Jason Troyer and Jo Scott Expose the Contradiction Between DNA and the Book of Mormon

[Mustard Seed]

Cry all you want mustard, but archaeology just isnt on your side.

Not crying nor claiming it's on my side, simply demonstrating that it's not against me. My faith claims are as plausible or more so than yours are.

I'd be curious to see Phy's response to the NHM find.

 

[Toast]

Not crying nor claiming it's on my side, simply demonstrating that it's not against me. My faith claims are as plausible or more so than yours are.

Hah, you wish. Ya know mustard, its not too late to convert and believe in the true religion.

 

[Mustard Seed]

You're right. When are you going to do it?

 

[ThePhy]

The Phy's back!

Never really gone. Just don’t see much mileage in trying to convince a fence post. But once in a while, I might contribute an idea.

The above is an interesting play with words.

Wrong. A play on words is an attempt to carefully phrase the language to convey what is really a false notion. I have no such intention, and in fact I think that “play on words” is endemic in Mormon apologetics.

You get the technicalities right. Your implication that God was the translator is wrong. His help was employed, certainly, but it was Joseph Smith, a human who, though he was a prophet, was not perfect and for whom God was likely using the processes and powers given for his capacity to translate to do more than merely get Joseph to translate. Using your logic and extending it further there'd be no need for God to even have Joseph involved at all. If God's sole and ultimate purpose was to have the book translated as perfectly as possible he wouldn't logically have gone through a fallen human to get it there.

You occasionally link to old LDS threads where these subjects have been hashed at length. Within one or more of those old threads is the description (from several independent observers) of how Joseph translated by burying his face in a felt hat and then by the power of a “seerstone” in the dark interior of the hat he saw the translated words. Were those contemporaries who saw the process uniformly dishonest in their accounts of how the translation happened?

And, are you unaware of several claims as to the accuracy of the Book of Mormon that have been uttered from the lips of the LDS prophets who followed in Joseph’s calling?

The explanation given in the articles and links I provided do not preclude wheeled chariots. In fact at least one of them mentions the existance of wheels on toys and in pottery fabrication. Simply because we haven't found a specific wheel that was used in that time period doesn't mean they didn't exist. If we held that you had to find actual remnants of something for it to have existed then the whole claim of horses in the empire of the Huns would be undone for no archeological remnants of horses have yet to be found in a location and dated to a time congruent with the Hun empire.

I would not feel very comfortable if as an LDS defender I had to resort to “You didn’t do it either” type arguments.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Never really gone. Just don’t see much mileage in trying to convince a fence post.

Ahhh... Have you seen where I demonstrate your fence post accusation and following 'logic' as also labeling Isaac Asimov a fence post?

But once in a while, I might contribute an idea.

Gotta leave it open incase that 'fence post' ever gets too out of hand.

Wrong. A play on words is an attempt to carefully phrase the language to convey what is really a false notion. I have no such intention, and in fact I think that “play on words” is endemic in Mormon apologetics.

Whether a play on words is consciously or intentionally made is not relevant. If the presented phrases are pointing to implicit accusations that have basis in a false assumption then it's a play on words. Intention is not a requisit to defining something as a play on words. Alot of people use rhetorical devices to support their views without they themselves being aware the logical problems in either their statements or presentations. Their obliviousness to it's existance doesn't make it less a play on words.

You occasionally link to old LDS threads where these subjects have been hashed at length. Within one or more of those old threads is the description (from several independent observers) of how Joseph translated by burying his face in a felt hat and then by the power of a “seerstone” in the dark interior of the hat he saw the translated words. Were those contemporaries who saw the process uniformly dishonest in their accounts of how the translation happened?

Back on the 'honest' 'dishonest' thing again. Yet you've yet to give any specific definition of the terms beyond an appeal to the 'common' view.

You want to pick this up again why not return to the threads so the context of the whole thing is more readily available and tied?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12129&page=48&pp=15&highlight=honest+thephy


Here's my demonstration that your accusations of 'fence post' and 'dishonest' would condemn one of the most intelligent and articulate Atheists to have lived.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31414

And, are you unaware of several claims as to the accuracy of the Book of Mormon that have been uttered from the lips of the LDS prophets who followed in Joseph’s calling? I would not feel very comfortable if as an LDS defender I had to resort to “You didn’t do it either” type arguments.

The Book of Mormon was never set up as a perfect book, simply the most correct book on earth. But you're keen on the propogation of erroneous assumptions as demonstrated time and again in our interchanges.

 

[Toast]

Maybe you can humor me on this one too mustard. But doesnt it add to the crediblity of a book when you can make accurate archaeological predictions based on the history found in it? For the record, as far as I know, secular archaeologists use The Bible as a reference, and not the book of mormon. Now why might that be?

 

[ThePhy]

Whether a play on words is consciously or intentionally made is not relevant.

It most certainly is relevant. An intentional play on words that guides towards a deceptive conclusion is a form of dishonesty. You may not agree with my feelings on Mormonism, but I am not engaging in dishonesty.

Back on the 'honest' 'dishonest' thing again. Yet you've yet to give any specific definition of the terms beyond an appeal to the 'common' view.

I see you dodged answering my question. Let me ask it again, “…the description (from several independent observers) of how Joseph translated by burying his face in a felt hat and then by the power of a “seerstone” in the dark interior of the hat he saw the translated words. Were those contemporaries who saw the process uniformly dishonest in their accounts of how the translation happened?”

The Book of Mormon was never set up as a perfect book, simply the most correct book on earth. But you're keen on the propogation of erroneous assumptions as demonstrated time and again in our interchanges.

But you once again floated right over my very simple and direct question. I repeat: “And, are you unaware of several claims as to the accuracy of the Book of Mormon that have been uttered from the lips of the LDS prophets who followed in Joseph’s calling?”

 

[Mustard Seed]

Toast there's differences in context, if you'd read and paid attention to what's been said here you may have picked up on it. The civilizations described in the Bible have a tradition from which our current one is descended. With the Book of Mormon the remnants, language, culture were both rather snuffed out, overcome, and are very disconnected from todays cultural and societal tradition.

Look at the archeological finds needed to bring to light and confirm things in Biblical lands, if those managed to get lost when there was NO disconect in the western tradition that grew out of Babylon and remained in contact with the land then imagine what would happen to a branch of such that broke away long ago, established itself in a land unknown to the rest of the contemporary western tradition, then was irradicated and interacted with unknown numbers of other influences from who knows where, all this happening centuries before we even started any discovery of these lands or before an archeologist started on a dig in this hemisphere.

 

[Mustard Seed]

It most certainly is relevant. An intentional play on words that guides towards a deceptive conclusion is a form of dishonesty. You may not agree with my feelings on Mormonism, but I am not engaging in dishonesty.

I can't definatively say one way or the other. All I saw was a rhetorical device that misportrayed, intentionally or not, the reality of the situation. I happen to think highly of your intellectual prowess so I assumed you were more likely to be aware of what you were doing than not. I apologize if I thought you were both more intelligent and less honest than you are.

I see you dodged answering my question. Let me ask it again, “…the description (from several independent observers) of how Joseph translated by burying his face in a felt hat and then by the power of a “seerstone” in the dark interior of the hat he saw the translated words. Were those contemporaries who saw the process uniformly dishonest in their accounts of how the translation happened?” But you once again floated right over my very simple and direct question. I repeat: “And, are you unaware of several claims as to the accuracy of the Book of Mormon that have been uttered from the lips of the LDS prophets who followed in Joseph’s calling?”

I did not dodge it, I postponed a reply awaiting a more satisfactory definition of what does and doesn't constitute either honesty or dishonesty than you've been able to provide to this point.

I'm simply clarifying before answering something when you've yet give a firm tool of measurement (i.e. an exacting definition of either 'honesty' or 'dishonesty'). I need to clarify the terms of value judgement before I make a statement one way or the other.

 

[Toast]

Then its unfortunate for you mustard that you believe in a religion whose claims cannot be tested. I guess you believe it blindly.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Then its unfortunate for you mustard that you believe in a religion whose claims cannot be tested. I guess you believe it blindly.

They can be tested, the empirical quantifiable tests are simply in the category shared by the likes of Superstring Theory, namely the timeframe of either is yet to be conclusively defined or itself demonstrable.

I'm curious what proof text the Toast uses for proof of his 'Christian' 'faith'. I also what the Toast will do when he discovers that there is not conslusive proof for his faith yet available. Will he confess to having faith, or will he forsake his 'faith' which was never really 'faith' because it was based on something he considered to be 'proven'.

 

[ThePhy]

I did not dodge it, I postponed a reply awaiting a more satisfactory definition of what does and doesn't constitute either honesty or dishonesty than you've been able to provide to this point.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. There are several testimonies of Joseph Smith translating by putting a small brown stone in the crown of a felt hat he was holding and then putting his face into it and somehow thereby having the translated words of the Book of Mormon made known to him, which he then recited to a nearby scribe. But you insist that the veracity of those accounts somehow hinges on some definition of “honesty” that we must all sign on to first? You really can't assume that our collective understanding of "honesty" is sufficient for you to answer?

 

[Toast]

I already told you the basis of my faith. The historic nature of the text, and the prophetic nature of the text, and the logical necessity for Christ's sacrifice for God to make atonement for those who would have a relationship with Him.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. There are several testimonies of Joseph Smith translating by putting a small brown stone in the crown of a felt hat he was holding and then putting his face into it and somehow thereby having the translated words of the Book of Mormon made known to him, which he then recited to a nearby scribe. But you insist that the veracity of those accounts somehow hinges on some definition of “honesty” that we must all sign on to first? You really can't assume that our collective understanding of "honesty" is sufficient for you to answer?

I've no issue with a collective view of things in general conversation, but you are getting back to the points on which you tried to pin a label of dishonesty previously without ever giving what you termed to be a definition of honesty. You did such, it seemed, so that you could bypass the fact that the presentations and relations of history offered in my faith match up with those taken by prophet's and divine authority as described in the Bible. You wished to appeal to an ambiguous and non-definative view of what constituted honesty and dishonesty without making it apparent that if any person of faith grasped on to it (the same methodolgies you use to apply the label of 'dishonesty' or 'honesty') they would inherently be condemning the foundations of their own faith because they would be placing their own relations of God and his dealings as being definatively dishonest and thus refuting their own faith.

THAT is why I take pause and demand a clarification on a word or two, yet in all of our discourse through our dozens upon dozens of posts you've utterly refused to give a precise and exacting working definition of what, in your view, constitutes 'honesty' or 'dishonesty'. Rather you simply say 'it's what the majority of people think it is'. Such a tactic would get you no where in Physics. Give me a precise definition. I want to see exactly what you term honest and dishonest. Otherwise you're playing symantical smoke and mirrors.

You'll likely come back with some statement on how 'silly' it is that I would hold up answering over the definition of just one 'silly' word. Or you'll use the snowball falacy and say I'll never stop asking for definitions. Well if it's so 'silly' then why are you being so 'silly' in refusing to give one 'silly' definition? That's what's really silly. If your scared of me asking for more definitions then provide a more precise attempt at a definition and let the people judge if I go on endlessly asking for definitions or if my request is ill founded.

Or do we have to wait for someone else to ask you like we had to wait for before you would tell us much of anything at all about your personal experience with the LDS faith. I asked for it for a long time in many posts, yet the moment godrulz asked it you magically discovered a way to disclose it without revealing something that you thought I'd use to hunt you down with and do something terrible to you. For all that time you, in all your intellectual capacity, couldn't come up with a 'safe' way to do it untill 'rulz asked you. Will it be the same with a 'silly' definition? For one so ready to give proofs and QED you seem rather alienated from the idea of having important terms in an equation defined.

And for anyone that thinks this conversation sounds convoluted I'd reference to our exchanges from a while back. I believe the first link provided in my last post is one of several venues in which we spared and I believe the "'honest' definition" issue was present there if my memory serves me correctly.

It's also interesting how you will mention any postponement of an answer I give as a dodge yet you will not even touch many items in my posts, many of which are either questions or refutations. Am I to day you are dodging them?

And you were so defiant on the 'Hint and Run' label yet so ready to stick to the very practices that merit it.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I already told you the basis of my faith. The historic nature of the text, and the prophetic nature of the text, and the logical necessity for Christ's sacrifice for God to make atonement for those who would have a relationship with Him.

I see all of those in my faith.

 

[Toast]

I bet you do. :chuckle:

 

[Mustard Seed]

It's 'winking material' when I say it. You think anyone outside your belief set would do any differently to your claim to see it?

 

[Toast]

Sorry I meant to chuckle.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Changing the smilie doesn't matter. They're interchangeable.

 

[ThePhy]

Mustard, it is clear that you are going to use any rabbit trail you can to avoid answering my question. But that’s OK, since that type of evasion carries a pretty clear message by itself.

I made the point, and in spite of your obfuscations, the Book of Mormon translation was claimed to be divinely guided, and yet the claim of “chariots” in ancient America is bereft of supporting evidence.