Mormon Epistemology

[mfbukowski]

Hello bobg,

A PERSONAL thread started to gang up against a new MADB member. (Beautiful! Welcome to MADB Bob )

I have very little confidence (given the starting point of this thread) that this will bring any benefit to anyone.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Look up the other thread which he started and was closed. It is not wise to dispute moderators decisions

[volgadon]

LOAP, I mentioned the road to Emaus on his blog, before you started asking about it and sharing the superb FAIR link. He has yet to address it.

[bobg]

How do you know the bible is "true"?

Why not the Avesta or Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or one of dozens of other alleged "scriptures"?

How do you know the Bible is no more than myths- like the Norse legends or Greek Myths? Why don't you hold those to be scripture?

Yes the Bible is old- but so what! So are all the others! Being old does not prove it is from God!

You were right to say that your heart changed- THAT is the only thing that can tell you that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And that is the only thing that can tell you the Book of Mormon is "true" scripture also.

Firstly Volgadon I have answered it now.

Secondly I initially believed the bible simply because the things it said happen actually happen. Such as my life being changed when I trusted in what it said and put my faith in Christ as well as seeing other people being changed and being healed etc. Since then as my belief and knowledge of the bible has matured I am aware of the overwhelming support it has firstly in terms of accuracy, there are hundreds if not thousands of early documents still out there from the bible from various parts of the world and when compared with each other are 99% or thereabouts in line with each other. Which helps show it has not been changed over time.

And as well as this the locations, currencies and civilizations that are in the bible can be verified, where as none of this can be with the book of Mormon.

You make the right point that ultimately it comes down to faith, you cannot prove that Jesus died, rose again for us there is a strong element of faith however I think there needs to be external supports as well.

[Vance]

Secondly I initially believed the bible simply because the things it said happen actually happen.

How do you know they happened? How do you know that Bible is any more true than the Koran?

Edited to add.

How do you know Christ was actually resurrected? How do you know that the axe head actually floated? How do you know that the sea actually parted and the children of Israel actually crossed on dry land? How do you know that the children of Israel were actually in Egypt?

Because the Bible says so?

Watch out! You are about to go circular!

[bobg]

I can see you are picking and choosing which parts of my post to respond to, let me rephrase.

Secondly I initially believed the bible simply because the things it said happen actually happen. Such as my life being changed when I trusted in what it said and put my faith in Christ as well as seeing other people being changed and being healed etc. Since then as my belief and knowledge of the bible has matured I am aware of the overwhelming support it has firstly in terms of accuracy, there are hundreds if not thousands of early documents still out there from the bible from various parts of the world and when compared with each other are 99% or thereabouts in line with each other. Which helps show it has not been changed over time.

And as well as this the locations, currencies and civilizations that are in the bible can be verified, where as none of this can be with the book of Mormon.

You make the right point that ultimately it comes down to faith, you cannot prove that Jesus died, rose again for us there is a strong element of faith however I think there needs to be external supports as well.

The bible has tons of evidence, I have already conceded not on the spiritual points as they are to be accepted on faith, however the fact that the people groups even existed is something the bible has tons of evidence for, with currencies archaeological finds etc, no one is saying you should believe on the basis of evidence alone however the bible can be proved true in so many ways such as locations etc.

The problem is the book of Mormon has none, if you can show me anything external to the Mormon church showing the lamanites existed that the battles on the hill cummorah happened, anything like that then that would help.

However BYU through studying DNA then led to the book of Mormon introduction having to be changed and even when Mormon scholars do honest study into the book of Mormon background they find nothing.

In a way excellent evidence for the bible is that so many groups want to take it and add to it and claim what it teaches for their own, this could be the ultimate compliment for its truthfulness.

[volgadon]

and even when Mormon scholars do honest study into the book of Mormon background they find nothing.

I am issuing a call for references. What this means is that by board rules you are obligated to back up your statement by providing references, etc.

[bobg]

I am issuing a call for references. What this means is that by board rules you are obligated to back up your statement by providing references, etc.

No problem apologies for me being lazy

biggest one is of course the book of Abraham, in 1966 the LDS church gets ahold of 10 fragments of the original documents and find it to be pagan funeral texts.

Grant Palmer wrote an insiders guide to mormon origins looking at the parts of Mormon history the church does not tell its members, he was excommunicated for that I believe but wrote it as a Mormon.

And there is the DNA study by Simon Southerton a mormon bishop in 1998 and what he found led him to find he could no longer believe in the LDS church,

I am sure there are others and I am not sure its down to me to answer for these people however if I am wrong in what I said please let me know,

[volgadon]

No problem apologies for me being lazy

biggest one is of course the book of Abraham, in 1966 the LDS church gets ahold of 10 fragments of the original documents and find it to be pagan funeral texts.

Grant Palmer wrote an insiders guide to mormon origins looking at the parts of Mormon history the church does not tell its members, he was excommunicated for that I believe but wrote it as a Mormon.

And there is the DNA study by Simon Southerton a mormon bishop in 1998 and what he found led him to find he could no longer believe in the LDS church,

I am sure there are others and I am not sure its down to me to answer for these people however if I am wrong in what I said please let me know,

As irrelevant as it is false. I asked you to back up your statement regarding the Book of Mormon, not provide poorly understood soundbytes about the BoA, or a shortlist of famous apostates.

[bobg]

I see I guess you are right the book of Abraham does not apply there, but the other two do perfectly.

Also Brigham Roberts in his book Studies of the book of Mormon shows alarming similarities between the Book of Mormon and the fiction book view of the hebrews, he died a faithful LDS member as far as I am aware and when he tried to present his problems to the general authorities he was just told well they know its true.

[volgadon]

I see I guess you are right the book of Abraham does not apply there, but the other two do perfectly.

Also Brigham Roberts in his book Studies of the book of Mormon shows alarming similarities between the Book of Mormon and the fiction book view of the hebrews, he died a faithful LDS member as far as I am aware and when he tried to present his problems to the general authorities he was just told well they know its true.

You still have not answered. At the very most you have shown that two Mormons became convinced that the BoM is false. You have yet to substantiate your claim that "even when Mormon scholars do honest study into the book of Mormon background they find nothing."

BTW anyone who could come up with as inane a theory as the little golden pot deserves to be dunked in an inkwell.

Kudos to anyone who gets it besides USU78.

[LifeOnaPlate]

firstly in terms of accuracy, there are hundreds if not thousands of early documents still out there from the bible from various parts of the world and when compared with each other are 99% or thereabouts in line with each other. Which helps show it has not been changed over time.

But this is simply incorrect. We have no original autographs of scripture, not a single one, and there are many variants between different manuscripts. Moreover, scholars have postulated other lost sources (like Q) as well as borrowing by writers, questionable date and authorship of certain things (like several of the Pauline epistles) etc. Further, we can't prove the resurrection of Christ simply by relying on the writings. We can get a pretty good idea what they believed or claimed happen, but as you yourself noted, something else was needed for you to believe--your own experiences. This is similar to a Mormon view, only Mormons believe the Bible is not perfect, but that it is inspired and extremely important nevertheless.

And as well as this the locations, currencies and civilizations that are in the bible can be verified, where as none of this can be with the book of Mormon.

Again we're on dangerous ground here. If you are going to rely on archaeology, etc. you need to deal with he fact that the Bible makes claims that aren't substantiated right now by research. The Exodus, for example, which is a pretty key part of the OT narrative, makes claims about population size etc. that aren't sustained by scholars. There are problems with the account, but reasonable explanations for many of the problems. However, claiming problems don't exist is like hiding one's head in the sand. Also, the BoM starts out in the Old World and its account fits strikingly well with the Old World, the problem with New World stuff is that we don't have a certain grasp of where exactly the peoples went. This is similar to some of the locations named in the Bible which have not been discovered.

[bobg]

You still have not answered. At the very most you have shown that two Mormons became convinced that the BoM is false. You have yet to substantiate your claim that "even when Mormon scholars do honest study into the book of Mormon background they find nothing."

BTW anyone who could come up with as inane a theory as the little golden pot deserves to be dunked in an inkwell.

Kudos to anyone who gets it besides USU78.

I have now shown a few, I think I could show a hundred and you would say I have still shown you nothing so I will let this move on.

How about you show me where they have? And then I can do the same and keep telling you, you have not answered my point.

Though to be fair I would be interested if you could show me any LDS scholars have found convincing evidence for the BOM

[Doctor Steuss]

I see I guess you are right the book of Abraham does not apply there, but the other two do perfectly.

Also Brigham Roberts in his book Studies of the book of Mormon shows alarming similarities between the Book of Mormon and the fiction book view of the hebrews, he died a faithful LDS member as far as I am aware and when he tried to present his problems to the general authorities he was just told well they know its true.

Have you read either BH Roberts book, or Ethan Smith's book (not sure why you call it a "fiction book")?

[bobg]

But this is simply incorrect. We have no original autographs of scripture, not a single one, and there are many variants between different manuscripts. Moreover, scholars have postulated other lost sources (like Q) as well as borrowing by writers, questionable date and authorship of certain things (like several of the Pauline epistles) etc. Further, we can't prove the resurrection of Christ simply by relying on the writings. We can get a pretty good idea what they believed or claimed happen, but as you yourself noted, something else was needed for you to believe--your own experiences. This is similar to a Mormon view, only Mormons believe the Bible is not perfect, but that it is inspired and extremely important nevertheless.

Again we're on dangerous ground here. If you are going to rely on archaeology, etc. you need to deal with he fact that the Bible makes claims that aren't substantiated right now by research. The Exodus, for example, which is a pretty key part of the OT narrative, makes claims about population size etc. that aren't sustained by scholars. There are problems with the account, but reasonable explanations for many of the problems. However, claiming problems don't exist is like hiding one's head in the sand. Also, the BoM starts out in the Old World and its account fits strikingly well with the Old World, the problem with New World stuff is that we don't have a certain grasp of where exactly the peoples went. This is similar to some of the locations named in the Bible which have not been discovered.

The problem here which seems to be passing everyone by is that the book of Mormon has NOTHING, the fact that the bible has any evidence for it puts it in a better place but it has tons. The book of Mormon in comparison to the bible is left very far behind, I would be interested to have someone here challenge this point and actually answer for your own scriptures.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Also Brigham Roberts in his book Studies of the book of Mormon shows alarming similarities between the Book of Mormon and the fiction book view of the hebrews, he died a faithful LDS member as far as I am aware and when he tried to present his problems to the general authorities he was just told well they know its true.

First, he went by B.H., not "Brigham," and second, he wrote his papers almost a hundred years ago. When you take a course on astronomy on college today they do not use textbooks from the 1920s, although a historic overview might mention some of the old views. You go to the latest and greatest. Many of Roberts's questions have been adequately resolved over time. Why are you referring to a faithful Mormon who died nearly a century ago as though he was the definitive case maker for the BoM?

[bobg]

Have you read either BH Roberts book, or Ethan Smith's book (not sure why you call it a "fiction book")?

Doh you got me, not yet I have them both and fully intend to.

And I am open to being wrong on Ethan Smiths book being fiction (let me tell it like it is I am open to being wrong on many things but my understanding is thats what it is.

[bobg]

First, he went by B.H., not "Brigham," and second, he wrote his papers almost a hundred years ago. When you take a course on astronomy on college today they do not use textbooks from the 1920s, although a historic overview might mention some of the old views. You go to the latest and greatest. Many of Roberts's questions have been adequately resolved over time. Why are you referring to a faithful Mormon who died nearly a century ago as though he was the definitive case maker for the BoM?

I did not do that I merely pointed him out as one person. I am not claming any of the people I quoted have brought impending doom on the LDS church I am simply saying that they made significant findings.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The problem here which seems to be passing everyone by is that the book of Mormon has NOTHING, the fact that the bible has any evidence for it puts it in a better place but it has tons.

We're passing it by because it's simply not true, and because it also rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the data in question, the studies which have been performed, and the current state of a very large discussion. You're declaring victory from the couch, but you need to at least step out onto the porch first. It's hard to plant a flag in carpet.

The book of Mormon in comparison to the bible is left very far behind, I would be interested to have someone here challenge this point and actually answer for your own scriptures.

Again, you're not dealing with very substantial problems with your own sacred text while pointing out (sort of) what you think are problems with someone else's sacred text. You declare victory and then you ask where the other team is so you can confront them, although you never have confronted them. It's very peculiar.

Do you know what a double-standard is?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I did not do that I merely pointed him out as one person. I am not claming any of the people I quoted have brought impending doom on the LDS church I am simply saying that they made significant findings.

Findings outdated, and findings you haven't read. Again, would a college course use a textbook from 1920? Why or why not?

[volgadon]

I have now shown a few, I think I could show a hundred and you would say I have still shown you nothing so I will let this move on.

How about you show me where they have? And then I can do the same and keep telling you, you have not answered my point.

Though to be fair I would be interested if you could show me any LDS scholars have found convincing evidence for the BOM

Your claim was that NO Mormon scholar conducting honest research has found ANYTHING to support the BoM. That is the claim you have to substantiate or withdraw.

I am still waiting for you to do either.

[bobg]

Findings outdated, and findings you haven't read. Again, would a college course use a textbook from 1920? Why or why not?

You make a fair point and I don't really want to push this one too much as you rightly say I havent read it, will save this for when I have,

[bobg]

Your claim was that NO Mormon scholar conducting honest research has found ANYTHING to support the BoM. That is the claim you have to substantiate or withdraw.

I am still waiting for you to do either.

I would have thought it would be easier for you to show me one that has, rather than me show you none have, however outside of the Mormon church nothing has been found so I would be interested to know if anything has internally as if it has not many people seem to know about it

[LifeOnaPlate]

You make a fair point and I don't really want to push this one too much as you rightly say I havent read it, will save this for when I have,

But this is my complaint about practically everything you've talked about here, as well as on your blog. You are very confident that you have something important to say, but you're sort of like Copernicus rushing in to tell Newton that you have figured out the cosmos. Except that Copernicus actually made a good contribution formerly, whereas you are simply not aware of the wider discussion and repeating anti-Mormon criticisms without realizing they are outdated, inaccurate, or false. Doesn't that inspire some humility at all? (I'm still waiting for your response to my question about Emmaus.)

[volgadon]

I would have thought it would be easier for you to show me one that has, rather than me show you none have, however outside of the Mormon church nothing has been found so I would be interested to know if anything has internally as if it has not many people seem to know about it

It might be easier, but since you are the one who made a wild claim, you are the one who should substantiate it. I am still waiting.

[Doctor Steuss]

Doh you got me, not yet I have them both and fully intend to.

And I am open to being wrong on Ethan Smiths book being fiction (let me tell it like it is I am open to being wrong on many things but my understanding is thats what it is.

Reverend Smith