Book of Mormon anachronistic do not prove the Book of Mormon is false.

Reasons to agree:

1. Someone on the other side perhaps Nephi in a ‘postmortem’ state provided the anachronistic Isaiah material.” (I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. It it assuming that this person provided a more accurate version of Isiah? I'm not sure how getting help from an Angel would explain problems with Isaiah in 2nd Nephi any differently than getting the translation from the Urim and Thummim.

2. Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni.

Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni

Reasons to agree

1. Our ways are not God's ways.


2. God did lots of things in the Old Testament, and some in the New Testament, that don't sound ethical to us. But God may not have to live by our definition of ethical.


3. God could be testing us. "Smart" people won't believe, but people that keep praying, and reading their scriptures will believe, just as God intended.

Reasons to disagree

1. God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility.

God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility. -2

Reasons to agree: 3

1. God cannot be said to purposely deceive us, and also be a god of truth. 


2. Saying that God purposely made his Church hard for intellectuals to accept disrespects God


3. The normal course of life provide enough stumbling blocks, without designed-implausibility.  What would such a construct of God be salvaging?

Reasons to disagree: -5

1. God never explains himself. He told Abraham to kill his son. Abraham could have researched if that commandment jived with the other commandments, but we are supposed to believe that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.


2. Elijah (?) didn't explain himself when he told that guy to bath in that river (?) to fix his leprosy


3. We are told that Jesus purposely made the "eat of my flesh" and "drink of my blood" commandment confusing, as a test to weed out his followers.


4. God's ways are not our ways. 


5. God doesn't have to follow our rules. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: -2

Related arguments:

1. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict each other.


2. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict the New Testament.


3. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures can be used to do terrible things.

The LDS Church should move beyond apologetics.

Reasons to agree

1. LDS apologetics don't work.

Reasons to disagree

1.  If the LDS Church doesn't defend themselves intellectually, then no one will.


2. It is possible for LDS scholars to present the LDS perspective while also being completely faithful to the truth.


3. LDS apologetics do work (see contrading claim above).


4. The term "biased apologetics" is an oxymoron. Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position  through the SYSTEMATIC use of reason. If an apologetic essay is "biased" it is not "systematic", as a systematic approach would address all aspects of an argument and not favor a biased perspective.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Conclusion: The important remaining question is which attempts at apologetic really use a systematic use of reason, and which ones try to confuse the reader.

The LDS Church should move beyond biased apologetics

I think we should dare to be boring, and investigate each belief on its own, and from each angle, because we don't want to keep having portions of the same conversations over and over again, from now until the crack of doom.  Lets do it very well, but only do it once. 

Belief: The LDS Church should move beyond biased apologetics. 

Reasons to agree

1. LDS apologetics don't work. 

Reasons to disagree

1. If the LDS Church doesn't defend themselves intellectually, then no one will.


2. It is possible for LDS scholars to present the LDS perspective without being biased to anything to the truth. 


3. LDS apologetics do work. 


4. The term "biased apologetics" is an oxymoron. Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position  through the SYSTEMATIC use of reason. If it is biased it is not systematic, as a systematic approach would address all aspects of an argument and not favor a biased perspective. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -4

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is currently no evidence in pre-Columbian history +7

Reasons to agree: +7

1. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Silk, which there is no evidence to support. I don't even think the silk worm lived in North or South America. (Ether 9:17: "Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things."


2. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Linen, which there is no evidence to support. (Ether 9:17: "Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things."


3. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had cattle, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:18: "And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man."


4. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Oxen, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:18: "And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man."


5. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had horses, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:19: "And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.."


6. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had asses, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:19: "And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.."


7. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had sheep, swine, goats, elephants wheat barley, figs, grapes, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots. The Smithsonian Institution has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus."

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +7

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Images That agree

Website that agree

1. 
   
   

Websites that disagree

1. 
   

God wouldn't purposely hide evidence of himself, in order to make us need faith to believe in him

Fundamentalist Christian Examples might including:

1. God wouldn't purposely plant dinosaur bones, so that we need faith to believe in him

Mormon Examples might including:

1. God wouldn't purposely change the DNA of Native Americans just to make us require faith to be a Mormon.


2. God wouldn't change the language of native Americans from Hebrew, to their current languages, just to make us require faith to be a Mormon.

Reasons to agree

1. If God purposely mislead us, that would be dishonest, and he would cease to be God. 

Reasons to disagree

1. Our laws are not Gods laws. God can kill and lie and stuff, and still be justified. 

Images That agree

1.   

Images That disagree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that agree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that disagree

1.  

Interest of those who agree

1. 
   
   

Interest of those who disagree

1.  

Common Interest

1. 
   
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   
   

Websites that disagree

1. 
   
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change