Three Powerful Books

[_Dr Moore]

Aren't the rest of you supposed to be acting like squealing swine in response to a faith-promoting believer posting on this board? I'm shocked, shocked by the civility shown here. Where is all of the morally nonequivalent venom, sarcasm and disrespect I was promised? :)

[_Res Ipsa]

Let me get this straight. I’ve read the book several times, but I shouldn’t rely on what I think about it. Instead, I should read three other books so other guys can tell me how I should think about the book. But, I should never, ever ask anyone here about those three books because I should make up my own mind.

I hope you and your family are well, MG.

[_mentalgymnast]

Givens reminds me of reading Bushman: the words are there, but the facts and the logic around them feel too often like conclusion before reason, masked in a "but actually, this is the reason before conclusion."

I think we all bring in our own biases and life experiences that impact the conclusions that we make.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I hope you and your family are well, MG.

Thank you. A lot of running and cycling to fill in the gaps.

I hope you’re doing well too.

A lot more time for reading!

Regards,
MG

[_Morley]

Givens reminds me of reading Bushman: the words are there, but the facts and the logic around them feel too often like conclusion before reason, masked in a "but actually, this is the reason before conclusion."

I think we all bring in our own biases and life experiences that impact the conclusions that we make.

Regards,
MG

Isn’t this a little like saying “Water flows downhill.” or “Red is a color.”?

[_I have a question]

Truth be told, however, it was Callister’s book that I believe gives the best all around evidentiary basis/foundation for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

What a sad indictment on the Book of Mormon.

[_mentalgymnast]

Truth be told, however, it was Callister’s book that I believe gives the best all around evidentiary basis/foundation for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

What a sad indictment on the Book of Mormon.

Have you read his book cover to cover? If so, what did you think about the chapter on witnesses?

Why do you believe that his book is a sad indictment on the Book of Mormon? Would you be willing to specify what you’re referring to?

I appreciate the fact that when he’s referencing character witnesses, he not only refers to those that have negative opinions but he also then balances it out with referencing folks, with positive opinions, that I actually hadn’t heard from in the historical record before. I guess I had read too much of the negative.

He did a good deal of digging for information, pro and con. Nice job with the footnotes too.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think we all bring in our own biases and life experiences that impact the conclusions that we make.

Regards,
MG

Isn’t this a little like saying “Water flows downhill.” or “Red is a color.”?

Yes it is. But it’s true. And it bears repeating.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Truth be told, however, it was Callister’s book that I believe gives the best all around evidentiary basis/foundation for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

What a sad indictment on the Book of Mormon.

A wavering member, however, might want to know how to address the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to “translate” the Book of Mormon, or to address the question of how intertwined the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is with Smith’s treasure seeking. Smith used the stone and hat for both translating and treasure seeking. Hidden/slippery treasure is very much enmeshed in the Book of Mormon narrative (for instance see Helaman 12:18, 13:18-20, 31-37). The seer stone recently was revealed to still exist with the church and made worldwide news. This is problematic for wavering members and yet Callister doesn’t address it at all. Like any well trained attorney he is confronting only the questions where he already has an answer.

Another problematic issue that would be of interest are racist elements of the Book of Mormon that comport to early 19th century thought. Again, Callister is silent.

He inadequately addresses anachronisms by pointing out some anachronisms critics may have had but were later resolved (he points to writing on metal plates, cement, and barley several times). But he leaves a myriad of anachronisms unaddressed, for instance the Book of Mormon’s Deutero-Isaiah problem, or the Book of Mormon’s reliance on the 1769 version of the King James edition of the Bible (identified by the 1769 version’s errors being included in the Book of Mormon). His approach to anachronistic items such as horses, cattle, elephants, silk, and steel is to complain it is rash to point to these things “when one recalls that “experts” in prior years were absolutely certain there were no such things in the Book of Mormon times as metal plates, cement, or barley”. He un-ironically seeks to bolster his argument here by quoting George Santayana “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Book-Mormon ... merReviews

Callisters’ intellectually dishonest cherry picking of data points is specifically disapproved of by his own Church.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng

[_Philo Sofee]

Aren't the rest of you supposed to be acting like squealing swine in response to a faith-promoting believer posting on this board? I'm shocked, shocked by the civility shown here. Where is all of the morally nonequivalent venom, sarcasm and disrespect I was promised? :)

Over at Sic et Non.....
Peterson, Midgley and Kiwi have always been noted for their lack of comprehension of others coming to different conclusions than they think everyone should come to. And thus it is no surprise they misunderstand this message board.