Oops!  To correct my entry below....  The Korihor stuff is not a strong example under the 19th Century fraud section.  (Because that is on the subject of 19th Century authorship, not philosophical problems)   

I think the Korihor stuff would, in fact, be a strong point in an alternate supporting camp that is devoted to challenging the authenticity of the Book of Mormon on grounds of philosophical content...  which would be a good camp with that and many other philosophical examples.  

Just to  clarify my position on this.

OK, Mr. Brown???  But, dear sir....  surely you are aware that you are addressing yourself to Brannock in this string!  LOL!!   Who is Mr. Brown???   

So now, “All else being equal, existence is better than nonexistence.”

Hmmm... yes, that is "tighter" in the sense that it narrows down the proposition to eliminate nothing else being equal.   But that refinement does not accomplish the goal (if such were a goal) of removing the inherent subjectivity from the assertion.    Also, with the replacement of "survival" with "existence" we have meaningfully changed the subject matter under discussion.  Survival and existence are certainly concepts with crossover elements of shared reality, but not entirely the same thing.   The difference is meaningful.   Still, the discussion can continue, with the adjustment, now about existence and not about survival.    

To assert that, "all else being equal, existence is better than non existence"  still leaves open the considerations of perspective (better for who?) and the considerations of the object of existence (the existence of turmoil? the existence of chem trails? the existence of my dear, kind and thoughtful cousin? the existence of covid? the existence of the assholes who created covid with government funded gain of function experimentation on deadly viruses that they lost control of?)

Surely it is self evident that the truth or non truth of the assertion is entirely dependent on underlying presumptions about what object the assertion is about and whose perspective the concept of "better" addresses?   Given this dependency, it cannot be reasonably claimed, under Aristotelian logic, that the assertion is objectively true and not falsifiable.    Where the object is not declared, it must be presumed.   Where the perspective is not declared, it must be presumed.  Wherever presumption is required, objectivity is displaced by that presumption.  

As to the latter assertion....

“All else being equal, social (not being isolated) is better than being anti-social or isolated."

Is it not obvious to you that the statement depends on filling in answers to undeclared presumptions to be evaluated?   

Consider, all else being equal, (hanging out with the elite members of a Nazi death squad), social (not being isolated) is better than anti-social or isolated.    

compare to 

all else being equal, (hanging out with my dear cousin and his friend (now mine, too, I'd like to think) Jim near a pond by a campfire discussing philosophical meanderings and theories of consciousness), social (not being isolated) is better than anti-social or isolated.  

Sorry, objectivity has not been achieved in the narrowed down social assertion either.   A presumption is left open and must be completed for a conclusion or opinion to be drawn.   The conclusion or opinion is entirely dependent on the presumption and may be entirely different, given different presumptions.

Also, there is the additional matter of the smuggled in "anti" which you have replaced what might otherwise have been "not" social to warp the scenario away from being a balanced inquiry.    Anti-social is not the exact opposite as social.   Anti has an element  of volition that is required.   Social has an element of volition that is not required, only presumed.  It could be passively social, and not necessarily "pro" social.   But that is a discussion for another day.   

All of the foregoing discussion aside, we have strayed considerably from the original point of the camp and the point of the camp amendment.   The camp holds that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fraud.   The morality of Korihor, a character in the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of how he was characterized and treated, is an interesting social question worthy of attention, but not a very strong and direct offering of evidence as to the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon and therefore, runs the risk of diluting support if incorporated into the camp position statement.   If dilution of support is your goal, I think you are on the right track.   If strengthening your support with evidence whose objectivity requires less defense, I think The Gospel of St. Mark Controversy and the 17th Century Language Controversy would be more persuasive.  

But why take my word for it?  I am an alien hybrid out of his element among Homo Sapiens!  They terrify me.... and more to the relevant point...  I terrify them!   LOL!

OK, Mr. Brown,

Let me see if I’m missing anything with a generalization which I believes captures your objections.  It sounds to me like you are adding some external situations which would obviously override the claim.  Something like it would be good for one person to die, if it was the only way to save 10.  Is there anything I’m missing with such a general summary?

Let me see if I can tighten up my claim, given that:

1.    “All else being equal, existence is better than nonexistence.”

And similar

2.    “All else being equal, social (not being isolated) is better than being anti-social or isolated.

Are those better?

Hmmmm..... gonna have to disagree with the assertion that it is a necessary objective truth that survival is better than non-survival.   The assertion "survival is better than non-survival" cannot be separated from underlying subjective presumption both of circumstances where that actually would be "better" and an underlying subjective presumption about the definition of "survival" that would be required to "make" the statement true.   These "necessary" presumptions trample on Aristotelian logic and actually do falsify the notion that the assertion is objective.   Also, I'm confident that there is also a less obvious subjective presumption, required to make the assertion true, about the object of the assertion.

To the point of the object:  Let us consider the object to be a rattle snake.

To the point of the circumstance:  Let us consider the circumstance (as to the rattle snake) to be angry, threatened, and within striking distance of your leg.  You have fallen, are momentarily disabled and incapable of any proactive way to prevent a bite, like hitting the rattle snake with a stick, and, there is nothing else to impede the rattle snake from striking, with effectiveness and a lethal dose of venom, at your leg.  It is going to strike and kill, you, if it does not die.   That is the circumstance we are discussing in this scenario.   

That circumstance would have to be "presumed" out of existence if it not to be considered one of many possible circumstances available in which to consider the assertion, "survival is better than non-survival".

To the point of the definition of survival: Let us consider that, in this instance, survival of the rattle snake would be defined to exclude death in this realm.   

So, the rattle snake is alive, it is within striking range of your leg, it will most certainly strike with lethal effectiveness if it does not die, first.  So, you will die, if the rattle snake does not die.

Accordingly, the "betterness" of survival must be subjectively applied to YOU from your perspective by presumption instead of the rattle snake in order for the assertion to be true.   

By standards of Aristotelian logic, the assertion is not "objectively true" if a presumption is required to eliminate interpretive circumstances and perspectives in which it might be found to be false.

So, your assertion that the assertion "survival is better than non-survival is objectively true", cannot be "logically true" unless we presume some form of logic that is not Aristotelian logic.    In the instance we even presume to eliminate Aristotelian logic as the type of logic we are talking about, we have falsified the claim, by what some might call reasonable standards.  

There is no recovery from the inherent flaws in the claim, that is not necessarily attached to some presumption about leniency in interpretation that is self defeating.   

Now then....   

In certain worlds..... the forgoing analysis may be viewed as obnoxious excretion originating from the south end of a north bound horse.  And in certain worlds, that view may also be considered self evidently outside the realm or possibility of being falsifiable and therefore, objectively true.

If that world were this world, then, from one man's perspective, a whole different level of consideration of the interpretive meaning of survival might be handy.   Let us consider that "survival", for this man, might refer to the continuity of discreet consciousness as one passes from this mortal realm to another realm of existence that is "better".   "Better" would be presumed by this man to be free from the obnoxious blight of patently falsifiable assertions to be presented as "objective truth", even if such freedom did not include the mortal body, but did include his consciousness without the perceptual limitations that the mortal body involves.   However, another man might exist, who does not accept this presumed definition of survival  and only considers survival to be alive in this realm, with a mortal body.    

So  the presumed definition of survival is inseparable from the assertion, "survival is better than non-survival".   Since a presumption is necessary to find the statement to be true, it is, therefore, not objectively true, but only subjectively true.

By this point.... anyone following this dialogue will likely be reaching for a gun, while considering that their survival might be more tolerable if this asshole's (me) survival were extinguished.   But, if they only had one cartridge left, in a national shortage of ammunition, the survival of their ammo might fall into question, and with it the survival of their family, if we presume, as the circumstance, that zombies are knocking at the door.   

Of course we could presume no such circumstances, but in the moment we do..... objectivity is falsified.

ZZZZzzzzzzzzz....... 

(sorry, the writer above fell asleep before he could finish.... but, happily, that sleep probably spared the reader from sliding into a coma)

You indicated “The logic being, not good = fraud.   But that is subjective.” But if one’s claims are falsifiable, it is more than just subjective.  Canonizer encourages people to describe how their camps could be falsified, a necessary step for theoretical science to approach scientific consensus.  In fact, this is precisely what Korihore did in verse3 43 by saying:” If thou wilt show me a a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.”

In addition to falsifiability, I believe there are logically necessary good things.  For example, it is a necessarily truth, that survival is better than non-survival, or being together is necessarily better than separation.  That is why evolutionary progress is necessary in all possible sufficiently complex worlds.  Nothing can stop it.

For at least those two reasons, for me, good vs evil is discoverable and objective and not just “subjective” or declarative.

You indicated “The logic being, not good = fraud.   But that is subjective.” But if one’s claims are falsifiable, it is more than just subjective.  Canonizer encourages people to describe how their camps could be falsified, a necessary step for theoretical science to approach scientific consensus.  In fact, this is precisely what Korihore did in verse3 43 by saying:” If thou wilt show me a a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.”

In addition to falsifiability, I believe there are logically necessary good things.  For example, it is a necessarily truth, that survival is better than non-survival, or being together is necessarily better than separation.  That is why evolutionary progress is necessary in all possible sufficiently complex worlds.  Nothing can stop it.

For at least those two reasons, for me, good vs evil is discoverable and objective and not just “subjective” or declarative.

You make many good points, good food for thought.  Even if I disagree with you, thinking it is objective evil, not just subjective evil, you make a good point that this evil may not be the best evidence that the BOM is fraud.  To me, if the BOM is fraud, that is a good thing.  If something as good as the church, can progress from such a fraud, then there is hope for us all.  But if the BOM is from some already all-powerful God, then even if we ever achieve such goodness, then we to are doomed to similarly “fall” for the same reasons.  I have more faith and hope than to give up and accept something that terrible.

Interesting observations   (Your camp statement proposed changes of 6/27 @ 11:21)  but do they logically support the conclusion that the camp represents?  (That the BofM is a 19th Century Fraud)  Or do they actually constitute other more peripheral arguments on the general subject of the healthiness (evil?) of the Book's message, from your point of view, that do not really contribute all that much to the crux of the Camp position, that it is a 19th Century fraud.

Of course, it might be argued, for those who appreciate your point of view, that the "evil" nature of the message about Korihor, as you suggest, is supportive evidence of fraud simply by virtue of its inconsistency with .... well ... let's say "goodness".    The logic being, not good = fraud.   But that is subjective.  

Some may agree with you.   However, I think, by this proposed amendment to your camp statement, you have narrowed the field of potential agreement.   Some who support the conclusion that the BofM is a 19th Century fraud, might not support the reasoning that such subjective "evil" is the best evidence of such, and so, might be discouraged from joining in support of the camp, with this amendment, where they might otherwise have felt more confidently supportive.  

Just a bit of food for thought.

These alternate "evidences" might be viewed as somewhat more direct, and less subjective.... 

The Gospel of St. Mark Controversy and The 17th Century language controversy

Your thoughts?