As a lawyer, it is my job to persuade. There are a lot of methods of doing that. Some of them are legitimate and some are not.
Not many lawyers engage in blatant dishonesty. But there are a lot of ways that an argument can be made without any technical lies, yet the truth is presented in such a way as to give the wrong impression. Things are left out, wrong impressions made, etc. I strive to not be that kind of lawyer.
It backfires, in any case. A sneaky argument might win one battle, but after a while the judge and jury start to realize that they are making decisions based on LESS knowledge, not more. Contradictions start to creep in and a facade of untruth starts to crumble. Bob Bennett points out that a forgery looks worse and worse as time goes on.
This kind of thing is so common on the internet. There are techniques that people employ that make an argument or assertion seem really convincing, but it is actually mostly trickery. I think that I will do a few blog posts on tricks I have seen on the internet and in my profession.
This week I'll show you what I call, List of Sillies.
It is where someone knows that the other side has a good argument, so they try to trick you into being biased against it by burying it in a list of silly arguments that are attributed to that other person.
So, let's say that Sam and I are having a debate. And I know that Sam has a good argument, so I'll say, "here are the arguments that Sam thinks prove his argument" and then I'll list a bunch of really stupid arguments, attribute them to Sam, and then bury Sam's good argument in the middle somewhere.
Here's another example. Let's say that I was arguing that the earth is flat. In order to make you biased against believing in a round earth, I could make a list of arguments supposedly made by "round earthers." Most of these arguments would be silly and are probably not arguments made by "round earthers" at all. But by making them look silly, I start to bias you against them. Then I slip in one or two of the good arguments that "round earthers" make to associate them with stupid arguments. Then, when you hear those good arguments, you'll dismiss them without even thinking about them. Here is my list of "crazy arguments by round-earthers."
1. Moon looks round, so earth gotta be round, right?
2. The sky is round, so the earth gotta be round too!
3. Crazy astronauts, paid off by the government, claim it's round because they went to "space."
4. Stars spin around the north star, so earth has gotta spin, right?
5. Flat earth is just a conspiracy theory!
You'll notice that I put the "round earther's" strongest arguments in the middle and spoke about it with disdain, using scare-quotes. People arguing that the earth is round probably don't usually make the first, second and fifth arguments. Usually they'll jump to the fact that astronauts have been to space and seen that the earth is round.
So, by using sophistry, I am trying to get you to associate that argument with the other, sillier arguments. I bury it among the silly arguments and then treat it with disdain. Hopefully you'll just dismiss anyone trying to make that argument without actually listening to them.
Can you create your own List of Sillies? Please do and post it in the comments. Also, if you find one on the internet, please share. There are a lot of good ones.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Thursday, June 1, 2017
What if Superman Hurt You?
Let's do a thought experiment. Pretend Superman exists.
And he's even better than the movie Superman. He doesn't spend half his time being Clark Kent in an office. No. He's actually working 16- to 20-hour days saving lives and stopping crime.
And he doesn't just stay in Metropolis. He's flying around the world saving lives and making the world a better place. He has to sleep a little bit though. Even though he's Superman, he still gets tired, especially after a long day. So he gets 4-8 hours of sleep per day.
And the world loves him, of course. Tens of thousands of people owe him their lives. He has hundreds of millions of adoring fans.
Then let's say that you are at the beach enjoying a nice, relaxing summer day. You're there with your family, your kids (or grandkids, if you want). Everything is going well, until you notice that your 3-year-old has wandered into the ocean, got carried away by the tide and is drowning. She's too far away to get to and she's going to die.
But then someone shouts, "Superman, help!" They point to the sky and there's Superman flying by, not far from the beach.
Unbeknownst to you, Superman is coming off of a 48 shift because there was an earthquake in Pakistan. He has saved thousands of lives and he's exhausted.
He looks at your 3 year old daughter.
Then he looks at you, rolls his eyes and flies away.
He's close enough that you can actually see him roll his eyes. It would have taken him just 10 seconds to save her. But he leaves.
She drowns.
How do you feel about Superman?
From a philosophical point of view, is Superman a bad person? Keep in mind that he just spent 48 hours saving people's lives. He could have spent all of that time relaxing at any resort or tropical paradise on earth.
Is he a bad person?
To the parents of that little girl, he's the worst person in the world. Why does he save all those people but not your daughter? You'll hate him for the rest of your life, probably.
I bring this up because I think that this situation is analogous to my church and to potentially all other churches. It is analogous to many other good, charitable organizations and even the government.
Let's look at the Catholic Church. Everyone knows about the child abuse scandals and the attempted cover-ups that led to more children being put in harm's way. The Catholic church has no excuse for how it handled the situation for many years.
Is the Catholic church evil? In the eyes of the people abused, absolutely.
Does the Catholic church do good? Yes. How many priests and nuns are innocent, good people who have given up everything, including family, to serve God and people? Catholic charities serve the poor in hundreds of places around the world. Priests go into prisons and comfort and teach the prisoners. Nuns teach school for little compensation.
So is the Catholic church good or bad? I would say, "yes."
If you are going to look for the bad in a person or an institution, then you will find it. If you are looking for the good in a person or institution, you will also find it. The important thing to me in judging, is to see what they are trying to do, most of the time.
As for my church, it spends 99% of its time doing good. But the 1% gets the attention from critics. The critics aren't always wrong about the criticism. But they don't explain the bigger picture (earthquake in Pakistan) and they draw the wrong conclusions. It is akin to saying that Superman is a bad person and shouldn't exist because of the eye-rolling at the beach incident.
Please notice that I am not justifying the eye-rolling incident. It was very wrong of Superman. But he was thinking, "I can't save everyone, I'm trying my best and I need sleep in order to do my best to save more people tomorrow."
That seems like a lame excuse to the parents of the drown girl, but it might have made sense to Superman in the moment.
And he's even better than the movie Superman. He doesn't spend half his time being Clark Kent in an office. No. He's actually working 16- to 20-hour days saving lives and stopping crime.
And he doesn't just stay in Metropolis. He's flying around the world saving lives and making the world a better place. He has to sleep a little bit though. Even though he's Superman, he still gets tired, especially after a long day. So he gets 4-8 hours of sleep per day.
And the world loves him, of course. Tens of thousands of people owe him their lives. He has hundreds of millions of adoring fans.
Then let's say that you are at the beach enjoying a nice, relaxing summer day. You're there with your family, your kids (or grandkids, if you want). Everything is going well, until you notice that your 3-year-old has wandered into the ocean, got carried away by the tide and is drowning. She's too far away to get to and she's going to die.
But then someone shouts, "Superman, help!" They point to the sky and there's Superman flying by, not far from the beach.
Unbeknownst to you, Superman is coming off of a 48 shift because there was an earthquake in Pakistan. He has saved thousands of lives and he's exhausted.
He looks at your 3 year old daughter.
Then he looks at you, rolls his eyes and flies away.
He's close enough that you can actually see him roll his eyes. It would have taken him just 10 seconds to save her. But he leaves.
She drowns.
How do you feel about Superman?
From a philosophical point of view, is Superman a bad person? Keep in mind that he just spent 48 hours saving people's lives. He could have spent all of that time relaxing at any resort or tropical paradise on earth.
Is he a bad person?
To the parents of that little girl, he's the worst person in the world. Why does he save all those people but not your daughter? You'll hate him for the rest of your life, probably.
I bring this up because I think that this situation is analogous to my church and to potentially all other churches. It is analogous to many other good, charitable organizations and even the government.
Let's look at the Catholic Church. Everyone knows about the child abuse scandals and the attempted cover-ups that led to more children being put in harm's way. The Catholic church has no excuse for how it handled the situation for many years.
Is the Catholic church evil? In the eyes of the people abused, absolutely.
Does the Catholic church do good? Yes. How many priests and nuns are innocent, good people who have given up everything, including family, to serve God and people? Catholic charities serve the poor in hundreds of places around the world. Priests go into prisons and comfort and teach the prisoners. Nuns teach school for little compensation.
So is the Catholic church good or bad? I would say, "yes."
If you are going to look for the bad in a person or an institution, then you will find it. If you are looking for the good in a person or institution, you will also find it. The important thing to me in judging, is to see what they are trying to do, most of the time.
As for my church, it spends 99% of its time doing good. But the 1% gets the attention from critics. The critics aren't always wrong about the criticism. But they don't explain the bigger picture (earthquake in Pakistan) and they draw the wrong conclusions. It is akin to saying that Superman is a bad person and shouldn't exist because of the eye-rolling at the beach incident.
Please notice that I am not justifying the eye-rolling incident. It was very wrong of Superman. But he was thinking, "I can't save everyone, I'm trying my best and I need sleep in order to do my best to save more people tomorrow."
That seems like a lame excuse to the parents of the drown girl, but it might have made sense to Superman in the moment.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Religion: Beautiful or Ugly?
Let's talk about horror movies.
Have you ever noticed how some of the most terrifying antagonists in horror movies are things that are normally innocent and sweet?
I mean, you expect a horror movie to have a lion chasing you. Or maybe a guy with a chain saw. And there are those.
But then there are those movies with a haunted porcelain doll, or an eleven year old girl, usually in a nightgown.
Why are these terrifying?
My theory is that we are horrified by things that are supposed to be good (but aren't) because we can never let our guard down. The least terrifying thing should be a sweet young lady or a fancy little doll. So you know that not only do you need to be on guard against the lion and the murderer, but also the most innocent things; the things you thought you could trust.
So you just barred the door against the werewolf, but wait! There's a toddler behind you! Look out!
I think that religion can be this way. It is supposed to be a good thing. It is supposed to be a source of hope, love and encouragement. A comfort. not a horror. A source of social and spiritual support and joy.
Sometimes it's discouraging and hateful. Or worse. Sometimes it is a horror, like when you have a priest who molests children. That's a true horror, made doubly worse because a priest is supposed to be good, comforting and safe.
If this kind of thing happens enough, people can start to think that religion is always evil. A person once bitten is twice shy. We should be careful to not become so cynical because religion, and churches, when done right, can be very, very good. Let me give you two personal examples.
A few weeks ago, our church held an activity where we went to a neighbor who is not a member and replaced his roof, which was falling apart. He was shocked when we'd told him we'd do it, but he accepted. We went on his roof, tore off the old shingles and replaced them with new ones (the neighbor paid for the shingles). He asked us several times why we would do this for no compensation. We told him that that's what neighbor's do for each other. And Jesus said, love your neighbor.
This was church and religion done right.
My second example comes from an answer to prayer. I have been praying a lot lately about my career. And I keep getting answers that have nothing to do with my job. Like last month, I got into work early, shut the door to my office, and got on my knees. I prayed for several minutes, sincerely seeking an answer. The answer I got was a feeling of benevolence and peace. I started thinking about my co-workers and my family and I kept feeling like I wanted to be nice to them. To improve my relationships with them. Or apologize to them for times I had been impatient.
This wasn't the answer I was seeking, but it was a good answer. This has happened more than once.
This second example, is, to me, another way in which religion can be beautiful.
So, in answer to the question in my title: religion can be beautiful and ugly. But I think its true nature is beautiful. When done the way it is supposed to be done, it's amazing.
Have you ever noticed how some of the most terrifying antagonists in horror movies are things that are normally innocent and sweet?
I mean, you expect a horror movie to have a lion chasing you. Or maybe a guy with a chain saw. And there are those.
But then there are those movies with a haunted porcelain doll, or an eleven year old girl, usually in a nightgown.
Why are these terrifying?
My theory is that we are horrified by things that are supposed to be good (but aren't) because we can never let our guard down. The least terrifying thing should be a sweet young lady or a fancy little doll. So you know that not only do you need to be on guard against the lion and the murderer, but also the most innocent things; the things you thought you could trust.
So you just barred the door against the werewolf, but wait! There's a toddler behind you! Look out!
I think that religion can be this way. It is supposed to be a good thing. It is supposed to be a source of hope, love and encouragement. A comfort. not a horror. A source of social and spiritual support and joy.
Sometimes it's discouraging and hateful. Or worse. Sometimes it is a horror, like when you have a priest who molests children. That's a true horror, made doubly worse because a priest is supposed to be good, comforting and safe.
If this kind of thing happens enough, people can start to think that religion is always evil. A person once bitten is twice shy. We should be careful to not become so cynical because religion, and churches, when done right, can be very, very good. Let me give you two personal examples.
A few weeks ago, our church held an activity where we went to a neighbor who is not a member and replaced his roof, which was falling apart. He was shocked when we'd told him we'd do it, but he accepted. We went on his roof, tore off the old shingles and replaced them with new ones (the neighbor paid for the shingles). He asked us several times why we would do this for no compensation. We told him that that's what neighbor's do for each other. And Jesus said, love your neighbor.
This was church and religion done right.
My second example comes from an answer to prayer. I have been praying a lot lately about my career. And I keep getting answers that have nothing to do with my job. Like last month, I got into work early, shut the door to my office, and got on my knees. I prayed for several minutes, sincerely seeking an answer. The answer I got was a feeling of benevolence and peace. I started thinking about my co-workers and my family and I kept feeling like I wanted to be nice to them. To improve my relationships with them. Or apologize to them for times I had been impatient.
This wasn't the answer I was seeking, but it was a good answer. This has happened more than once.
This second example, is, to me, another way in which religion can be beautiful.
So, in answer to the question in my title: religion can be beautiful and ugly. But I think its true nature is beautiful. When done the way it is supposed to be done, it's amazing.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Why the Church is True Part 1: the Little Details.
Imagine that you are on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution introduces a video into evidence. In that video, the defendant, Johnny, is clearly seen murdering the victim.
Then the defense attorney introduces the testimony of one of the defendant's friends who said, "Johnny was with me that night. He couldn't have committed the murder."
Which evidence is greater? Obviously the video is greater evidence. If the defense attorney doesn't try to address the video, she is going to lose the case and her client is going to jail.
Unfortunately for prosecutors, there usually isn't a video of the murder. Her case has to be built on less powerful evidence. She builds her case bit by bit, giving evidences that build an overall case. She may show that the day before the murder, the defendant made a threat to the victim. Then he went out and bought a gun. Then his alibi fell apart and he was caught in a lie. Also, the victim knew that the suspect had an embarrassing secret about him and was threatening to go public.
All of these little, circumstantial, evidences can add up to a strong case against the defendant. But none of them by themselves would convict.
In contrast, direct evidence might convict just by itself, if the jury believes it. The video, the eye witness or recorded confession.
That does not mean that direct evidence is irrefutable. Videos can be edited, witnesses can be mistaken or lying. Even a confession may be coerced. Circumstantial evidence is also refutable, of course.
But the more evidence is accumulated (whether direct or circumstantial, strong or weak) the stronger the overall case is for the proposition in question, whether it be that a certain person committed a crime or if the LDS church is true.
In a previous post I made a list of evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon. Most of these evidences are direct evidence or somewhere between direct and circumstantial. For example, the three witnesses' testimony is direct evidence. (not irrefutable, but categorically direct). They actually saw the gold plates, an angel and other things. The discovery of Nahom is also direct evidence.
But there is another kind of evidence that I would like to point to that lends support for the church. By itself it is not overwhelming, but as the little evidences add up, the case for the church gets stronger and stronger.
One bit of evidence that I want to point out is written about by Jeff Lindsay here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/temple-blindness/
Mr. Lindsay shows that some of the Mormon temple practices introduced by Joseph Smith have similarities to ancient Christian practices that were also not common in Joseph Smith's time and culture. These include prayer circles and baptism for the dead.
Mr. Lindsay also points out the subtle temple themes in the Book of Mormon that have links to what we know about Solomon's temple in Lehi's time. These themes are not likely to have been known by Joseph Smith and unlikely for a farm boy to know. Nevertheless, someone put subtle clues in the Book of Mormon of these.
A second bit of evidence is shown on Book of Mormon Central's website. They show that a pattern of proper behavior for a king is found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The unself-conscious pattern of good kingly behavior, by Mosiah and Benjamin, contrasted with bad kingly behavior in King Noah, is a masterful literary technique, unlikely to be within Joseph Smith's capability and unlikely to even be known from the Bible.
Here is the source: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/deuteronomy-1714%E2%80%9320-criteria-book-mormon-kingship. Quote: "Deuteronomy 17:14–20 represents the most succinct summation in the Bible of criteria for kingship. Remarkably, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts examples of kingship that demonstrate close fidelity to the pattern set forth in Deuteronomy 17 (e.g., Nephi, Benjamin, or Mosiah II) or the inversion of the expected pattern of kingship (e.g., king Noah)."
Here is a third example found here: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/where-did-the-brother-of-jared-get-the-idea-of-shining-stones
Hundreds of these little, circumstantial evidences are being found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, doctrines of the church, and the history of the church. Together, they fill out the whole picture, making it harder to deny that there's something to this church.
Then the defense attorney introduces the testimony of one of the defendant's friends who said, "Johnny was with me that night. He couldn't have committed the murder."
Which evidence is greater? Obviously the video is greater evidence. If the defense attorney doesn't try to address the video, she is going to lose the case and her client is going to jail.
Unfortunately for prosecutors, there usually isn't a video of the murder. Her case has to be built on less powerful evidence. She builds her case bit by bit, giving evidences that build an overall case. She may show that the day before the murder, the defendant made a threat to the victim. Then he went out and bought a gun. Then his alibi fell apart and he was caught in a lie. Also, the victim knew that the suspect had an embarrassing secret about him and was threatening to go public.
All of these little, circumstantial, evidences can add up to a strong case against the defendant. But none of them by themselves would convict.
In contrast, direct evidence might convict just by itself, if the jury believes it. The video, the eye witness or recorded confession.
That does not mean that direct evidence is irrefutable. Videos can be edited, witnesses can be mistaken or lying. Even a confession may be coerced. Circumstantial evidence is also refutable, of course.
But the more evidence is accumulated (whether direct or circumstantial, strong or weak) the stronger the overall case is for the proposition in question, whether it be that a certain person committed a crime or if the LDS church is true.
In a previous post I made a list of evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon. Most of these evidences are direct evidence or somewhere between direct and circumstantial. For example, the three witnesses' testimony is direct evidence. (not irrefutable, but categorically direct). They actually saw the gold plates, an angel and other things. The discovery of Nahom is also direct evidence.
But there is another kind of evidence that I would like to point to that lends support for the church. By itself it is not overwhelming, but as the little evidences add up, the case for the church gets stronger and stronger.
One bit of evidence that I want to point out is written about by Jeff Lindsay here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/temple-blindness/
Mr. Lindsay shows that some of the Mormon temple practices introduced by Joseph Smith have similarities to ancient Christian practices that were also not common in Joseph Smith's time and culture. These include prayer circles and baptism for the dead.
Mr. Lindsay also points out the subtle temple themes in the Book of Mormon that have links to what we know about Solomon's temple in Lehi's time. These themes are not likely to have been known by Joseph Smith and unlikely for a farm boy to know. Nevertheless, someone put subtle clues in the Book of Mormon of these.
A second bit of evidence is shown on Book of Mormon Central's website. They show that a pattern of proper behavior for a king is found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The unself-conscious pattern of good kingly behavior, by Mosiah and Benjamin, contrasted with bad kingly behavior in King Noah, is a masterful literary technique, unlikely to be within Joseph Smith's capability and unlikely to even be known from the Bible.
Here is the source: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/deuteronomy-1714%E2%80%9320-criteria-book-mormon-kingship. Quote: "Deuteronomy 17:14–20 represents the most succinct summation in the Bible of criteria for kingship. Remarkably, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts examples of kingship that demonstrate close fidelity to the pattern set forth in Deuteronomy 17 (e.g., Nephi, Benjamin, or Mosiah II) or the inversion of the expected pattern of kingship (e.g., king Noah)."
Here is a third example found here: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/where-did-the-brother-of-jared-get-the-idea-of-shining-stones
Hundreds of these little, circumstantial evidences are being found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, doctrines of the church, and the history of the church. Together, they fill out the whole picture, making it harder to deny that there's something to this church.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Some Sad Songs
I'm going to start making a list of sad songs. It's good to listen to a sad song when you are sad but are having trouble really express it. A sad song can help you get through it.
I'll make a list of happy songs or cool songs or something later, but today is a sad day.
I say "sad songs" but these aren't all "songs." They are piano or other instrument.
Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtS0D1xlHAI\
When Love Falls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeD9b8cgow
Ashokan Farewell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kZASM8OX7s
Schindler's List, Violin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWrt0m-cOkU
An ultimately hopeful song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCPG5ze9YGg
God Be with You til We Meet Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQlv_xUYATg
I'll make a list of happy songs or cool songs or something later, but today is a sad day.
I say "sad songs" but these aren't all "songs." They are piano or other instrument.
Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtS0D1xlHAI\
When Love Falls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeD9b8cgow
Ashokan Farewell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kZASM8OX7s
Schindler's List, Violin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWrt0m-cOkU
An ultimately hopeful song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCPG5ze9YGg
God Be with You til We Meet Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQlv_xUYATg
Monday, April 17, 2017
Some Things I Love about the Book of Mormon. Part 1.
Some of the best parts of the Book of Mormon tell stories of love and friendship. Heroes of the Book often show how to courageously love their neighbors, even those who may want to hurt or even kill them.
In general, when the Nephites were most righteous, there were no divisions among the people. The love of God dwelt in their hearts and therefore there were no rich and poor. No Lamanites, Nephites or other tribes, no "-ites." The people were unified, not divided by class or ethnicity.
One of the biggest heroes in the Book of Mormon is the missionary Ammon. When Ammon and his brothers began their mission to the Lamanites, some Nephites told him that it was useless. The Lamanites were too savage and that the Nephites should just wage war against them and slaughter them. Ammon responded that the Lamanites were their brothers and they couldn't bear the thought of their brothers dying without the gospel.
Ammon, in humility, requested that a king of the Lamanites allow him to be his servant anto serve him, maybe the rest of his life. After converting thousands of Lamanites, the king and other converts loved Ammon and Ammon loved them.
So great was the love of these people, that when the Lamanites who were not converted came to war against them, they refused to defend themselves. A thousand were slaughtered rather than take the life of one of their brothers. In the Bible, Jesus said that no one has greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends.
Later in the Book of Mormon these Lamanites' sons would save the Nephites in a great war a generation later. One wonders if any of the Nephites who discouraged Ammon and his brethren were ever aware how they could have led to their country's downfall by their prejudice against the Lamanites.
A generation or two later, Jesus visits the Nephites and when He prays for the people and blesses their children, He tells them, with tears in His eyes, that His joy is full.
This is reminiscent of his prayer in John 17:3 where He prays that the world will experience "my joy."
A joint message from the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that God wants His children to be happy. To have His joy. And everything He asks of us is motivated by that desire.
In general, when the Nephites were most righteous, there were no divisions among the people. The love of God dwelt in their hearts and therefore there were no rich and poor. No Lamanites, Nephites or other tribes, no "-ites." The people were unified, not divided by class or ethnicity.
One of the biggest heroes in the Book of Mormon is the missionary Ammon. When Ammon and his brothers began their mission to the Lamanites, some Nephites told him that it was useless. The Lamanites were too savage and that the Nephites should just wage war against them and slaughter them. Ammon responded that the Lamanites were their brothers and they couldn't bear the thought of their brothers dying without the gospel.
Ammon, in humility, requested that a king of the Lamanites allow him to be his servant anto serve him, maybe the rest of his life. After converting thousands of Lamanites, the king and other converts loved Ammon and Ammon loved them.
So great was the love of these people, that when the Lamanites who were not converted came to war against them, they refused to defend themselves. A thousand were slaughtered rather than take the life of one of their brothers. In the Bible, Jesus said that no one has greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends.
Later in the Book of Mormon these Lamanites' sons would save the Nephites in a great war a generation later. One wonders if any of the Nephites who discouraged Ammon and his brethren were ever aware how they could have led to their country's downfall by their prejudice against the Lamanites.
A generation or two later, Jesus visits the Nephites and when He prays for the people and blesses their children, He tells them, with tears in His eyes, that His joy is full.
This is reminiscent of his prayer in John 17:3 where He prays that the world will experience "my joy."
A joint message from the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that God wants His children to be happy. To have His joy. And everything He asks of us is motivated by that desire.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Updated Running List of Book of Mormon Evidence.
This updated
running list of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is
now supplemented with some citations to sources. Further sources and
categories will hopefully be forthcoming.
I am certain that some of these sources will gain strength with time while others will wane. The reader can evaluate for herself/himself whether or not these evidences have any value. It's probably clear what my opinion is.
There is one large category of evidence that I have chosen not to include. It is persuasive in my opinion, but it is a source of division among members, so I'm leaving it alone. It's evidence for Nephite civilization in America. I think that there is quite a bit of that evidence, but there is a dispute about whether or not it is in MesoAmerica or North America. I have a strong opinion about that, but I'll leave it alone.
1. Three witnesses
a. Martin Harris.
b. Oliver Cowdery.
c. David Whitmer
https://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Mormon-Witnesses-Richard-Anderson/dp/0875792421/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492112545&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=reexamining+book+of+mormon+witnesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXYjkkcuBs
2. Eight witnesses
a. Hyrum Smith
b. others
(same sources as above)
3. Nahom, Shazer, Bountiful other geography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukKOh6COkeA4. Chiasmus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQeePG4-IeA
and
https://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-Book-Mormon-Textual-Studies-ebook/dp/B008X6DSWK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492114069&sr=1-1&keywords=chiasmus+mormon
5. Hebraisms.
https://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-Book-Mormon-Textual-Studies-ebook/dp/B008X6DSWK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492114069&sr=1-1&keywords=chiasmus+mormon
6. Internal consistency.
a. Alma's conversion
b. Geographical consistency.
c. Land of Moron and then the name of Moroni appears after Mulekites discovered.
d. In general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4
7. Uto-aztecan connections to Hebrew and Egyptian (Brian Stubb's work). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRqRdo0mfM
8. Hebrew patterns (like covenant renewal in King Benjamin's speech).
9. Margaret Barker's scholarship on expulsion of messianic cult around 600 BC.
a. Mary, Asherah and the Tree.
b. other Barker scholarship. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_6_16?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=margaret+barker+temple+theology&sprefix=margaret+barker+%2Caps%2C391&crid=U7TRXBBJM92K
10. Names correlating to Egyptian and Hebrew (Pahoran for example) http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Pahoran
11. Words correlating to old world plus internal logic (money).
12. Jacob Chapter 5 and olive culture.
13. Mulek, Son of Zedekiah (Malkiyahu) artifact. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/12/2/S00008-50be69aad59c87Chadwick.pdf
14. Miraculous experiences of individuals when reading the Book of Mormon.
a. I will only cite to the Ensign which will periodically include these stories. They are sacred, so I'm not going to give them out in a casual way for public mockery. But the interested reader will sometimes find them in the Ensign. https://www.lds.org/ensign?lang=eng
15. Joseph Smith's characteristics and testimony of those around him
a. Emma says he was almost illiterate
b. had no manuscript,
c. start up where he left off
d. translation speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4 (same as# 6 above).
16. The existence of the gold plates and lesser witnesses.
a. Emma feeling them under cloth.
b. Charles Anthon.
c. Parley Pratt.
17.Literary excellence
a. Poetic structures, parallelisms, metaphors and allegories.
b. complex symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4 (same as in # 6 above) 18. Stylometry (John Hilton's research on Wordprints). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wm7Owc7RE&t=13s
19. The trend of evidence.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjNCFcG4-o&list=PL0BC8D118C74ED3DA&index=35
I am certain that some of these sources will gain strength with time while others will wane. The reader can evaluate for herself/himself whether or not these evidences have any value. It's probably clear what my opinion is.
There is one large category of evidence that I have chosen not to include. It is persuasive in my opinion, but it is a source of division among members, so I'm leaving it alone. It's evidence for Nephite civilization in America. I think that there is quite a bit of that evidence, but there is a dispute about whether or not it is in MesoAmerica or North America. I have a strong opinion about that, but I'll leave it alone.
1. Three witnesses
a. Martin Harris.
b. Oliver Cowdery.
c. David Whitmer
https://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Mormon-Witnesses-Richard-Anderson/dp/0875792421/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492112545&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=reexamining+book+of+mormon+witnesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXYjkkcuBs
2. Eight witnesses
a. Hyrum Smith
b. others
(same sources as above)
3. Nahom, Shazer, Bountiful other geography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukKOh6COkeA4. Chiasmus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQeePG4-IeA
and
https://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-Book-Mormon-Textual-Studies-ebook/dp/B008X6DSWK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492114069&sr=1-1&keywords=chiasmus+mormon
5. Hebraisms.
https://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-Book-Mormon-Textual-Studies-ebook/dp/B008X6DSWK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492114069&sr=1-1&keywords=chiasmus+mormon
6. Internal consistency.
a. Alma's conversion
b. Geographical consistency.
c. Land of Moron and then the name of Moroni appears after Mulekites discovered.
d. In general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4
7. Uto-aztecan connections to Hebrew and Egyptian (Brian Stubb's work). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRqRdo0mfM
8. Hebrew patterns (like covenant renewal in King Benjamin's speech).
9. Margaret Barker's scholarship on expulsion of messianic cult around 600 BC.
a. Mary, Asherah and the Tree.
b. other Barker scholarship. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_6_16?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=margaret+barker+temple+theology&sprefix=margaret+barker+%2Caps%2C391&crid=U7TRXBBJM92K
10. Names correlating to Egyptian and Hebrew (Pahoran for example) http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Pahoran
11. Words correlating to old world plus internal logic (money).
12. Jacob Chapter 5 and olive culture.
13. Mulek, Son of Zedekiah (Malkiyahu) artifact. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/12/2/S00008-50be69aad59c87Chadwick.pdf
14. Miraculous experiences of individuals when reading the Book of Mormon.
a. I will only cite to the Ensign which will periodically include these stories. They are sacred, so I'm not going to give them out in a casual way for public mockery. But the interested reader will sometimes find them in the Ensign. https://www.lds.org/ensign?lang=eng
15. Joseph Smith's characteristics and testimony of those around him
a. Emma says he was almost illiterate
b. had no manuscript,
c. start up where he left off
d. translation speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4 (same as# 6 above).
16. The existence of the gold plates and lesser witnesses.
a. Emma feeling them under cloth.
b. Charles Anthon.
c. Parley Pratt.
17.Literary excellence
a. Poetic structures, parallelisms, metaphors and allegories.
b. complex symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatZtV4cfH4 (same as in # 6 above) 18. Stylometry (John Hilton's research on Wordprints). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wm7Owc7RE&t=13s
19. The trend of evidence.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjNCFcG4-o&list=PL0BC8D118C74ED3DA&index=35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)