 - Tolerating mistakes
According to popular wisdom, a good father allows his kids to make some mistakes, however, he makes it clear that repeated irresponsibility won't be tolerated.
Mormon beliefs about Heavenly Father's tolerance of sin suggest a fairly benevolent god, who will forgive us as often as we repent. Of course, if you don't repent you'll be eternally damned, so it's hard to maintain that the Father is entirely benevolent. His approach is "I forgive you only if you're sorry," and yet he asks us to forgive all regardless of whether or not they ask for that forgiveness.
"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10)
That's called a double standard.
We should also keep in mind that proof of God's forgiveness or of his eternal rage are impossible to find here and now. We have to wait until we die to see how it all plays out. For the time being the Father of the Universe is showing no limits whatsoever as to what behavior he will tolerate.
*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.
Mormon beliefs about Heavenly Father's tolerance of sin suggest a fairly benevolent god, who will forgive us as often as we repent. Of course, if you don't repent you'll be eternally damned, so it's hard to maintain that the Father is entirely benevolent. His approach is "I forgive you only if you're sorry," and yet he asks us to forgive all regardless of whether or not they ask for that forgiveness.
"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10)
That's called a double standard.
We should also keep in mind that proof of God's forgiveness or of his eternal rage are impossible to find here and now. We have to wait until we die to see how it all plays out. For the time being the Father of the Universe is showing no limits whatsoever as to what behavior he will tolerate.
*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.
Labels:
anarchy,
benevolence,
commandments,
confusing,
damnation,
Doctrine & Covenants,
evidence,
Final Judgment,
forgiveness,
God,
Heavenly Father,
proof,
repentance,
sin,
standards,
tolerance
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Heavenly fatherliness #24 - Rewards
According to popular wisdom, a good father does not reward his children for actions that are expected of them, such as helping with chores or performing well in school.
Does this mean that Heavenly Father should not reward us for doing his will and obeying his commandments because that's exactly what he expects of us? Does that mean that offering an eternal reward is a mistake? It looks like God's really missing the boat on this one.
Then again, if we look at the real world, it's impossible to know if we're being disciplined or rewarded at all, so much so that the very existence of earthly and heavenly rewards is debatable. We have to rely on faith.
Maybe God's doing okay after all.
*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.
Does this mean that Heavenly Father should not reward us for doing his will and obeying his commandments because that's exactly what he expects of us? Does that mean that offering an eternal reward is a mistake? It looks like God's really missing the boat on this one.
Then again, if we look at the real world, it's impossible to know if we're being disciplined or rewarded at all, so much so that the very existence of earthly and heavenly rewards is debatable. We have to rely on faith.
Maybe God's doing okay after all.
*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.
Labels:
Celestial Kingdom,
chores,
commandments,
compensation,
discipline,
evidence,
faith,
God,
God's children,
Heaven,
Heavenly Father,
mystery,
obedience,
proof,
punishment,
reward,
skepticism
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Nephite ward lists
To all of you out there who are struggling with the recent excommunication news, let me just say, PEACE! BE STILL! This is all part of God's plan for his church. We read in The Book of Mormon that excommunication is a divinely inspired practice that brings order. It can be very hard for the faithful, it's true, but we've got to be strong. No slipping up! Heaven forbid you lapse into apostasy too!
Now if only we could find some of these Nephite lists of believers. Wouldn't it be great to see if Nephites blotted out the names of the unrepentant completely or if they just earmarked them in their database as excommunicated so they could more easily reinstate those lost sheep once they returned like we do today? I mean the Church totally has it figured out now! Don't delete anybody! Keep them all signed up! Just hide the names of excommunicated members until they return to the fold! It might not be honest, but you have to agree it's generous and loving.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Frances (Fanny) W. Alger (Smith?) Custer - wife #2
In 1833, at the age of sixteen, Fanny Alger found herself living with Joseph and Emma as a sort of adopted daughter. Both Joseph and Emma were extremely fond of her, but Joseph loved her as more than a daughter.
Oliver Cowdery and Emma eventually discovered that Joseph's affection for Fanny had become physical and both made their complaints. Emma kicked Fanny out and Oliver accused Joseph of having an affair. Joseph never denied the sexual nature of his relationship with Fanny and insisted that Oliver acknowledge that he (Joseph) refused to call it an affair.
The first time hurts the worst, Emma. You'll get used to it.
Despite no extant evidence, apologists tend to frame the Fanny-Joseph tryst as marriage - A MARRIAGE WITH NO KNOWN OFFICIATOR AND NO WITNESSES. Sounds legit, right? Maybe Jesus himself officiated, or King David, or maybe Solomon (biblical dudes were always visiting Joseph when he needed them.) And yet Emma wasn't so convinced it was a marriage. I wonder why? The LDS Church didn't feel like including Fanny in Joseph's family tree either.
Isn't it a bit strange that Joseph was (kind of) living polygamy in 1833 when no revelation of restoration had been introduced and wouldn't be for several more years? The sealing power wouldn't even be restored until April 1836. Joseph was way ahead of the curve on this one! A better explanation for this whole mess is that Fanny was a tool of Satan sent to tempt Joseph and destroy God's budding church, but, as will always be the case, Satan's plan failed!
Five years later Fanny married Solomon Custer, with whom she had nine children. Unlike her parents, who eventually ended up in Utah, she eventually left Mormonism and joined her local Universalist congregation.
Members of the LDS Church generally know nothing about Fanny and if they do they tend not to bring her up. We're still waiting for the Church to address Joseph's polygamy in their recent series of essays on difficult historical matters.
Here's the Feminist Mormon Housewives podcast episode about her.
Labels:
adoption,
affection,
David,
Emma Smith,
evidence,
family,
Fanny Alger,
Joseph Smith,
marriage,
Oliver Cowdery,
polygamy,
restoration,
Satan,
secret,
sex,
sin,
Solomon,
wife
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Tribal hunting
Mormons believe in
the "literal gathering of Israel ... and in the
restoration of the Ten Tribes," according to the tenth Article of Faith.
The gathering and restoration project has to happen because in the 8th century BCE Assyria invaded Israel and carried off most of the Israelites. Amazingly enough, the Assyrians pretty much managed to capture every member of all of the tribes living in the Northern Kingdom: Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun. Members of Levi who were residing in the Northern Kingdom were also carried away, but other Levites were hanging out with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the Kingdom of Judah. Their separation is obviously a very bad thing and needs to be fixed.
This makes for a very exciting game of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?, but with Israelite tribes instead of Carmen.
Back when Joseph Smith wrote the Articles of Faith, much of the world was still an unknown. The tribes could have been hiding anywhere. Many settlers of the American continents believed the tribes would be there, but there was no need to completely exclude the nooks and crannies of Africa, the far reaches of Asia, the Down Under, and the many isles of the sea. The search was on.
Mormons have sent missionaries to every region of the world and have found converts among all peoples, and all we've found are a bunch of Josephites (Ephraim and Manasseh). In fact, the vast majority of Mormons have been assigned to the tribe of Ephraim. It's a little discouraging. Especially when we can't even keep track of the other Josephites.
What's even more discouraging is that, even though many people claim to be the lost tribes, researchers who have sought out the Lost Tribes have found no trace of them anywhere. Where haven't we looked? How in the world can Israel hide from today's DNA analyses? It's like the whole Lost Tribe thing was just made up by some ignoramus in the 7th or 8th century CE. But don't lose hope. They'll show up some day soon!
The gathering and restoration project has to happen because in the 8th century BCE Assyria invaded Israel and carried off most of the Israelites. Amazingly enough, the Assyrians pretty much managed to capture every member of all of the tribes living in the Northern Kingdom: Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun. Members of Levi who were residing in the Northern Kingdom were also carried away, but other Levites were hanging out with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the Kingdom of Judah. Their separation is obviously a very bad thing and needs to be fixed.
This makes for a very exciting game of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?, but with Israelite tribes instead of Carmen.
Back when Joseph Smith wrote the Articles of Faith, much of the world was still an unknown. The tribes could have been hiding anywhere. Many settlers of the American continents believed the tribes would be there, but there was no need to completely exclude the nooks and crannies of Africa, the far reaches of Asia, the Down Under, and the many isles of the sea. The search was on.
Mormons have sent missionaries to every region of the world and have found converts among all peoples, and all we've found are a bunch of Josephites (Ephraim and Manasseh). In fact, the vast majority of Mormons have been assigned to the tribe of Ephraim. It's a little discouraging. Especially when we can't even keep track of the other Josephites.
What's even more discouraging is that, even though many people claim to be the lost tribes, researchers who have sought out the Lost Tribes have found no trace of them anywhere. Where haven't we looked? How in the world can Israel hide from today's DNA analyses? It's like the whole Lost Tribe thing was just made up by some ignoramus in the 7th or 8th century CE. But don't lose hope. They'll show up some day soon!
Labels:
Articles of Faith,
Book of Mormon,
DNA,
evidence,
Ezekiel,
faith,
Israel,
Jews,
Joseph Smith,
Judah,
Lamanites,
Lost Tribes,
mystery,
Stick of Jospeh,
Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Book of Mormon - absence of linguistic evidence
It gets worse, people. There's no linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon either. That merely causes doubt until you learn that there are plenty of reasons to believe Joseph Smith just made this shit up.
I was only able to doubt my linguistic doubts until I took a class at BYU on historical linguistics, at which point I had to start trusting the experts.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Book of Mormon - absence of archeological evidence
People, there is zero physical evidence for The Book of Mormon. Not a chariot, no temple fashioned after Solomon's, no weapons as described in the text, no DNA. Nothing whatsoever. We're going off a dream here and that fact had better make you doubt more than a little.
Bad news, folks, this is not Lehi's dream.
I doubted the absence of evidence proving the historicity of The Book of Mormon my whole life. It just had to be out there. We totally have Lehi's dream about the Tree of Life, for crying out loud! And I remember seeing a video of a BYU professor down in South American standing in a baptismal font! And let's not forget that tour package that will take you to the Waters of Mormon in Guatemala... The Book of Mormon just has to be true. It has to be!
Labels:
artifacts,
Book of Mormon,
BYU,
Central America,
chariots,
DNA,
doubts,
evidence,
historical records,
history,
Joseph Smith,
LDS Church,
Lehi's dream,
South America,
temple,
tourism,
Waters of Mormon,
weapons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)