As it is, there are reasons to choose ancient origins and reasons to choose 19th century origins or somewhere in between. Faith in divine involvement or non involvement comes into the mix.
Regards,
MG
There are no historical reasons to think the Book of Mormon has ancient origins, which is really the only thing that matters when discussing historicity.
McClellan said as much in the YouTube short Everybody Wang Chung linked to earlier in the thread. I thought it was interesting that he clearly distinguished between evidence and belief and implied exactly what you are saying, that faith shouldn't be a factor when looking at evidence--In other words, don't let what your faith hopes for influence how you evaluate evidence.
That's the exact opposite of Muhlestein's admission that he starts by assuming that what his faith requires is true, then works to 'fit' the evidence in. In the academic world, that's defined as unethical and dishonest.
...Respond to my postings rather than throwing poison darts...
The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'
Same old same old. Moving on...
Marcus, this time around I'm not going to play your game. In the past I have got sucked in. My bad. You know I'm not a troll and I know I'm not a troll. I've called you a troll in the past. I will not do so anymore. It just feeds the flame.
Take care. Hope to hear from you in particular as I participate now and then...in such a way that we can build on what the other is saying even while disagreeing...we don't have to be disagreeable.
The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'
Same old same old. Moving on...
I regret having engaged. It was fun for a minute, but it’s just so absurd and pointless to actually try to engage when the other person treats his assumptions as established facts, dismisses challenges to those assumptions, and then accuses people of not taking the discussion seriously. There’s no meaningful exchange of ideas when the conclusions are never open to examination.
I am participating in good faith. I trust that you are also. If you choose not to engage, that is your choice.
I do hear a tinge of whining I must say. Be that as it may, I've enjoyed...somewhat...our most recent interchanges although I think you've been less than forthcoming in answering/responding to some of my questions.
The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'
Same old same old. Moving on...
I regret having engaged. It was fun for a minute, but it’s just so absurd and pointless to actually try to engage when the other person treats his assumptions as established facts, dismisses challenges to those assumptions, and then accuses people of not taking the discussion seriously. There’s no meaningful exchange of ideas when the conclusions are never open to examination.
Me, too. But you generously started him off with the benefit of the doubt, which is a worthy endeavor. It was amazing to see how quickly he fell right back into his patterns. After his last exit, I thought maybe he'd try a new technique, but old habits die hard I suppose.
...The authors [of this paper on asymmetric response strategies] argue that troll-like users exploit other users’ desire for common grounding – i.e., joint maintenance of mutual understanding and seeking of conversational closure – by responding asymmetrically.
Their responses to others deviate from expectations for typical paired actions in turn-taking. These asymmetries, described through examples of three such behaviors – ignoring, mismatching, and challenging – lead to dissatisfactory interactions, in that they subvert other users’ desire for clarification and explanation of contra-normative social behavior....
Me, too. But you generously started him off with the benefit of the doubt, which is a worthy endeavor. It was amazing to see how quickly he fell right back into his patterns. After his last exit, I thought maybe he'd try a new technique, but old habits die hard I suppose.
Yeah. Nothing says “good faith” quite like announcing your sincerity, accusing the other person of whining, and then suggesting they haven't answered your questions. A nice illustration of why I’ve lost interest in exchanges with MG.
I am, however, now interested to see if a parallel can be drawn between Alma and Oliver regarding Alma 36. Should keep me occupied for a while.
I was thinking first of why people can have a strong emotional attraction to thinking the book is historical. That emotional draw can make stories of angels witnessing and gold plates sound like great evidence. I am remembering thoughts and emotions from myself as youthful believer.
I think you are conflating “great evidence” with “belief”. Stories of angels witnessing and gold plates sound believable to those so inclined. But those “feelings” are absolutely not evidence.
The restoration did not need new ideas as much as renewed foundation for belief.
You are softening the idea of a restoration. Reframing the evidence so as to justify your desire to continue believing what it is you want to believe.
The Book of Mormon does not have new revelation
Really?
It erased the perversion of teaching God wanted to make sure hell needed to be filled by all those armies of the predestined.
Where was this perversion that needed correcting? In what way does the Book of Mormon correct it?
In its place a hopeful "can do" is held up encouraging learning, work, love, and a strong society.
Remind me, didn’t all the Book of Mormon societies die out?
Last edited by I Have Questions on Tue Oct 13, 2026 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Me, too. But you generously started him off with the benefit of the doubt, which is a worthy endeavor. It was amazing to see how quickly he fell right back into his patterns. After his last exit, I thought maybe he'd try a new technique, but old habits die hard I suppose.
Yeah. Nothing says “good faith” quite like announcing your sincerity, accusing the other person of whining, and then suggesting they haven't answered your questions. A nice illustration of why I’ve lost interest in exchanges with MG.
I think you're looking for a reason to disengage. I'll say again, I am sincere. I do think I saw a tinge of whining. And I do think that you didn't fully engage with me other that to go back and forth trying to control the conversation and try to steer it in the direction you wanted it to go.
Granted, that's understandable. Be that as it may, thanks for what engagement while it lasted.
