The problem with Moroni's challenge

[_subgenius]

In Dan’s interview on Mormon Stories, he made a remark to the effect that folk magic, as practiced in Joseph’s day, is indistinguishable from traditional religion.

Do his remarks constitute an implicit admission that Moroni's Challenge is simply another form of divination? With all the weaknesses thereof?

Nope.
But the more i read posts like yours i begin to understand your inferences that Joseph, at or about the ages of 14 to 21, became a prodigy of sorts in the fields of folk-magic, public speaking, theology, literary devices, geography, meso-american studies, masonic practices, and political strategy. Impressive indeed.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius wrote:

Here is one possible reason...people are not perfect.
You take your reference out of context and you fail to recognize the deliberate phrasing of your own quote.
It clearly states that you "may know" it does not read "shall know".

“May know” meaning the procedure is unreliable and inconsistent--right.

nope---wrong. A more adolescent conclusion has yet to be uttered by a child. "May" applies to the subject.....grammar 101.
The procedure is not what is "unreliable and inconsistent", it is the individual performing the procedure. You see, "may" is used when something is possible, and in this case reliant on other factors, that "may" influence the results. Now, shall is similar to the notion of will (especially legally) as in it is used in terms of obligation or contractual responsibility. Shall is used with determination, command and/or inevitability. But again, in this context it is clearly used not as to the procedure but to the one performing the procedure.
If i ask you to add 2 and 2 together mathematically, you "may" respond with the correct answer.....but after reading more of your posts, if you are to respond correctly, i "shall" be shocked.

And it’s not my “own quote”; it’s Joseph Smith’s quote from his fictional best seller, The Mormonecronomicon. (You know…written in blood, bound in human flesh, incredibly hard to pronounce, another testament of Jesus Christ.)

now, i feel bad, arguing with the mentally impeded.

wow! Speculation…

Yes, the “I think” at the beginning of that particular sentence is a reliable indicator of speculation. Way to go, Captain Obvious.

the first step is admitting you have a problem...good...now let the hard work begin.

…and anecdotal evidence....

On the contrary, what we have here is a statistical sample consisting of two MST testimonies--Dan’s and John’s--in which references to Moroni’s Challenge occur at a frequency of zero. This, my fine feathered friend, constitutes statistical evidence.

…you are correct!

At last, progress. You are learning, young padawan.

you should try it sometime, it only hurts a little at first. (and by "it" i mean progress or learning...you choose)

why would there be a need to specifically mention Moroni?

Because the title of this thread is “The Problem with Moroni’s Challenge.” Duh.

next time read for comprehension.

Are you suggesting that a true testimony of the Book of Mormon is gained by means other than just simply reading it with the honest determination of knowing whether it is "true" or not?

Again, the title of this thread is “The Problem with Moroni’s Challenge.” The overall truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, although related, is a different subject.

again, i feel bad.

Stemelbow wrote:

Perhaps not foolproof is the idea I was going with. Sure.

Not foolproof? Then I guess Subgenius is SOL…

[/quote]
nope, he typed it correctly...f..o..o..l..p..r..o..o..f
is the concept too advanced at this point? ok, baby steps.
Shall and May.
both are auxiliary modal verbs.
c'mon you can do it.

[_Buffalo]

In Dan’s interview on Mormon Stories, he made a remark to the effect that folk magic, as practiced in Joseph’s day, is indistinguishable from traditional religion.

Do his remarks constitute an implicit admission that Moroni's Challenge is simply another form of divination? With all the weaknesses thereof?

This sort of argument works well when dealing with evangelicals - try to make appeals to the Bible - the "Abraham did it too" gambit. But, as usual, DCP doesn't seem to understand the secular challenges to his faith. Or if he understands them, he has no response to them.

[_Corpsegrinder]

nope---wrong. A more adolescent conclusion has yet to be uttered by a child. "May" applies to the subject.....grammar 101.
The procedure is not what is "unreliable and inconsistent", it is the individual performing the procedure. You see, "may" is used when something is possible, and in this case reliant on other factors, that "may" influence the results. Now, shall is similar to the notion of will (especially legally) as in it is used in terms of obligation or contractual responsibility. Shall is used with determination, command and/or inevitability. But again, in this context it is clearly used not as to the procedure but to the one performing the procedure.
If i ask you to add 2 and 2 together mathematically, you "may" respond with the correct answer.....but after reading more of your posts, if you are to respond correctly, i "shall" be shocked.

A long-winded way of saying that only inconsistent and unreliable results can be obtained. Gather some experimental data under controlled conditions and then maybe you’ll have something…or not.

You also failed to address the question in the post that follows: In as much as folk magic, as practiced in Joseph’s day, is indistinguishable from religion, is Moroni’s Challenge simply another form of divination? With a degree of reliability similar to that of Joseph’s peep stones and divining rods?

[_NeoMorm]

Moroni's challenge is not unique. Couldn't one apply the advice in James 1:5 to the Book of Mormon as well?

So why haven't the Christian denominations come up with a similar ploy to disprove the Book of Mormon based on James 1:5? "Pray to God and tell him you want to know the Book of Mormon is false.."

I guess they don't really like James all that much since he also said "Faith without works is dead" and that flies in the face of the Saved-By-Grace crowd.

[_subgenius]

nope---wrong. A more adolescent conclusion has yet to be uttered by a child. "May" applies to the subject.....grammar 101.
The procedure is not what is "unreliable and inconsistent", it is the individual performing the procedure. You see, "may" is used when something is possible, and in this case reliant on other factors, that "may" influence the results. Now, shall is similar to the notion of will (especially legally) as in it is used in terms of obligation or contractual responsibility. Shall is used with determination, command and/or inevitability. But again, in this context it is clearly used not as to the procedure but to the one performing the procedure.
If i ask you to add 2 and 2 together mathematically, you "may" respond with the correct answer.....but after reading more of your posts, if you are to respond correctly, i "shall" be shocked.

A long-winded way of saying that only inconsistent and unreliable results can be obtained. Gather some experimental data under controlled conditions and then maybe you’ll have something…or not.

"Gather some experimental data under controlled conditions"?

wrong paradigm poindexter.....how about you continue your rather aggressive playing with your apples while the grown-ups talk about oranges.
is that all you got? the old prove God with a test tube rebuttal? classic, impotent, but still classic.

You also failed to address the question in the post that follows: In as much as folk magic, as practiced in Joseph’s day, is indistinguishable from religion, is Moroni’s Challenge simply another form of divination? With a degree of reliability similar to that of Joseph’s peep stones and divining rods?

easily addressed......simply put "nope". Moroni's challenge has no relation to folk magic (nor have you proven any relation apart from your usual "i sez so").
and "indistinguishable from religion" is an opinion, of which i do not confirm, nor do i assume it has any factual support.

[_Buffalo]

Things that aren't scientifically testable all seem to have one thing in common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE

[_subgenius]

Things that aren't scientifically testable all seem to have one thing in common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE

pejoratives, right on! its just like how you can't test for Evolution or Dark Matter or "this sentence is false" or Love or Hate or Science or Logic or Ethics or Aesthetics or History or even..... the above quoted "unjustified opinion"

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Simple-minded people often get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist and surely must be a superstition or some other absurdity.
This is a position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists; which is an assertion that only through the scientific method can things been known or the truth experienced.
Big difference between science proving something does not exist and that something which science has not proven to exist.

But let us look at why so many fail in the assertion exemplified by the amateur notion quoted above:

Null Hypothesis: There is a God
Alternative hypothesis: There is no God
Results: Insufficient evidence to overturn null hypothesis

VS

Null Hypothesis: There is no God
Alternative hypothesis: There is a God
Results: Insufficient evidence to overturn null hypothesis

which boils down to a discussion of what is the critical mass for a "non-believer" to believe? Currently the non-believer is unable to actually decide anything for themselves. They have no evidence that they exist beyond a skin-bag full of chemicals which must obey certain natural laws. The ability to "choose otherwise" does not exist and they can not claim that it does, this person is no more able to make an actual decision as is a leaf able to decide to lean towards the sun......or otherwise.

[_Buffalo]

Things that aren't scientifically testable all seem to have one thing in common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE

pejoratives, right on! its just like how you can't test for Evolution or Dark Matter or "this sentence is false" or Love or Hate or Science or Logic or Ethics or Aesthetics or History or even..... the above quoted "unjustified opinion"

You can certainly test for evolution, dark matter, love, and hate. If you think that God is an abstract concept akin to logic or ethics, I'll be the first to agree with you. But all gods, especially the Mormon god, encroach upon the physical world and subject themselves to falsification. And where they do so, they fail the test.

[_subgenius]

You can certainly test for evolution, dark matter, love, and hate. If you think that God is an abstract concept akin to logic or ethics, I'll be the first to agree with you. But all gods, especially the Mormon god, encroach upon the physical world and subject themselves to falsification. And where they do so, they fail the test.

baby step me through the clouds, please.

first show me "test for evolution"....i can wait.