Exmormon documentary is coming!

[_silentkid]

Wow, why me...my head is spinning. Have you ever taken a class that teaches the scientific method or the rules of logical reasoning? I'm dumbfounded. Of course I can't prove your personal feelings about Mormonism to be incorrect. No one can do that. We work with what we have...evidence and our ability to reason. You seem unable/unwilling to do so. Islamic radicals believe that Allah has told them to kill non-believers in his name. Prove their feelings wrong.

[_harmony]

Whoa back now. Are you saying there's no Santa Claus? Because I know for a fact that is wrong. He's on tv, he's in the mall, he's at ward parties!

[_Coggins7]

Why me, your logic is all mixed up. The burden of proof lies with the church, not the church's critics.

I must correct you here, if I may. Whatever arguments, or lack of such, the critics may use against the church, the burden of proof does not lie with the church. The reason for this is simply that there is no burden of proof the church can take upon itself. The "burden of proof" lies with you, and with all of us. After all of the theoretical, hypothetical, philsoophical, and historical arguments have been made, all the evidence adduced, and all the claims given there hearing, you either take Moroni's challenge (and that of James), and find out for yourself, or you do not. No GA and no FARMS scholar has ever made the claim that their is any positive proof of the truth claims of the gospel to be had in this life through argument, scholarship, or academic study. There are, indeed, evidences that lend plausability to its claims, but no more. The burden of proof lies upon you, and it is your choice alone to prove those claims in the only way they can be proved.

Loran

[_silentkid]

Why me, your logic is all mixed up. The burden of proof lies with the church, not the church's critics.

I must correct you here, if I may. Whatever arguments, or lack of such, the critics may use against the church, the burden of proof does not lie with the church. The reason for this is simply that there is no burden of proof the church can take upon itself. The "burden of proof" lies with you, and with all of us. After all of the theoretical, hypothetical, philsoophical, and historical arguments have been made, all the evidence adduced, and all the claims given there hearing, you either take Moroni's challenge (and that of James), and find out for yourself, or you do not. No GA and no FARMS scholar has ever made the claim that their is any positive proof of the truth claims of the gospel to be had in this life through argument, scholarship, or academic study. There are, indeed, evidences that lend plausability to its claims, but no more. The burden of proof lies upon you, and it is your choice alone to prove those claims in the only way they can be proved.

Loran

Correction not necessary. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims (claims that stand in contrast to overwhelming scientific data). This does not suggest that the extraordinary claims are wrong, but they must be supported with evidence if a paradigm shift is to occur (i.e. Gallileo). If an apologist claims that the Book of Mormon is a literal history of the inhabitants of this continent, it is up to him/her to provide the evidence that such is the case. Moroni's challenge has nothing to do with evidence in logical discourse. I made this point above. If apologists are going to take their extraordinary claims into the realm of science, they need to play by the rules.

[_Mercury]

This documentary has been discussed quite indepth at MAD. Although the documentary looks interesting, it seems to be the standard stuff with people claiming the church is not true. However, since the church has not been proven false, not by science or history, the premise for the documentary is false. And two false notions never make a right.

The LDS church has not been proven false and so one cannot say that it is false. But we can say three simple words: I don't know.

So since you cannot prove something false i guess it must be true.

You are an ignorant, small minded fool. This is obviously true because this statement has not been proven false.

Get your head out of your ass.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why me, your logic is all mixed up. The burden of proof lies with the church, not the church's critics.

I must correct you here, if I may. Whatever arguments, or lack of such, the critics may use against the church, the burden of proof does not lie with the church. The reason for this is simply that there is no burden of proof the church can take upon itself. The "burden of proof" lies with you, and with all of us. After all of the theoretical, hypothetical, philsoophical, and historical arguments have been made, all the evidence adduced, and all the claims given there hearing, you either take Moroni's challenge (and that of James), and find out for yourself, or you do not. No GA and no FARMS scholar has ever made the claim that their is any positive proof of the truth claims of the gospel to be had in this life through argument, scholarship, or academic study. There are, indeed, evidences that lend plausability to its claims, but no more. The burden of proof lies upon you, and it is your choice alone to prove those claims in the only way they can be proved.

Loran

If this were true then the long-standing research expeditions into Latin America in an effort to authenticate the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be completely frivolous. Oh, wait....

[_harmony]

If this were true then the long-standing research expeditions into Latin America in an effort to authenticate the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be completely frivolous. Oh, wait....

Your tithing dollar at work, building the kingdom, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead. And searching vainly for validation.

[_Coggins7]

How much mental masturbation can one message board really produce?

There are no scientific expiditions to Latin America to "validate" the Book of Mormon.

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence against the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, indeed, quite the opposite is true, depending on wherr you look and what presuppositions you bring to the table (and Archeolotgy is not a science, but a humanities discipline. It is very theory rich, data poor, and prone to numermous subjectivities nd biases.

There are folks here who have a great deal of homework to do before they tap another key...

[_Mister Scratch]

How much mental masturbation can one message board really produce?

There are no scientific expiditions to Latin America to "validate" the Book of Mormon.

????? What, are you joking? Do you not know names such as Wells Jakeman, or John Clark?

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence against the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, indeed, quite the opposite is true, depending on wherr you look and what presuppositions you bring to the table (and Archeolotgy is not a science, but a humanities discipline.

Ah, right. Argumentum ad ignoratum. Are you capable of making any arguments that don't commit a logical fallacy of one kind or another?

It is very theory rich, data poor, and prone to numermous subjectivities nd biases.

Are you describing an academic discipline here, or yourself?

There are folks here who have a great deal of homework to do before they tap another key...

Right. And you need to get past Step 9 before you tap another....

[_Coggins7]

1. No modern LDS scholar, and not for many years, would ever make the claim that their is any "validation" to be had in Mesoamerican Archeology. Plausiblity yes, but not validation. You're going back quite a ways in history to find people in the church who thought such might be possible, but they did not represent the church in any official way and the church has no doctrine or official policy stating that any kind of proof has or ever will be, at least in the forseeable future, available to Mormons or the world at large.

2. Your knowledge of liogic is as woefully inadaquate as your knowledge of LDS doctrine. The argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance, tries to claim that a premise is true because it has not been proven false. That is not what I claimed above. Here is what I said:

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence against the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, indeed, quite the opposite is true, depending on where you look and what presuppositions you bring to the table (and Archeolotgy is not a science, but a humanities discipline.

There is no premise here claimed to be true because no evidence exists to substantiate any claim that it is not. All I stated was a universal negative propostion that there is no overwhelming evidence against the claims of the Book of Mormon and that their is indeed evidence to support it depending upon preassumptions and in what areas or disciplines you are looking. I am not claiming that historical evidence for the Book of Mormon has been proven because none disproving it exists. There is plenty of historical material in Mesoamerican Archeology that cannot be integrated into the Mormon framework, and plenty of stuff that seems to have no relation (and probably doesn't). But there is a substantial quantity of other evidence that is quite suggestive. What I said (not making a formal logical fallacy) was that the original claim that there was no evidence of Book of Mormon history is false. There is, depending upon what biases and assumptions one brings to that evidence. I made no formal logical claim that since no alternative explanations exist, what I take to be evidence of Book of Mormon history must therefore be true by default. I made no claim to "validation" or "proof" only plausibility.

You clearly don't understand the difference between 'evidence of" and "proof" or "validation", which no modern LDS scholar believes is the purpose or substance of LDS scholarship that looks for evidence that lends plausibility to the claims of the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. This is no different than looking for the Ark of The Covenant or Noah's Ark. They were there, yes, but the faith that is a required part of our mortal probation precludes such things from any usefulness in a spiritual sense. We have evidence that lends plausibility to varioius things, and which can support, in various ways, any number of things Mormon, but we aren't looking for or expecting "validation" of religous truth claims. Again Scratch, you are so far out of the loop regarding the Mormon world, its people, and its beliefs, that it staggars the imagination to try to understand just why you think you are even competant to be a committed critic of the church.

Loran