The Most Remarkable Thing in the Book of Mormon?

[Jason]

Your feelings for your wife ARE self-induced, ie come from your brain. But you aren't claiming that I'll be damned for not believing that you love your wife nor am I claiming that anything should be taken from you because those feelings are self-induced.

How about that? I demonstrated that all speaking about spiritual communication is at best an imperfect analogy of the real experience with an imperfect analogy.

If God has decided that his wisdom should be imparted to man in the same subjective way that humans define love and that is impossible to communicate reliably or observe as originating from Him then God clearly has no interest in his children discoverying truth since such a method can be easily applied to verify virtually anything.

Except that it's not the same way that humans define love, and it isn't impossible to observe it as originating from Him, even if it is largely impossible to directly communicate the experience to others.

Yes, but there are infinite 'potential' sources if we don't have to provide concrete evidence for any of them. I could just as easily state that we cannot rule out fairies or mother nature.

I consider a spiritual experience to be concrete evidence. It just happens to be concrete evidence that cannot be communicated to another via postings on an internet forum.

[Luigi]

You say you believe in the evidences of science but is not that having "faith in man"? We have had this discussion before and I have come to the conclusion that you either believe in God or you do not... it is a choice. The men I believe in are the witnesses that God has provided... The men you believe in are men of science, but the fact that they use science to arrive at some truths does not make them infallible. I cannot explain why I have a testimony, I can only say that I do and that I can no more convince you of it than you can convince me that God does not exist. The things of the spirit must be understood by the spirit or they are forever unknown. I love the Church and I love the Lord and His Gospel, I hope that I might be able to help someone search for themselves the things of God. As for proving or convincing anyone, I do not have that power, Nephi could not do it... he could not convince his brothers Laman and Lemuel to partake of the love of God... that was something only they could do. Jesus could not force the Chief Priests to believe and accept the love of God... it is interesting that He did not choose to walk into Herod's court or Pilate's palace or even the Temple of Herod and show His resurrected body to all of the people... proving to them He was indeed the Christ, instead He chose to go to His apostles in a locked room and had them be His witnesses. So yes I guess it does boil down to having faith in the words of men who are inspired of God. But it is much more than that it is also the key of revelation, if God can really reveal Himself to anyone that seeks Him.

You say you believe in the evidences of religion but is not that having "faith in man"? We have had this discussion before and I have come to the conclusion that you either believe in God or you do not... it is a choice and I would hope no reasonable and loving God would ever condemn men for a choice when the evidence to favor choosing belief in him is so scanty. The men you believe CLAIM they are the witnesses that God has provided... The men I believe in are men of science which provide evidence for their claims, I never claim that such methods make them infallible. I can explain why I trust science, but I can't make people abandon their dogma to accept my reasons. The claim that "the spirit must be understood by the spirit or they are forever unknown" is similar to the claims of all other pseudosciences which make claim to some 'special knowledge' unable to be understood by 'outsiders'. You love the Church and you love the Lord (as presented in Mormonism), I hope that I might be able to help someone search for themselves the things of truth. As for proving or convincing anyone, I do not have that power, more intelligent men than me could not do it... each must decided whether to accept the evidence and analysis or to reject it for beliefs they find comforting and appealing. Jesus, if he indeed was resurected, did not force the Chief Priests to believe and accept him... it is interesting that He did not choose to walk into Herod's court or Pilate's palace or even the Temple of Herod and show His resurrected body to all of the people... proving to them He was indeed the Christ, instead He chose to go to His apostles in a locked room and had them be His witnesses. Legitimate scientists open the evidence to all and allow all to experiment, analyze and challenge their findings. So yes I guess it does boil down to having faith in the words of men who CLAIM they are inspired of God. But you claim it is also the key of revelation, and apparently if Mormonism is true God reveals it in a way which is indistinguishable from how every other fraudulent pseudoscience which has been pawned onto mankind is verified.

[Luigi]

How about that? I demonstrated that all speaking about spiritual communication is at best an imperfect analogy of the real experience with an imperfect analogy.

Yes. Imperfect to say the least.

Except that it's not the same way that humans define love, and it isn't impossible to observe it as originating from Him, even if it is largely impossible to directly communicate the experience to others.

Okay. How?

I consider a spiritual experience to be concrete evidence. It just happens to be concrete evidence that cannot be communicated to another via postings on an internet forum.

That is circular. You are in essence saying spiritual experiences are their own evidence of coming from God.

[Anyon]

Statements from the Smithsonian

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research .....

The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

[my notes: Iron production to create steel for the number of weapons suggested in the Book of Mormon would of caused massive deforestation, water and air pollution from the production of charcol.]

There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

[Doctor Steuss]

I have had direct influence of God. He tells me all Mormons are wrong and that using subjective experiences to try to prove his existence is ridiculous.

This direct influence of G-d â?? it wouldnâ??t have happened to be subjective, eh?

Only one thing can be concluded by this. You have a different G-d than the Mormons. Huh-zah for polytheism!

Statements from the Smithsonian

I like moving goalposts too.

And shotguns.

And puppies.

And ADD.

[Anyon]

This direct influence of G-d â?? it wouldnâ??t have happened to be subjective, eh?

Only one thing can be concluded by this. You have a different G-d than the Mormons. Huh-zah for polytheism!

I like moving goalposts too.

And shotguns.

And puppies.

And ADD.

I prefer treating that "burning in the bosom" with a good anti acid...

[Luigi]

I like moving goalposts too.

And shotguns.

And puppies.

And ADD.

My thoughts exactly. Anyon, get on topic.

[Doctor Steuss]

I prefer treating that "burning in the bosom" with a good anti acid...

You should try having some milk. The uncomfortable burning is likely being caused by meat.

[consiglieri]

You should try having some milk. The uncomfortable burning is likely being caused by meat.

Milk before meat is usually prescribed by a Doctor of Theology.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

I didn't say they couldn't-but I've failed to ever hear an explanation that justified attributing a spiritual experience as coming from God.

And this is partially my problem. As someone who has some mental issues, and that has dabbled in hippie substances, I often wonder if when that â??undeniableâ? answer from G-d comes, if Iâ??ll recognize it.

On the same side, Iâ??m not completely comfortable discounting the experiences of others as nothing more than subjective warm fuzzies.

Edited to add:

I think I agree with Soren to an extent (if I understood him correctly) that for the test to be truly remarkable (not that it doesn't have its merits) it would need to have a way to know that it wasn't true. But, would such a thing cause it to be any less subjective?

[Lamanite]

And this is partially my problem. As someone who has some mental issues, and that has dabbled in hippie substances, I often wonder if when that â??undeniableâ? answer from G-d comes, if Iâ??ll recognize it.

On the same side, Iâ??m not completely comfortable discounting the experiences of others as nothing more than subjective warm fuzzies.

On this point Steuss I have to weigh in. I have done every street drug available. I've taken almost every prescription drug that can get you high. That was more than a decade ago. Today, when I have a "spiritual experience" it is a much different experience than lets Say "E" or acid or heroin. In fact I can almost say for certain that these things are imitations of something Divine.

Then again, I'm a tad bit crazy myself and a wee bit prone to anger , so I'm not sure if I'm typing or if it's Tyler...

Big UP!

[Kyle]

This direct influence of G-d â?? it wouldnâ??t have happened to be subjective, eh?

Now you understand the irony of the subjective God.

[Doctor Steuss]

Now you understand the irony of the subjective God.

Life taught me long ago that if there is a G-d, He has a penchant for irony.

[Kyle]

Life taught me long ago that if there is a G-d, He has a penchant for irony.

Especially when it comes to something so important, right?

[mpschmitt]

I was referring to your position that the BoM is an impressive text. (I should have quoted more, to include this:"I've read other Holy books from other religions and have not yet found a book (the bible excepted, of course) whose spiritual depth and principles can measure up to what I find in the Book of Mormon.") The point you're making here is a common one: that the BoM is so impressive--spiritually or however you wish to define it--that Joseph Smith, an uneducated farm boy, couldn't possibly have written it himself.

My point was that for most people the BoM is not as impressive as it is for you--that the spiritual depth and principles allegedly contained within the BoM are no more impressive to the vast majority of the human populationthan L. Ron Hubbard's book "Dianetics." Of course, there's no way to objectively measure the complexity, profundity, or theological worth of any particular book. But still---the numbers say something. How else would you measure the impressiveness of a book than by how many people it impresses?

I think we are in a realm of conversation where neither one of us can prove anything and both of us can make bold statements to support the unsupportable :-). I agree that most people probably would not say that the Book of Mormon is as impressive as I feel it is. But I would add that most people haven't read it, or if they have read it, 'they haven't read it very thoroughly. The profundity of the Book of Mormon must be experienced to be believed. It's like most matters of faith. Not having read Dianetics, I can't comment on it's profundity. I can comment on the profundity of the Koran, or the Tao Te Ching, or the I Ching, or the Bhagavad Gita (and others) in relation to the Book of Mormon and say from personal experience that while these books have interesting principles and have taught me some things, they don't even come close to the profundity I've found in the Book of Mormon. Now to be fair, I haven't read any of these works with the level of attention I've given to the Book of Mormon, so you might say that could be one possible explanation. But there is a way a holy or scriptural book immediately grabs you and speaks to your soul (or has the opposite effect of seeming lacking), even with only a first perusal. So far only the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have seemed to immediately declare themselves authentically divine in origin in that way for me. You may say that that is because I've given those books more time, or because I came from a Christian upbringing or a host of other reasons (and they'd all be valid arguments), but my heart knows otherwise. Unfortunately I can't copy and paste my heart here (very messy proposition). I find that each time I read the Book of Mormon or the Bible new layers of understanding become apparent and my appreciation for them deepens. But as you say, all of this is very subjective.

There are however, some aspects about the profundity and impressiveness of the Book of Mormon that may be fairly objectively (though not completely of course) observed and measured. Jeff Lindsay has a pretty good list of some of them here: http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml I can't find any reasonable argument from the history of Joseph Smith's life that would explain this list (speaking as purely objectively as I can when weighing all the evidence). In order to explain the Book of Mormon in a naturalistic way that would satisfactorily explain even this short list, I would have to have a great deal more faith in the capacity of human ingenuity, intuition, religiosity, and genius than I do at present.

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that religiosity decreased with education. From Phil Zuckerman's "Society Without God":

I've come across similar statistics showing that something like 97% of PhD level biologists are atheist or agnostic, which is significant in my opinion. It is telling that those who are the most familiar with the workings of organic machines share the opinion that no gods were involved in the making of such machines.

What it says to me is that the more learned a man or woman becomes, the more susceptible he or she is to the delusion that they have it all locked up and figured out. God can't possibly exist because their puny measurements don't allow for his possibility. And why should we trust their measurements.

Do an experiment for me to demonstrate my point. Look at your finger. Move it up and down. Now make your hands into the shape of a bunny the best way you know how. Now sing the Star-Spangled Banner while keeping the bunny shape with your hands. If someone asks what you're doing right now, just tell them "research" and stare at them silently until they move along (keep holding the bunny shape - very important).

Now what just happened there? The PhD who has ruled out God as a possibility (how they have accomplished this feat I do not know unless they've searched every corner of the Omniverse for him and proven that he's nowhere to be found), would state categorically that a bunch of randomly combined accidental processes led to the evolution of a complex being capable of triggering a set of electro-chemical impulses at will, who decided to trigger those impulses to do something silly. But the PhD cannot explain why you chose to do it (or why you didn't do it because you were a 'fraidy cat - or they would oust you from the library for singing like that). They cannot explain the will that drove the machine. They might be able to analyze your experiences in life that affected your emotions such that you did or did not choose to participate, but there is still a missing piece. You envisioned a bunny rabbit and you did your best approximation of that bunny rabbit. Where does the real bunny live? The model on which you based your hand sculpture. Where is it? Why do you cry at a sad scene in a film? Why do you laugh at a joke? Why do you love the ones you love? There is something about the human condition that science cannot explain or demonstrate experimentally. That is the human soul. The intelligence that drives the machine (the body). There is a need for God, a longing for understanding that elusive part of ourselves that drives the whole thing. Intelligence. For all of our technology and power and understanding, we have yet to purposefully create something as complex as a human being. Yet some PhDs posit that this complexity must have happened by chance because their faith in their own capacity has exceeded their capacity for faith and they become jaded. That explains the observation that many with advanced degrees give up on God. But I might add that not all do, and what is the reason for that? Again we come to the soul as a possible answer. The notion that our intelligence is somehow fashioned after the image of a supreme Creator.

Now, is it any wonder Mormons have a higher rate of religious retention even at higher levels of education? The indoctrination process is more thorough and all-inclusive than virtually any other major, mainstream religion.

There are a number of religious higher education institutions in the United States. Schools with very clear theological underpinnings. The entirety of our educational system has its moorings in Christianity. What were the great Ivy League schools before they became the bastions of relativism? Seminaries. Indoctrination is par for the course in any highly religious culture. Ask Orthodox Jews, or devout Southern Evangelicals, or University students in Islamic nations. I see an awful lot of faithful Christians from other Churches in my neighborhood taking their kids out to Bible study and youth activities every Wednesday night, and they do it because they want their children to be well equipped to defend their faith and receive it's blessings. I lived near an Orthodox Jewish community several years back and saw intense levels of devotion and doctrinal instruction all over the place, all the time. Doctrine and theology matter to these folks just as much as they matter to Latter-day Saints. Doctrine and theology are not just buzz words in these communities. They represent something living and vital to eternal life, peace, and happiness and these believers are not willing to let that go by without a valiant effort. It is an admirable thing.

The retention rates of new converts to Mormonism are not as rosy unfortunately, as it might seem. That's why President Hinckley spoke so sternly about being better at retaining converts several years back. If you are a leader of a worldwide religious faith, I see nothing wrong with making sure your adherents are as well informed as possible, and that the doctrine is consistent and universally taught. Isn't that the job of the leadership? If you truly love your followers, oughtn't you do the very best you can to support them and prepare them to meet God? How else do you do that but by teaching them what you regard to be the truth and how to live it? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (like many other Churches) believes that it is involved in a battle for the souls of mankind. If it didn't expend every resource it had in that battle, I would think that would detract from the sincerity and integrity of it's message.

So, I readily concede that there are many intelligent, highly educated Mormons, and that they most likely share your opinion of the BoM. There are even PhD level Mormon Egyptologists, and professors of Middle Eastern studies. After all, somebody has to teach at BYU. But here's the thing: these people were all born into the church, or were at least indoctrinated at an early age. They didn't get their PhD in, say, Egyptology, and then convert to Mormonism after reading the Pearl of Great Price and being blown away by the accuracy of the facsimile translations. I've asked on this forum if there are ANY prominent LDS apologists who converted after completing their education, and the silence was as deafening as it was expected.

True. It is awfully hard to become a prominent apologist for anything without studying a bit first, and it is also awfully hard to passionately study something of which you're not yet aware or in which you are not yet interested. Terrible catch-22.

I'm not sure if you should trust the silence though. Maybe there are some out there who would meet your criteria...

[charity]

Statements from the Smithsonian

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research .....

The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

[my notes: Iron production to create steel for the number of weapons suggested in the Book of Mormon would of caused massive deforestation, water and air pollution from the production of charcol.]

There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

So much assumption, jumps to conclusions, and misinformation, so little time.

[Jason]

Okay. How?

If it's incommunicatable then obviously I can't communicate the experience. All I can do is use imperfect analogies.

How is it observable? People are joining the Church every day because of it. It's only directly observable if you experience it yourself, but it is observable.

That is circular. You are in essence saying spiritual experiences are their own evidence of coming from God.

Yes, they are their own evidence. As I said, the experience is unmistakable. Have you never encountered something for which there is only one possible explanation?

[Anijen]

Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in God is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God.

As a previous poster put forth in another thread;

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

So I might just use your own logic to apply to

Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in Godthe big bang theory is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God[less creation].

[Luigi]

Yes, they are their own evidence. As I said, the experience is unmistakable. Have you never encountered something for which there is only one possible explanation?

No.

[Jason]

No.

Well there's your problem then.

[Luigi]

As a previous poster put forth in another thread;

So I might just use your own logic to apply to

Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in Godthe big bang theory is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God[less creation].

The Big Bang Theory has observations which support it and though all the details are not certain that is no reason to assume the existence of some unseen superbeing. Many early people made that very mistake. They didn't fully understand lightning or earthquakes and so they said it must be some god throwing down thunderbolts or shaking the earth. One would hope that we had passed such absurd anthromorphism.

[Lightbearer]

You say you believe in the evidences of religion but is not that having "faith in man"? We have had this discussion before and I have come to the conclusion that you either believe in God or you do not... it is a choice and I would hope no reasonable and loving God would ever condemn men for a choice when the evidence to favor choosing belief in him is so scanty. The men you believe CLAIM they are the witnesses that God has provided... The men I believe in are men of science which provide evidence for their claims, I never claim that such methods make them infallible. I can explain why I trust science, but I can't make people abandon their dogma to accept my reasons. The claim that "the spirit must be understood by the spirit or they are forever unknown" is similar to the claims of all other pseudosciences which make claim to some 'special knowledge' unable to be understood by 'outsiders'. You love the Church and you love the Lord (as presented in Mormonism), I hope that I might be able to help someone search for themselves the things of truth. As for proving or convincing anyone, I do not have that power, more intelligent men than me could not do it... each must decided whether to accept the evidence and analysis or to reject it for beliefs they find comforting and appealing. Jesus, if he indeed was resurected, did not force the Chief Priests to believe and accept him... it is interesting that He did not choose to walk into Herod's court or Pilate's palace or even the Temple of Herod and show His resurrected body to all of the people... proving to them He was indeed the Christ, instead He chose to go to His apostles in a locked room and had them be His witnesses. Legitimate scientists open the evidence to all and allow all to experiment, analyze and challenge their findings. So yes I guess it does boil down to having faith in the words of men who CLAIM they are inspired of God. But you claim it is also the key of revelation, and apparently if Mormonism is true God reveals it in a way which is indistinguishable from how every other fraudulent pseudoscience which has been pawned onto mankind is verified.

And you wonder why some do not wish to have dialogue with you...

Have a nice eternity.

[lostindc]

Nice Post, well played, well done!

I think we are in a realm of conversation where neither one of us can prove anything and both of us can make bold statements to support the unsupportable :-). I agree that most people probably would not say that the Book of Mormon is as impressive as I feel it is. But I would add that most people haven't read it, or if they have read it, 'they haven't read it very thoroughly. The profundity of the Book of Mormon must be experienced to be believed. It's like most matters of faith. Not having read Dianetics, I can't comment on it's profundity. I can comment on the profundity of the Koran, or the Tao Te Ching, or the I Ching, or the Bhagavad Gita (and others) in relation to the Book of Mormon and say from personal experience that while these books have interesting principles and have taught me some things, they don't even come close to the profundity I've found in the Book of Mormon. Now to be fair, I haven't read any of these works with the level of attention I've given to the Book of Mormon, so you might say that could be one possible explanation. But there is a way a holy or scriptural book immediately grabs you and speaks to your soul (or has the opposite effect of seeming lacking), even with only a first perusal. So far only the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have seemed to immediately declare themselves authentically divine in origin in that way for me. You may say that that is because I've given those books more time, or because I came from a Christian upbringing or a host of other reasons (and they'd all be valid arguments), but my heart knows otherwise. Unfortunately I can't copy and paste my heart here (very messy proposition). I find that each time I read the Book of Mormon or the Bible new layers of understanding become apparent and my appreciation for them deepens. But as you say, all of this is very subjective.

There are however, some aspects about the profundity and impressiveness of the Book of Mormon that may be fairly objectively (though not completely of course) observed and measured. Jeff Lindsay has a pretty good list of some of them here: http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml I can't find any reasonable argument from the history of Joseph Smith's life that would explain this list (speaking as purely objectively as I can when weighing all the evidence). In order to explain the Book of Mormon in a naturalistic way that would satisfactorily explain even this short list, I would have to have a great deal more faith in the capacity of human ingenuity, intuition, religiosity, and genius than I do at present.

What it says to me is that the more learned a man or woman becomes, the more susceptible he or she is to the delusion that they have it all locked up and figured out. God can't possibly exist because their puny measurements don't allow for his possibility. And why should we trust their measurements.

Do an experiment for me to demonstrate my point. Look at your finger. Move it up and down. Now make your hands into the shape of a bunny the best way you know how. Now sing the Star-Spangled Banner while keeping the bunny shape with your hands. If someone asks what you're doing right now, just tell them "research" and stare at them silently until they move along (keep holding the bunny shape - very important).

Now what just happened there? The PhD who has ruled out God as a possibility (how they have accomplished this feat I do not know unless they've searched every corner of the Omniverse for him and proven that he's nowhere to be found), would state categorically that a bunch of randomly combined accidental processes led to the evolution of a complex being capable of triggering a set of electro-chemical impulses at will, who decided to trigger those impulses to do something silly. But the PhD cannot explain why you chose to do it (or why you didn't do it because you were a 'fraidy cat - or they would oust you from the library for singing like that). They cannot explain the will that drove the machine. They might be able to analyze your experiences in life that affected your emotions such that you did or did not choose to participate, but there is still a missing piece. You envisioned a bunny rabbit and you did your best approximation of that bunny rabbit. Where does the real bunny live? The model on which you based your hand sculpture. Where is it? Why do you cry at a sad scene in a film? Why do you laugh at a joke? Why do you love the ones you love? There is something about the human condition that science cannot explain or demonstrate experimentally. That is the human soul. The intelligence that drives the machine (the body). There is a need for God, a longing for understanding that elusive part of ourselves that drives the whole thing. Intelligence. For all of our technology and power and understanding, we have yet to purposefully create something as complex as a human being. Yet some PhDs posit that this complexity must have happened by chance because their faith in their own capacity has exceeded their capacity for faith and they become jaded. That explains the observation that many with advanced degrees give up on God. But I might add that not all do, and what is the reason for that? Again we come to the soul as a possible answer. The notion that our intelligence is somehow fashioned after the image of a supreme Creator.

There are a number of religious higher education institutions in the United States. Schools with very clear theological underpinnings. The entirety of our educational system has its moorings in Christianity. What were the great Ivy League schools before they became the bastions of relativism? Seminaries. Indoctrination is par for the course in any highly religious culture. Ask Orthodox Jews, or devout Southern Evangelicals, or University students in Islamic nations. I see an awful lot of faithful Christians from other Churches in my neighborhood taking their kids out to Bible study and youth activities every Wednesday night, and they do it because they want their children to be well equipped to defend their faith and receive it's blessings. I lived near an Orthodox Jewish community several years back and saw intense levels of devotion and doctrinal instruction all over the place, all the time. Doctrine and theology matter to these folks just as much as they matter to Latter-day Saints. Doctrine and theology are not just buzz words in these communities. They represent something living and vital to eternal life, peace, and happiness and these believers are not willing to let that go by without a valiant effort. It is an admirable thing.

The retention rates of new converts to Mormonism are not as rosy unfortunately, as it might seem. That's why President Hinckley spoke so sternly about being better at retaining converts several years back. If you are a leader of a worldwide religious faith, I see nothing wrong with making sure your adherents are as well informed as possible, and that the doctrine is consistent and universally taught. Isn't that the job of the leadership? If you truly love your followers, oughtn't you do the very best you can to support them and prepare them to meet God? How else do you do that but by teaching them what you regard to be the truth and how to live it? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (like many other Churches) believes that it is involved in a battle for the souls of mankind. If it didn't expend every resource it had in that battle, I would think that would detract from the sincerity and integrity of it's message.

True. It is awfully hard to become a prominent apologist for anything without studying a bit first, and it is also awfully hard to passionately study something of which you're not yet aware or in which you are not yet interested. Terrible catch-22.

I'm not sure if you should trust the silence though. Maybe there are some out there who would meet your criteria...

[Luigi]

And you wonder why some do not wish to have dialogue with you...

I simply took your words and placed them in my perspective to make the point that it is rather insulting to suggest that YOU are following men who speak for God while others are consciously choosing to avoid God and follow men. Such arrogance is not very conducive to dialogue either Lightbearer.

Have a nice eternity.

Thanks. Please don't be to disapointed if I don't end up in hell.

[charity]

I simply took your words and placed them in my perspective to make the point that it is rather insulting to suggest that YOU are following men who speak for God while others are consciously choosing to avoid God and follow men. Such arrogance is not very conducive to dialogue either Lightbearer.

Thanks. Please don't be to disapointed if I don't end up in hell.

None of us wish anyone ends up in a bad place. Could you handle it if you at some time see the light, and then meet all of us on the other side and find us delighted that you made it?