Religious "evidence"

[Archaea]

It is interesting that disbelievers and believers alike are convinced the tangible "evidence" supports one's own view. The disbelievers will often couch their views of evidence in very adamant terms, even if most of the advocates have no firsthand knowledge of "evidence".

For example, the Book of Abraham critics will rise up based upon the findings of the papyrii which appear to have belonged at one time to Joseph Smith. They will claim, because the facsimile is on the Book of Breathings that it is irrefutable "evidence" JS was a fraud. Now for the most part, most of these disbeliever advocates do not read or write Egyptian, but rather really rely upon a few persons.

How may here read Egyptian hieroglyphics? I do not, even though I tried from the sources of EA Wallace Budge to read some of the Book of the Dead. It is very tedious, very hard. You must sit in hand, after one learns the alphabet with dictionary and grammar book in hand. Each sentence proceeds slowly. Now I'm certain some find it easier after years of effort, but there isn't even agreement as to how to pronounce the absent vowels.

The believers have their "evidence" as well, citing writings which shows the papyrus from which JS "translated" the Book of Abraham to have had bright red paint and well-preserved. None of the current fragments fit that description.

And to make matters worse, none of the protagonists to our story remains alive, to question and to cross-examine. Yet both sides are comfortable that the other side is an ignorant boob, ignoring "evidence" staring each in the face. In truth, we don't have quality evidence disproving or proving either side or sides, but rather have fragments from which to glean information and to draw conclusions based upon our training. Neither side is willing to admit the evidence remains inconclusive.

For the most part, Mormonism has remained insignificant enough that most of the best of any discipline have ignored our claims, so as of yet, to a great extent, the great minds of our eras have ignored our claims. As Seattle is wont to claim, Mormons operate best in the field where there is no evidence.

[MikeWaters]

Most Mormons I know do not claim belief on any such evidence (like archeaology).

Rather they rely on charismatic phenomena. "I prayed and had a spiritual confirmation..."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Most Mormons I know do not claim belief on any such evidence (like archeaology).

In fact, this is a good litmus test for education level.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In fact, this is a good litmus test for education level.

What is a good litmus test for education level?

Faith or belief in inconclusive archealogy?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is a good litmus test for education level?

Faith or belief in inconclusive archealogy?

Not faith.

There is no objective evidence to support the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. None. Outside of FARMS most any educated person wouldn't claim there was. What evidence there is all contradicts Joseph's apparent story or the traditional lore.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not faith.

There is no objective evidence to support the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. None. Outside of FARMS most any educated person wouldn't claim there was.

Outside of FARMS most educated persons aren't even aware of BoM claims. There really has been no effort one or the other to determine the validity of BoM claims. Most, if not all, significant archaeological minds of our era, have ignored LDS claims, not because they are unprovable, but because archaeology is a slow process and we haven't been relevant enough to study.

So, if no money or effort is devoted to those claims, how can any educated person make any claim as to the validity of claims not adequately investigated?