zerinus wrote:If one witness has been proved to be unreliable, what makes you so convinced that the rest of them can’t be? One unreliable evidence is sufficient to discredit Quinn as a reliable commentator, and his book as a reliable history of Mormonism.
Do you apply the same standard to the Book of Mormon witnesses? If not, why not?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Benjamin Seeker wrote:Take Quinn out of the picture for a minute here (I came to the same conclusion he did without reading his stuff, so we certainly don't need him.). What I'm saying is that you're unfairly dismissing the whole of the evidence. Ignore all of Whitehead and just deal with Elizabeth Durfee, a member of the anointed quorum, Phoebe Woodworth, another member, the revelation from July 27 1842, and Brigham Young.
I actually find it telling that both LDS and RLDS sympathetic sources are saying the same thing.
Answer remains the same. Data is not trustworthy or reliable. Joseph had too many enemies at that time who had an interest in spreading disinformation about him. Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the evidence for his claim is the Book of Mormon and the other revelations he has received; and that is what I go by. The Book of Mormon trumps everything else.
I think you are going to find that Zee only accepts evidence that agrees with his special view of Mormonism, all other evidence is rejected out of hand, even evidence from sources which are known to support the church.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
I think you are going to find that Zee only accepts evidence that agrees with his special view of Mormonism, all other evidence is rejected out of hand, even evidence from sources which are known to support the church.
I think you are going to find that Zee only accepts evidence that agrees with his special view of Mormonism, all other evidence is rejected out of hand, even evidence from sources which are known to support the church.
It is called hypocrisy. Zero is full of it. It is all he knows and cares to know.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Data inconclusive or unreliable. Answer hasn’t changed. Wasting your time.
That's OK. It was actually good process for me to find a bunch more inforation and get to know the most important sources better.
By the way, I get it. Just a few years ago I was pretty much your typical T by the way, I get it. Just a few years ago I was pretty much your typical TBM, and I approached anything outside of the correlated curriculum and apologetics with a high level of skepticism. So, though I obviously don't think like that anymore, I still understand where you are coming from.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Benjamin Seeker wrote:Just a few years ago I was pretty much your typical TBM, and I approached anything outside of the correlated curriculum and apologetics with a high level of skepticism. So, though I obviously don't think like that anymore, I still understand where you are coming from.
One thing you have missed. I am not your typical TBM either. I am someone who knows that the Book of Mormon is true. That is the difference.
Benjamin Seeker wrote:Just a few years ago I was pretty much your typical TBM, and I approached anything outside of the correlated curriculum and apologetics with a high level of skepticism. So, though I obviously don't think like that anymore, I still understand where you are coming from.
One thing you have missed. I am not your typical TBM either. I am someone who knows that the Book of Mormon is true. That is the difference.
Intersting! I'd be curious to know what makes your testimony of the Book of Mormon different than the typical TBM. In my experience, most TBM's have a testimony of the Book of Mormon based on experiences with the Holy Ghost. However, I grew up out east so my experience may not reflect a Utah experience or location where a more LDS members are concentrated.
Benjamin Seeker wrote:Intersting! I'd be curious to know what makes your testimony of the Book of Mormon different than the typical TBM. In my experience, most TBM's have a testimony of the Book of Mormon based on experiences with the Holy Ghost. However, I grew up out east so my experience may not reflect a Utah experience or location where a more LDS members are concentrated.
Having a testimony of the Book of Mormon is not dependent on one's geographical location. However, there is a difference between believing that the Book of Mormon is true and the word of God, which I am sure most TBM do; and getting to know the book itself, and gaining an abiding witness, assurance, conviction, and certainty of its truth, and hence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. That is what I claim to have. When you have that kind of conviction about Joseph Smith, then you know that he is unlikely to have done something that was out of character with his prophetic calling, and therefore you tend to treat those kinds of stories with greater caution.