Saturday, May 17, 2008

Daniel C. Peterson and Book of Mormon Evidences

This should cause some real heart burn for Book of Mormon critics, and hopefully some real burning in the bosom, too.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNgnk_L748
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJor1cCNeTc
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MPv5LtCjFU
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6-W8T9oAxw
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9s0Fx23njQ
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_qm-8spkMs
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W48064zGe5k
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa92vjRLQSM

4 comments:

Zelph said...

Pretty unconvincing. The one big problem of course, is that there is no control group. We might find parallels in Mesoamerica because that is the only place we are looking. Of course the other problem is that you have to ignore the other 99% of evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon.

Andrew Miller said...

Control group? You're kidding, right? This wasn't an experiment. He didn't have a test group either!

Further, he hardly even discussed Mesoamerica, as far as I can tell.


What about:

NHM
the conditional clause
the translation process and evidence of dictation
the three witnesses
etc?

SteSmo said...

"The one big problem of course, is that there is no control group"

No control group? This is the analysis of a historical nature, not a scientific one. There is no way that you can apply the standards of one against the other.

"Of course the other problem is that you have to ignore the other 99% of evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon."

Would you be so kind as to detail the "99%" of evidence that "disproves" the Book of Mormon?

LifeOnaPlate said...

zelph: me thinks you confuse science and historiography. I guess any control group will do, eh? Let's compare it to, say, the early Vikings. Or, hey, how about 19th century New York! (Wait, that has and is currently being done and provides an excellent foil.)