The Evidence Thread

[_Themis]

It is unlikely that Joseph had access to the knowledge in his local Palmyra Reading Lending Library while writing the Book of Mormon. The proposition is that Bountiful in the Old World existed.

I believe the proposition was that Joseph and everyone else thought the area was just a big sand pit with no habitable areas. Are you moving from this proposition? What evidence do you have that Joseph thought this? If you have none then can we really say what he thought of the area? Are there stories and information of people inhabiting this area? If so would this not be evidence that people would not think it just one big sand pit?

As I see it the evidence against is tepid at best. The Dead Quarter of Saudi Arabia. General lack of knowledge of the spurs on the Frankincense Trail. Lack of knowledge of NHM. Plausible route due east from NHM to Bountiful. Lack of knowledge of continuously flowing streams out of Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea.

Keep in mind that Nahom is used as a place name, while NHM is not.

[_The CCC]

Thanks for responding, CCC.

Is it axiomatic? Aren't there any folks out there who are LDS and yet believe that the Book of Mormon is not literally historical?

"Evidence is just evidence" doesn't tell me much. It sounds to me as if you may be saying that everything can be evidence depending on what the individual believes. But I really can't tell. If that is what you are saying, I'm thinking that "evidence" itself is a useless concept.

Your example is a good one, but I'm going to have to go back to the definition of relevant evidence I presented up thread. What is it about these discoveries that causes you to say that the fact that they exist makes it more probable that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record? It seems to me there are at least three possibilities that this fact supports:

1. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is increased because Smith didn't know that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

2. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith was aware that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

3. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith made a lucky guess.

Only if the first is true would we consider the existence of these fertile areas to be evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as an actual history. So, on what basis do you select 1 but reject 2 and 3?

I suspect part of the answer is your assertion that everyone at the time knew Saudi Arabia was a sand pit. But that is an assertion that itself would require actual evidence. Is there anything you are relying on as evidence for that assertion? Even if there were such evidence, it wouldn't rule out number 3. So, on what basis do you reject number 3?[/quote]

There might be. However it is oxymoronic to claim such. The LDS were/are called Mormon's because they believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Evidence is just evidence. To be of any value it must be combined with and correspond to other evidence.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8

Again there is no evidence that Joseph Smith knew of such. Lower Saudi Arabia is well outside the area known as the Fertile Crescent.
SEE http://www.ancient.eu/Fertile_Crescent/

The idea that lower Saudi Arabia was fertile was not well known in America of 1830.
SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

Sure luck plays a part, and correlation is not causation. However there is a big difference between a lucky guess and finding such actually exists. It's analogous to writing a book about Middle Earth then finding Minus Tirith exactly where Tolkien said it would be. It is strong evidence but not proof.

I think I've pretty well covered all three of your criteria. For me personally objective physical evidence for something isn't the basis for my beliefs. But they are a nice addition.

[_The CCC]

It is unlikely that Joseph had access to the knowledge in his local Palmyra Reading Lending Library while writing the Book of Mormon. The proposition is that Bountiful in the Old World existed.

I believe the proposition was that Joseph and everyone else thought the area was just a big sand pit with no habitable areas. Are you moving from this proposition? What evidence do you have that Joseph thought this? If you have none then can we really say what he thought of the area? Are there stories and information of people inhabiting this area? If so would this not be evidence that people would not think it just one big sand pit?

As I see it the evidence against is tepid at best. The Dead Quarter of Saudi Arabia. General lack of knowledge of the spurs on the Frankincense Trail. Lack of knowledge of NHM. Plausible route due east from NHM to Bountiful. Lack of knowledge of continuously flowing streams out of Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea.

Keep in mind that Nahom is used as a place name, while NHM is not.

We have to get very specific here exactly who in America of 1830 knew much of anything about Saudi Arabia. I find it unlikely that a untraveled young man living in semi-rural New York of the 1820's would know such. Not impossible, but unlikely.

There are no vowels in written ancient Hebrew.
http://www.historyinsidepictures.com/Pa ... owels.aspx

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks for responding, CCC.

Is it axiomatic? Aren't there any folks out there who are LDS and yet believe that the Book of Mormon is not literally historical?

"Evidence is just evidence" doesn't tell me much. It sounds to me as if you may be saying that everything can be evidence depending on what the individual believes. But I really can't tell. If that is what you are saying, I'm thinking that "evidence" itself is a useless concept.

Your example is a good one, but I'm going to have to go back to the definition of relevant evidence I presented up thread. What is it about these discoveries that causes you to say that the fact that they exist makes it more probable that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record? It seems to me there are at least three possibilities that this fact supports:

1. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is increased because Smith didn't know that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

2. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith was aware that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

3. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith made a lucky guess.

Only if the first is true would we consider the existence of these fertile areas to be evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as an actual history. So, on what basis do you select 1 but reject 2 and 3?

I suspect part of the answer is your assertion that everyone at the time knew Saudi Arabia was a sand pit. But that is an assertion that itself would require actual evidence. Is there anything you are relying on as evidence for that assertion? Even if there were such evidence, it wouldn't rule out number 3. So, on what basis do you reject number 3?

There might be. However it is oxymoronic to claim such. The LDS were/are called Mormon's because they believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Evidence is just evidence. To be of any value it must be combined with and correspond to other evidence.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8

Again there is no evidence that Joseph Smith knew of such. Lower Saudi Arabia is well outside the area known as the Fertile Crescent.
SEE http://www.ancient.eu/Fertile_Crescent/

The idea that lower Saudi Arabia was fertile was not well known in America of 1830.
SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

Sure luck plays a part, and correlation is not causation. However there is a big difference between a lucky guess and finding such actually exists. It's analogous to writing a book about Middle Earth then finding Minus Tirith exactly where Tolkien said it would be. It is strong evidence but not proof.

I think I've pretty well covered all three of your criteria. For me personally objective physical evidence for something isn't the basis for my beliefs. But they are a nice addition. [/quote]

Thanks, CCC. The vast majority of LDS folks I've met in my lifetime would agree with you: they don't believe based on evidence. My opinion is that, once we let an omnipotent God into the equation, evidence becomes useless as a tool for figuring stuff out. God becomes the ultimate Trump card, which can permit the believer to put any spin on evidence, no matter how unreasonable. It turns the exercise into to trying to figure out what is possible instead of what is likely. And, with an omnipotent God, all things are possible.

So, if you are willing, I'd like to give God the day off and let him have some me time.

You're still running out ahead of me on my three possibilities. I'm plodding because, based on my experience in these kinds of discussions in the past, it's important to identify the point of departure among the participants. Once hagoth objected to reading Joseph Smith's mind, I knew we likely had some disagreement, so I wanted to back to a place where I thought we could agree. That's why I asked the question the way I did: can we agree that these three scenarios, absent additional evidence, are all consistent with the Book of Mormon location of Bountiful? Or are there more we should consider? Or should we reject any of these three as being inconsistent?

We aren't the first people to hash out this particular issue. In fact, this ground has been gone over so many times on message boards like this that we all know the moves and countermoves. It's like our feet know how to do the dance so the brain never really has to think about how we are arguing. My intent is not to persuade you to agree to something here, only to ambush you, Perry Mason style, in cross examination three days from now. I don't consider this a "debate" thread. I consider it a "reasonably intelligent people put their heads together and try to figure stuff out thread." I fully expect participants, me included, to make arguments or stake out positions, only to reconsider them in light of what others have to say. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that's how we do our best thinking.

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that all three options I listed are possible, but in light of other evidence they are not equally probable?

[_The CCC]

Thanks for responding, CCC.

Is it axiomatic? Aren't there any folks out there who are LDS and yet believe that the Book of Mormon is not literally historical?

"Evidence is just evidence" doesn't tell me much. It sounds to me as if you may be saying that everything can be evidence depending on what the individual believes. But I really can't tell. If that is what you are saying, I'm thinking that "evidence" itself is a useless concept.

Your example is a good one, but I'm going to have to go back to the definition of relevant evidence I presented up thread. What is it about these discoveries that causes you to say that the fact that they exist makes it more probable that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record? It seems to me there are at least three possibilities that this fact supports:

1. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is increased because Smith didn't know that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

2. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith was aware that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

3. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith made a lucky guess.

Only if the first is true would we consider the existence of these fertile areas to be evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as an actual history. So, on what basis do you select 1 but reject 2 and 3?

I suspect part of the answer is your assertion that everyone at the time knew Saudi Arabia was a sand pit. But that is an assertion that itself would require actual evidence. Is there anything you are relying on as evidence for that assertion? Even if there were such evidence, it wouldn't rule out number 3. So, on what basis do you reject number 3?

There might be. However it is oxymoronic to claim such. The LDS were/are called Mormon's because they believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Evidence is just evidence. To be of any value it must be combined with and correspond to other evidence.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8

Again there is no evidence that Joseph Smith knew of such. Lower Saudi Arabia is well outside the area known as the Fertile Crescent.
SEE http://www.ancient.eu/Fertile_Crescent/

The idea that lower Saudi Arabia was fertile was not well known in America of 1830.
SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

Sure luck plays a part, and correlation is not causation. However there is a big difference between a lucky guess and finding such actually exists. It's analogous to writing a book about Middle Earth then finding Minus Tirith exactly where Tolkien said it would be. It is strong evidence but not proof.

I think I've pretty well covered all three of your criteria. For me personally objective physical evidence for something isn't the basis for my beliefs. But they are a nice addition.

Thanks, CCC. The vast majority of LDS folks I've met in my lifetime would agree with you: they don't believe based on evidence. My opinion is that, once we let an omnipotent God into the equation, evidence becomes useless as a tool for figuring stuff out. God becomes the ultimate Trump card, which can permit the believer to put any spin on evidence, no matter how unreasonable. It turns the exercise into to trying to figure out what is possible instead of what is likely. And, with an omnipotent God, all things are possible.

So, if you are willing, I'd like to give God the day off and let him have some me time.

You're still running out ahead of me on my three possibilities. I'm plodding because, based on my experience in these kinds of discussions in the past, it's important to identify the point of departure among the participants. Once hagoth objected to reading Joseph Smith's mind, I knew we likely had some disagreement, so I wanted to back to a place where I thought we could agree. That's why I asked the question the way I did: can we agree that these three scenarios, absent additional evidence, are all consistent with the Book of Mormon location of Bountiful? Or are there more we should consider? Or should we reject any of these three as being inconsistent?

We aren't the first people to hash out this particular issue. In fact, this ground has been gone over so many times on message boards like this that we all know the moves and countermoves. It's like our feet know how to do the dance so the brain never really has to think about how we are arguing. My intent is not to persuade you to agree to something here, only to ambush you, Perry Mason style, in cross examination three days from now. I don't consider this a "debate" thread. I consider it a "reasonably intelligent people put their heads together and try to figure stuff out thread." I fully expect participants, me included, to make arguments or stake out positions, only to reconsider them in light of what others have to say. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that's how we do our best thinking.

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that all three options I listed are possible, but in light of other evidence they are not equally probable?[/quote]


Always good to talk to you.

I'm a social scientist by training. So appeals to any God or Godlike force are really outside my expertise in my profession. You might say my science is agnostic on questions of faith.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECHHzdozy_A

I don't believe I've put my beliefs ahead of my science when I've linked to independently verifiable facts such as lower Saudi Arabia is well outside the Fertile Crescent area.

I don't like Trump cards except at the Blackjack table. However I will say that as I find some evidence for the Book of Mormon, a different person can find some evidence against it as well. I really don't get into discussions of the Truth Claims of any religion or religious book, except when at church.
I believe it so for my purposes that is good enough. Let others believe whatever they want.

I don't consider one piece of evidence as a Trump card. Back to the Blackjack table. If I pull an Ace it can be winning hand or a losing hand depending on what other cards I and others hold. So sure Bountiful could be a luck guess, just like pulling an Ace at the Blackjack table is lucky. But as I said when Minis Tirith is found exactly where Tolkien said it was. Then that gives hard evidence for Middle Earth being a real place. Whether Frodo, and Bilbo Baggins will live forever with the Elves is a separate question

Oh; I do love a good argument. Bring your best, counselor.

[_subgenius]

In another thread, a discussion broke out over what does and does not constitute evidence. I thought there were some interesting points worth exploring, and so created this thread.

I'd like the discussion to occur in the context of a specific question, namely, "Is the Book of Mormon an actual record of and by inhabitants of the Americas ." (I'm not wedded to that wording at all, but I suspect you get the basic idea)

I'm going to suggest two different ways we could think about evidence in this context:

1. For any proposed fact, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, using some definition or test, we determine whether that fact constitutes evidence at all. If it doesn't, we don't consider it at all. If it does, we try and determine how much weight to put on that evidence (i.e., figure out how relatively strong or weak it is).

2. Skip the part about deciding whether the fact is evidence and talk only about the weight.

Finally, i'm going to propose borrowing from legal concepts to define evidence. This is from the Federal Rules of Evidence 401:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

The rules distinguish between "relevant evidence" and "irrelevant evidence," which I think is functionally the same as the distinction I raise between "evidence" and "not evidence" I'd be happy to use either terminology.

So my initial question: option 1, option 2 or something else. And why?

Relying on a legal definition requires that the conclusions be either of a criminal or civil character. However the question at hand is of a spiritual character
Ergo
Your paradigm is inappropriate in as much as it only serves to load the deck

[_Res Ipsa]

Merry Christmas, Subby.

[_aussieguy55]

Just a curious question. Did the local in Smith's neighbour that the horse was brought to America by the Spanish and other settlers?

[_Res Ipsa]

Always good to talk to you.

I'm a social scientist by training. So appeals to any God or Godlike force are really outside my expertise in my profession. You might say my science is agnostic on questions of faith.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECHHzdozy_A

I don't believe I've put my beliefs ahead of my science when I've linked to independently verifiable facts such as lower Saudi Arabia is well outside the Fertile Crescent area.

I don't like Trump cards except at the Blackjack table. However I will say that as I find some evidence for the Book of Mormon, a different person can find some evidence against it as well. I really don't get into discussions of the Truth Claims of any religion or religious book, except when at church.
I believe it so for my purposes that is good enough. Let others believe whatever they want.

I don't consider one piece of evidence as a Trump card. Back to the Blackjack table. If I pull an Ace it can be winning hand or a losing hand depending on what other cards I and others hold. So sure Bountiful could be a luck guess, just like pulling an Ace at the Blackjack table is lucky. But as I said when Minis Tirith is found exactly where Tolkien said it was. Then that gives hard evidence for Middle Earth being a real place. Whether Frodo, and Bilbo Baggins will live forever with the Elves is a separate question

Oh; I do love a good argument. Bring your best, counselor.

Thanks, CCC. I hope you and yours had a great Christmas.

For me, this is the point where the argument starts to get a little sticky. Let's peek ahead for a second. If we give God the day off, can we reasonably conclude from your Bountiful evidence that the Book of Mormon is a bona fide historical record? In other words, to make the evidence relevant to option number 1, aren't we forced to assume the existence and actions of God? Can we avoid playing the Trump card?

[Guest]

I believe the problem being overlooked, is that there exist no golden plates or stone boxes with regard to the Book of Mormon. As a Christian, I see no logical reason God would allow such evidence to be buried for some centuries, and then once discovered and translated ---- carried to heaven by an angel. Why were they buried at all and not simply carried to heaven and then brought down to earth at the appropriate moment?

The Bible is the work of God through many individuals over many centuries. Many groups of scribes and translators and men of God were involved in collecting the various books and letters that comprise the Bible.

The Book of Mormon, is the end product of ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL! Yes, the book eludes that different men wrote down various things; however, all that actually exists is what Joseph Smith edited himself. It would seem odd that portions of the Bible appear word for word as from a King James translation of what should have been a conglomeration of corrupt Egyptian and Hebrew incorporating perhaps even some native Indian terms. It would seem odd that God would use only one man to reestablish those books, in the book Mormon, when such is not the case for the books of the Bible. And it seems odd that with all the discoveries God has allowed to ratify the Bible, the very physical evidence that is said by Mr. Smith to have existed is removed according to Mr. Smith and not allowed to stand as a testimony.

Again, people have been saved by the hand of God prior to the "revealed" literature found in the Book of Mormon. One might simply ask, "Why the wait? What is the relevance to the Bible? What portion of the Bible was written down simply to be hidden. All revelations of God seem to have been presented immediately to anyone willing to study it from the beginning... The Book of Mormon was at best a candle hidden under a basket. And God through His Word reveals otherwise!

Matthew 5:14-16

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Mark 4:21

And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a stand?

Matthew 5:16

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Mark 16:15

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

Matthew 5:14

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.

Luke 11:33

“No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light.

Isaiah 49:6

He says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

James 2:18

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Doesn't it at least seem contrary to what GOD says to have a bunch of "golden" plates hidden?