Or - damnant quodnon intelligunt.

But seriously...

moinmoin, I've an interest in seeing the fallacies remain in your debate, so I've reconsidered my offer and withdraw it.

I'm just mean like that.

Serp.

And for the record, I am having a cow about this because this is NOT what Jesus said.  There is only one way to heaven and Jesus said that, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no man comes to the Father except by me."  That's pretty clear and doesn't leave room for debate.

Look at it this way. If you and your spouse go to Wells Fargo to get a loan and your loan officer is named "Betty," you rightfully say that you got a loan from Wells Fargo. "Betty" was not the source of your funding. But, you have to go through "Betty" and everybody/everything else that entails (credit bureaus, underwriters, etc.). You didn't get your loan from "Betty," you got it through "Betty." Similarly, all Christian churches acknowledge that everything is from Christ, but He organized His Church to work through authorized priesthood leaders. Arguing that Mormons, Catholics, etc. don't believe that Christ is the only way, truth, and light would be just as silly as arguing that you can't believe your loan came from Wells Fargo because you had a loan officer named "Betty."

It's interesting that you enjoin simplicity in arguing against the need for modern-day apostles. In the absence of apostolic authority, the simple truths of the gospel gave rise to the convoluted and complicated creeds that synthesized Christianity with pagan philosophies such as neo-Platonism. We go from the simple Apostles' Creed, which is the oldest statement of faith, to the complicated and convoluted Nicene and Athanasian creeds. The doctrine of the Trinity is not propounded in the New Testament, but relies instead on the creeds several centuries later.

Paul wrote in his letter to the Ephesians that priesthood offices such as prophets and apostles are necessary "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4:11-13). Look how splintered and fragmented Christianity has been and is in the absence of apostolic authority between 100 A.D. and the present.

Hence, the need for apostolic authority to be literally restored to the earth by divine visitation. Again, the real question is: did this literal restoration actually happen, or not?

Next, you're going to be telling me that EEE isn't going to list all of the ad hominem attacks he insisted were in Brant Gardner's paper?

I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

Does this interest in seeing me pile up logical fallacy upon logical fallacy include not telling me which one I committed with my Wells Fargo analogy?

The problem that I see with your argument, is that Jesus came as the "last priest" of the priesthood. He came so that we did not have to go through others to get to him. In essence, if we want a loan house, we go straight to the owner, we don't need to get a loan through "Betty".  And its free. 

Seriously, look at the tone of your last few posts. They drip with frustration at your bluff being called, and your "incessant" hints that you could dismantle my ridiculous fallacies, if you only wanted to, smack of wanting to give the impression that you can point out logical fallacies, without needing to actually do it.

If you are so bored by all this, then by all means, go drink your coffee play with your children. Don't read this thread, although I think it's clear that you will continue to read it (like how we can't tear yourself away from watching the remains of a car wreck  ) All this talk of my posts and this thread dying seems like wishful thinking on your part . . .

Incidentally, the reason I started this thread was because certain critics have persistently insisted that Mormons can offer no physical or scholarly evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. I got tired of this, and decided to respond, even though a detailed discussion of this takes time. Notice how things have shifted in this thread:

1. Critics posted and lavished praise on the "Bible vs. The Book of Mormon" video.

2. I posted a link to a detailed response to it from someone who has a scholarly background in Mesoamerican ethnohistory.

3. Critics immediately claimed that it was mainly just ad hominem attacks, didn't respond to the video, etc.

4. I posted relevant excerpts to show that this is untrue, and that those claiming this actually hadn't read it.

5. I post a picture of a meroitic inscription in order to test the images and graphics feature.

6. Scoffing and sputtering (a la Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates) immediately ensues from critics.

This thread may be a lot of things, but I don't think it will shape up to be boring. If it is to you, then all the best, and please don't feel obligated to read it. Again, you critics may want to consider how your reaction to my offered evidences appeartto people reading this thread who don't have a dog in this race.

I'm not out to "prove" anything, just to show why critics' responses to the idea of "reformed Egyptian" is not nearly as ridiculous as they would have you think.

moinmoin,

Did I make you a little testy?

How utterly droll your attempts at sarcasm were, but I’m really kind of disappointed in your lack of creativity. I suggest you take a creative writing class, which might add a dimension to your capabilities. Any dullard with their hands tied behind their back could have delivered a better punch.

It seems you’ve a reading comprehension problem. I told you the body of Gardner's rebuttal and your summary of Gardner's response (redundancy) to the video is argumentum verbosium. Are you capable of fully understanding this fallacy? You responded that long-windedness can be warranted, which told me you've a mild understanding of it. Argumentum verbosium is intentionally verbose, so it appears superficially to have more credibility than it does. The technique is used purposely to make facts harder to discern and to obscure any viable challenges. In the absence of real evidence or research it uses language pedantically to buoy its proposition(s).

Gardner’s verboseness was not warranted and amounted to nothing more than fluff. It provided no direct or even circumstantial evidence that is considered to have any validity outside of the Mormon Church. The truth is - the reader walks away begging for a reprieve and just as wanting for evidence. Gardner wallowed in suppositions that have no merit. He bastardized the information in the Book of Mormon trying to make it conform to known archeological history, and then feebly grasped at straws trying to redefine the semantics of words. By the end of that speculation, gone were all Mormon references.

Joseph Smith believed the Book of Mormon historical significance would be found right here in the good ole U.S.A. - since this has eluded LDS scholars their focus has shifted and now they’re trying to commingle Mesoamerican archaeological finds (facts) with Mormon fiction (my opinion).

A Mormon attached a bunch of bold claims as an adjunct to Christian theology adulterating the very tenets of Christian faith. Mormons' have the burden of proof and the rigor of that proof while having the need to be compelling, need not be as complicated as supposed. To try and bury the fact that no evidence has been found to support the assertions in the Book of Mormon by drowning it in a sea of proposed complications is bogus. This is supposedly a divinely inspired book.

“ 1. Gardner points out that the video “tak[es] a very critical view of the Book of Mormon, while presenting the Bible as though it generated no controversy at all. This approach is a fundamental misrepresentation of the scholarly climate for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon . . . By ignoring the questions that are currently asked of the Bible, the film creates the illusion that the Bible is unassaulted and unassailable but that the Book of Mormon suffers from questions on every front. The reality is that the Bible must also stand before modern scholarship and answer serious questions. In that respect, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are quite comparable. Hard questions [are] asked of each . . . In this film, the viewer never even sees the questions directed at the Bible. For the Book of Mormon, they never see the answers.”

Let's just examine the above paragraph of yours, which contains an informal fallacy: appeal to pity.

While it can't be denied the underpinning of the video was critical of the Mormon Church it didn't present the Bible as if it generated no controversy. To say otherwise is a falsehood that is stated, simultaneously to offer disdain while trying to elicit sympathy from the reader:

In fact this seems to be a consistent method you employ; you seem to often bring up Mormon critics. These preludes in your posts are nothing more than appeals for sympathy and they’re manipulative. You do the "pity us - the critics are unfair" attitude to the point of distraction.

Under the banner of scholarly pursuits you seem to think you have justification to commit other fallacies such as cherry picking - you ignore mainstream, scholarly archeological data for the more ambiguous LDS scholarly proposals that aren’t accepted outside of your community.

You commit the informal fallacy of plurium interrogationum: You issue up a question following a question that presupposes a consensus of ideals, when you know this not to be the case or you ask a question that is rhetorical, or better yet, you answer it yourself. There are examples below. You do this to introduce uncertainty into discourse.

“But non-Mormon Christians admittedly believe that Jesus (Immannuel, God with us) lived on our earth. If God creates other worlds after this one, would it not be a true statement that God had lived on an earth, grown from infancy to adulthood, etc.?””

“Is this a fair point? Are any of you critics really open to the possibility of the Book of Mormon being true, provided that convincing evidence can be given? Or, is the point in discussing it simply to “falsify” it in the eyes of others who are more open to the possibility?”

"2) Is this a double standard?”

I’ve given you a few examples of the fallacies you’ve committed and while you don’t have to agree, from my perspective they’re glaringly obvious. Others will judge the merit of my claims for themselves.

Just look how you started out the thread. You were looking for controversy.

“Outspoken critics of the Book of Mormon often toss around smug claims that there is absolutely no physical evidence of the Book of Mormon account having actually happened. This is an issue where critics demand/require painstaking documentation, but then generally won't look at evidence offered and complain about being "buried" in details. So be it.

Before the fur starts flying, there are some preliminary principles and points that need to be discussed about the fundamental assumptions inherent in this topic before getting into the actual "nuts and bolts" of evidences. I am posting these as separate posts for ease of responding and limiting responses in scope.”

And while I can’t speak for EEE (I don’t even know the person) I didn’t understand the sarcasm you directed their way because they didn’t respond. Not everyone has the time or inclination to be on a message board 24/7 writing what amounts to novellas (cough). I’m sure that person has a full life that precludes them from doing so. It was arrogant and narcissistic of you to think that EEE has given you one more thought, as if you have any relevance other than a passing comment in their life.

As for me personally, when I can get on here I take delight in reading itsadryheat’s responses to you. itsadryheat’s ability to dismantle your arguments have been quite effective.

I don’t find the subject boring; I find your presentation boring. The information you’re presenting is widely available on the Internet for perusing. You’re bringing nothing unique to the table except for a pompous attitude. You don’t impress me and I don’t care to impress you. I started reading this thread out of curiosity and you've totally turned me off.

Now before I leave this thread permanently I would like to make a personal statement to any other Mormons that might possibly be reading. My problem with your faith doesn’t mean I have a problem with you. I live in a predominately Mormon area and I’ve never met a more loving group of people. On many occasions the only sentiment that I’ve felt towards the Mormon community is admiration, and though we’re not in agreement that doesn’t mean on a personal level I don’t offer my respect. I’m sorry you were exposed to such negativity.

Serp.