RESPONSE:
Then you must know something that I don’t. As I recall he’s still working cold cases for the LAPD but not on a full-time basis like he once did. Further Mr. Hazell I would caution you against playing the “personal bias toward Christianity” card since your posts here and elsewhere show a personal bias against all forms of theism. He’s biased? So what? So are you and so am I. As your fellow atheist Dan Vogel said so well:

” I can care less about bias. I look at the evidence and arguments and decide for myself.”
source = https://www.facebook.com/groups/themormonhub/permalink/543066052396723/

That said, of the three (four if you count Clinton Wilcox too) of us his the only expert opinion of the bunch. For that reason alone it should carry some weight and not be subjected to “moving the goal post” fallacies or ad-hominems.

YOU WROTE:
I am willing to discuss the original post further if you wish, but respectfully I ask that you cease trying to draw me on one minor example given as part of an overall argument,

RESPONSE:
Then we’ll have to stop. Your responses tend to be long and complex and I don’t have the time or desire to address every point you make. That’s not disrespectful or uncivil, it’s reality. Further, I’m doing only what is done is formal debate settings. No one would sit through the long debates that require the type of point-by-point scrutiny you seem to be insisting on. However, if you find it distasteful we can stop the discussion here – like I said I don’t have the time (or candidly, desire) to address every point you make.

Further, and in my own defense, as I saw it this was the key point of your argument which is why I focused my limited time on it alone. If I was mistaken then the fault is entirely mine.

YOU WROTE:
…a point long since admitted even by theologians to be a point of contention, (especially given that there is an even older version of the story in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter that gives a different account again)

RESPONSE:
Is it a point of contention? Yes. Is as vital or primary as you insist it is? It depends on which theologians you talk to. Maximalists would say, no. Minimalists would say, yes. This is hardly a conclusive point Mr. Hazell.

Further, the gospel of Peter was never accepted as canonical by the entire body of Christ, nor was it widely cited by the Patristic Fathers or other early Christians. It contains heresies, blatant supernatural embellishment, and, perhaps most damning, is cleary pseudepigraphical. Further, Peter, it is widely conceding by theologians, gave his testimony via Mark’s gospel, making the pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter a contradiction of what he had already said elsewhere. Using the analog of the gospel accounts as trial witnesses, were it given on the stand, it’s the one most likely to get discounted because it’s so extraordinarily different than the rest and of such dubious pedigree. A lawyer would be a fool to put this witness on the stand!

(I would direct the interested reader to the Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Peter if they would like a primer or supporting evidences for my points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter )

Thank you for your time Mr. Hazell.

RESPONSE:
Not so, according to J. Warner Wallace, an L. A. County homicide detective and former atheist:

“Unless you’ve worked a lot with eyewitnesses and have become familiar with the nature of apparent contradictions in eyewitness accounts, it’s easy to assume that people are lying (or are mistaken) simply because they don’t agree on every detail or have ignored some facts in favor of others. If nothing else, we have to remember that an eyewitness account can be reliable in spite of apparent contradictions. While we might complain about two accounts that appear to differ in some way, we would be even more suspicious if there were absolutely no peculiarities or differences. If this were the case with the Gospels, I bet we would argue that they were the result of some elaborate collusion. As we examine the gospel accounts, we need to give the writers the same benefit of the doubt we would give other eyewitnesses. Human eyewitnesses produce human eyewitness accounts; they are often idiosyncratic and personal, but reliable nonetheless.”
(p.86)

“I learned many years ago the importance of separating witnesses. If eyewitnesses are quickly separated from one another, they are far more likely to provide an uninfluenced, pure account of what they saw. Yes, their accounts will inevitably differ from the accounts of others who witnessed the same event, but that is the natural result of a witness’s past experience, perspective, and worldview. I can deal with the inconsistencies; I expect them. But when witnesses are allowed to sit together (prior to being interviewed) and compare notes and observations, I’m likely to get one harmonized version of the event. Everyone will offer the same story. While this may be tidier, it will come at the sacrifice of some important detail that a witness is willing to forfeit in order to align his or her story with the other witnesses. I’m not willing to pay that price. I would far rather have three messy, apparently contradictory versions of the event than one harmonized version that has eliminated some important detail. I know in the end I’ll be able to determine the truth of the matter by examining all three stories. The apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at the time of the crime.”
(p.75)

“All four [Gospel] accounts are written from a different perspective and contain unique details that are specific to the eyewitnesses. There are, as a result, divergent (apparently contradictory) recollections that can be pieced together to get a complete picture of what occurred. All four accounts are highly personal, utilizing the distinctive language of each witness. Mark is far more passionate and active in his choice of adjectives, for example. Several of the accounts (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain blocks of identical (or nearly identical) descriptions. This may be the result of common agreement at particularly important points in the narrative, or (more likely) the result of later eyewitnesses saying, “The rest occurred just the way he said.” Finally, the last account (John’s gospel) clearly attempts to fill in the details that were not offered by the prior eyewitnesses. John, aware of what the earlier eyewitnesses had already written , appears to make little effort to cover the same ground. Even before examining the Gospels with the rigor we are going to apply in section 2, I recognized that they were consistent with what I would expect to see , given my experience as a detective.

In the end, it all comes down to the reliability of these accounts. When I was a nonbeliever, I heard Christians talk about the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, at least as these terms are typically applied to the original manuscripts that were composed by the authors. I examined these concepts in depth in seminary many years later , but as I first read the accounts in the Gospels, I was far more interested in evaluating their reliability as eyewitness accounts than their inerrancy as divine communiqués. I knew from my experience as a detective that the best eyewitness accounts contained points of disagreement and that this did not automatically invalidate their reliability.

Yes, the accounts are messy. They are filled with idiosyncrasies and personal perspectives along with common retellings of familiar stories. There are places where critics can argue that there appear to be contradictions, and there are places where each account focuses on something important to the author, while ignoring details of importance to other writers. But would we expect anything less from true, reliable eyewitness accounts? I certainly would not, based on what I’ve seen over the years. Surely these apparent “contradictions” and curious peculiarities were present in the early texts and obvious to the earliest of Christians. The oldest gospel manuscripts we have display this sort of eyewitness variability, and there is no reason to think the originals were any less unique or idiosyncratic. The early believers could have destroyed all but one of the accounts, changed the conflicting details, or simply harmonized the Gospels . But these diverse accounts were preserved (as they are) because they are true; they display all the earmarks we would expect in true eyewitness testimony. If the early church had eliminated the four eyewitness perspectives and limited us to one tidy version, we would inevitably have missed some significant detail.”
(pp.81-82)

Wallace, J. Warner, “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels”, Kindle Edition; http://smile.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8

“Christianity is a religion grounded in history and grounded in evidence.”

Disputable to say the least, but this is not the place to discuss it off topic

Finally “Of course they would stand as testimony in a legal sense”

I am afraid not, If I called theses biblical accounts (Matthew 28, Mark 16, John 20, Luke 24) as witness statements a defense lawyer would have to ask
Why do they all state different people and amounts of people were present?
Why do they give different times of the day for the account?
Why do they say different people entered the tomb (some giving specific names other saying those same people did not enter)
Why do they say different people were present, or not present in the tomb, when it was entered
Differing witness quotations of what was said in the tomb

It would be laughed out of court and probably incur charges of contempt.

“Such a statement is the result of study and meditation not the start of it, excepting in the case of a one person hearing it from another and beginning an investigation as to why they have said it. This is a case of the knowledge of an effect, preceding cause in a second party.”

The problem, though, is if they expect me to believe that Mormonism is true based on their testimony, then it absolutely is being used as an argument.

“All believers have a testimony of the truth of their faith, faith is an absolute necessity of religion generally because ultimately there can be no proof of the truth of a faith, for faith with proof is not faith it is factual knowledge, that much is axiomatic.”

It is not axiomatic, since it is mistaken. Faith is not an epistemological claim. You place faith *in* something, you don’t know something *because of* faith. I place faith in God. Why? Because I trust him. A skydiver places faith in their parachute and their diving instructor because they trust the parachute not to fail and the skydiving instructor to be giving them important and true information. Similarly, I place faith *in* Christ because I believe he is God and that the words of the Scriptures (i.e. the Bible) are true. I don’t know they’re true because of faith, I have faith because I know they are true.

There is a massive amount of evidence for the truth of orthodox Christianity (not Mormonism). Christianity is a religion grounded in history and grounded in evidence.

“Given that premise any Christian stating, ‘I testify that Mormonism is false and Joseph Smith was a false prophet.’ Is in effect proclaiming an act of faith which cannot be countered by a Mormon with anything other than an automatic gainsaying of the opposite, rendering both equally ineffective and thus forcing the conversation either to end or to move on to more productive and evidenced based discussion.

It’s not an act of faith. The Bible, itself, gives us a way to test the claims of prophets. If something they prophesy does not come to pass, they are not speaking from God. That’s a factual way to test whether someone is a true prophet.

“Comparison of a testimony in a court of law and a religious testimony is a fallacy since, as in so many academic disciplines a word may have a different (though superficially similar) definition; within the given contexts of Law and Theology this the case with the word Testimony.”

I think you’re committing a fallacy of your own, some sort of fallacy that religious claims can’t be in any way like scientific claims. But there is no reason at all to believe this. Religious testimonies are like testimonies in a court of law because in both cases you are giving an account of something you have witnessed personally.

“For example the four version of the empty cave after the resurrection would not stand as testimony in the legal sense since they are so vastly different as evidential witness statements but do stand as theological testimony in that the all have the same underlying statement of a witness to the empty tomb.”

Of course they would stand as testimony in a legal sense. If we were in a court of law, and the prosecutor asked me how I knew Jesus had risen, I would tell him that I saw him crucified on the cross, the Roman soldiers confirmed he was dead, and then the tomb was found empty on Sunday morning by a group of his female followers. That’s evidence for the Resurrection.

I would encourage you to read Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. Jim Wallace was (he’s retired now) a cold case detective who was a staunch atheist who came to faith in Christ because he used his skills as a cold case detective to investigate the claims of the Scriptures, viewing them as a cold case, in themselves. It’s a fascinating read.

“A better and more often used argument to back up Moroni 10 is often Matthew 7:7 to 9 this cannot be seen as out of context, as it is Jesus lecturing on prayer.”

Matthew 7:7-9 doesn’t do the work you think it does. Jesus is not simply lecturing on prayer, there, he is talking about receiving good gifts from God. As even the worst of parents knows how to give good gifts to his own children, how much better will the gifts the Lord gives us be? There’s simply no Biblical justification for this idea that we should seek God to see if something is true. God has given us the Scriptures and minds to reason. There are numerous passages (of which Fred gave several) that support this.

“Speaking of out of context the use of Jeremiah 17:9 is not I would venture to say a wise choice to back up your arguments when taken in the context of it’s [sic] surrounding verses especially since in Jeremiah 17: 5-10 the prophet is exhorting the people not to trust in man but in the justice and wisdom of God simply because it is what you should do to avoid God’s curse.”

Technically, all verses that are given not with the surrounding context are pulled “out of context.” What matters is are you giving the verse *in* its context? In other words, when you take the verse out of context, are you using it to mean something different or something in line with the context of the surrounding passage (sometimes even the surrounding book)?

The context of Jeremiah 17 is in trusting in man for salvation and not in God. This is not a passage that talks about determining truth, it is a passage that warns against trusting man’s way and turning your back on God. This is entirely consistent with the position that we can know and test things by searching the Scriptures and using our minds that God has given us to determine truth from error. We are to avoid error and seek after truth.

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…”
— Isaiah 1:18 (JST)

“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good”
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV)

“To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.”
— Dueteronomy 4:35

“After his suffering, he [Christ] showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.”
— Acts 1:3 (NIV)

“…since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
— Romans 1:20 (NIV)

“Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
— John 20:26-27 (NIV)

“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
— John 20:30-31 (NIV)

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if thedead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faithis futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
— 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 (NKJV)

“…if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
— Galatians 1:8

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
— Hebrews 11:1-3 (JST)

“A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.”
— Proverbs 14:15 (ESV)

“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.”
— Proverbs 18:15 (NIV)

“It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.”
— Proverbs 19:2 (NIV)

Further, the Apostle Paul was clear that objective countering evidence trumps subjective feelings. Consider that Paul didn’t see Christ die nor did he see Him resurrected. The first is a historical fact that he could easily verify. The second he had to take on faith at least to some degree. And he ACKNOWLEDGES that if Christ wasn’t resurrected then Christianity is a fraud and a sham:

1 Corinthians 15 (NKJV)
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if thedead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faithis futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

But that FOLLOWS what he had previously said, look at the beginning of the chapter:

1 Corinthians 15 (NKJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

See that? Paul isn’t just saying that evidence is important, he’s encouraging his readers to seek out those who have evidence.

So Paul was not only NOT afraid of evidence but he encouraged the early Christians to seek it out. So why is it that modern Mormonism tells it’s members to not only NOT seek it out but to avoid it?

Therefore, the Christian faith doesn’t involve SOLELY evidence nor does it involve SOLELY faith – it involves BOTH. The passages that I cited to Mr. Hazell also support this thesis IMO.

I concur with that stance myself.

Never-the-less, I have seen both sides use their competing testimonies as arguments. It’s just as silly when Christians do it as when Mormons do. It’s just a bad argument, period.

And I also agree that we must respectfully agree to disagree on the rest.

Thank you for your time and consistently civil tone – it’s very much appreciated.

With regards to NOT putting your trust in the Lord directly, but rather through man’s interpretation of scripture (which I believe is advised against in Proverbs) one opens oneself to unnecessary bias and the torrent of convoluted beliefs from religions all evolving around the same book interpreted differently. How is one to choose the correct path when so many different paths have evolved from the same literary source? Why insist this is the better option over asking the author and creator of the path directly?

Beyond the logic of asking the creator how things are rather than assuming you can “find the truth for yourself” I would submit 2 Nephi 32:8-9 as a further argument against that thinking:

“8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.”

Take this alongside Christ’s counsel given in Luke 21:36:
“36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

It is through prayer (praying always) that we receive the continual guidance needed to “escape all things that shall come to pass”. Thus the invitation in Moroni 10 is profound as “take it up with God” is truly the only source for reliable guidance.

A Mormons (or any other religious person’s) testimony of the truth of their personal religion is a statement of faith nothing more.
Whereas “I testify that Mormonism is false and Joseph Smith was a false prophet.” is a statement of justifiable belief (since there is considerably more evidence available proving that Joseph Smith was not a prophet than evidence proving he was).
I made no claim that one testimony can “trump” another and I agree completely that to try to do such is a waste of time; since both statements alone prove nothing other than that an opinion is held by the respective interlocutor.
The evidence that follows (if any) is what matters.
All religions require a statement of faith, often mistakenly requiring these statements of faith to be called a Creed, Credo or declarations/statement of belief by adherents without any real (that is to say legally admissible) evidence.
I do not intend to argue my philosophy against your religion here as this is not the place for it other than to say I disagree with you statement “Christianity, itself, is a religion that is based on evidence, not “blind faith,”’ since All Religions Christianity inclusive, is necessarily reliant on faith as I said previously and as is evidenced in all Holy books and major scriptures.
I also “take Issue” with your accusation of “wood shedding” since all I did was point out that in my experience most Mormons would use Matthew 7 rather than James 1:5), to justify Moroni 10 and that in my opinion Jeremiah 17 was being used out of context.
Thank you