An Empirical Study of the Book of Mormon promise

[maupayman]

Yes, the Holy Ghost would confirm to people who pray with real intent, by His definition, so there would be no difference between the two groups' responses--both would depend on the participants' real intent.

Ok, so you think that as long as they found participants with real intent, the Holy Ghost would confirm their prayers, even though it was part of a study?

[mfbukowski]

No, i'm not trying to do archaeology. I don't really see where you got that from either.

So, give them a section to read that doesn't have the promise.

I am not sure where you are going with this, but the standard critical response is that somehow we are supposed to believe that the historicity and scientific archaeology of the BOM is supposedly (to us) "verified" as being historically "true" by some vague burning in the bosom.

And giving them a "section" WITHOUT the promise would just be another of many reasons for invalidating the test. For me, the most astonishing part of the whole concept of the BOM was the allegation that one could actually get an answer from God that it was "true".

Leaving out any portion would invalidate the "test".

[mfbukowski]

That is unless the subjects don't even know they are part of a test, that is.

Yes, and good luck on that one!

No pre-interviews, no pre-selection which would entail interviews etc.

[mfbukowski]

The major problem with any proposal to subject God to an 'empirical study' is that God is not some inanimate and dispassionate natural force, like gravity. He's a person. And a parent. And very, very smart.

To create an imperfect analogy, it's like proposing to determine if Mum is real based upon whether or not she gives every child who asks a biscuit. I mean, shouldn't a loving, concerned parent give every single child the exact same biscuit every single time one of them asks? To be consistent and empirical and all?

The problem is that Mum knows her children. She knows that one of them is diabetic and shouldn't have a biscuit at all. She knows that one of them has already sneaked five biscuits earlier in the day. She knows that one of them just wants it so that he can feed it to the dog. She knows that one of them refused to eat both his breakfast and his lunch. She knows that one of them has been working hard all day and both needs and deserves a biscuit. She knows that one of them will kindly give the biscuit to the little girl next day. And on and on. Consequently, her responses to her childen are not the same. Not the same amongst children and not the same from one moment to the next even when it's the same one asking. A child who gets a biscuit on Tuesday may not get one on Friday because Mum knows her children and what they need and why they're asking and what they're going to do with their biscuits.

And so God, the Man of Holiness, the Eternal Father, is never going to satisfy those who need Him to be a giant machine who can be tested and prodded and then manipulated.

Dang you anyway!

How come you always get it exactly, perfectly RIGHT every dang time???

And while being nice too?

Cheesh. One might get the idea that you are a follower of Christ! You better watch that stuff!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

In my opinion, the spiritual question answered in praying about the Book of Mormon is "Should I join the LDS church"? or something close to that...

I would have to humbly disagree with your opinion... the question answered when praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is- "Is the Book of Mormon the word of God?"

[semlogo]

In my opinion, an empirical test would not work.

The test involves a response of the Holy Spirit - which only comes with faith.

If you are doing empirical testing, you are not really showing any faith.

Therefore, the test would not work.

That is unless the subjects don't even know they are part of a test, that is.

It should work. The subjects can have faith, even if the people doing the study are empiricists.

[mfbukowski]

I think they must first want the story to be true.

OK- now that is another question.

But logically all it does is move the same question to another level. Why would they "want" it to be "true"?

I strongly suspect you are on to something- that it all comes down to psychology somewhere. I think that is clear of critics- they just do not WANT it to be "true" in any possible definition of "truth". I think that is even true for ex-Mormons who once believed. The switch goes off and poof- they are now enemies of the church.

It changes the question to one of psychology but one could still postulate that those with the pro-Mormon psychology are the "elect".

And they find the answer which "works" for them.

So you still have multiple paths verified by personal experiences and personally constructed world-views and people finding the path that works for them.

Ultimately to me, that is just looking at the same question from a different point of view.

[tana]

The major problem with any proposal to subject God to an 'empirical study' is that God is not some inanimate and dispassionate natural force, like gravity. He's a person. And a parent. And very, very smart.

I don't believe I agree with this completely.....for the reason that, God may be a person/human, but he doesn't err. Therefor his decisions are not based on guesstimates, opinions or assumptions. For that matter it seems to follow that he doesn't even make decisions. Decision making implies weighing the evidence and making an informed call.

It seems to me that a being with a perfect knowledge of all things is nothing more than a computer, and a properly formatted algorithm will receive the same results every time, without fail.

Humans make decisions based on gut feelings, star alignments, biases and a preponderance of the evidence.....I can't see a perfect intellect doing anything other than following the rules. Ixnay on playing favorites.

Whether God is a force (like gravity) or not......He *must* behave like it.

[mfbukowski]

I would have to humbly disagree with your opinion... the question answered when praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is- "Is the Book of Mormon the word of God?"

I have no problem with that. And I can see how that would be an important distinction to you- fair enough!

The situation of course, with most of the world, is that they have not been exposed to the possibility that even if the BOM is true, there are alternatives to the LDS church.

You guys gotta get the word out better I guess!

[CV75]

Ok, so you think that as long as they found participants with real intent, the Holy Ghost would confirm their prayers, even though it was part of a study?

Yes, this kind of study is the very purpose of mortality (Abraham 3:25). The Holy Ghost answers the prayers of those who actually ask with real intent, regardless of the testing environment or group in which they find themselves, or how they have been categorized or handicapped by others. Because all participants have the capacity to ask with real intent, there is really only one study group, and the study administrator has to be someone who fully understands the participants' intent and circumstances, meaning only Jesus.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, this kind of study is the very purpose of mortality (Abraham 3:25). The Holy Ghost answers the prayers of those who actually ask with real intent, regardless of the testing environment or group in which they find themselves, or how they have been categorized or handicapped by others. Because all participants have the capacity to ask with real intent, there is really only one study group, and the study administrator has to be someone who fully understands the participants' intent and circumstances, meaning only Jesus.

Excellent point.

It DOES say with "true intent" and there can be only one judge of that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have no problem with that. And I can see how that would be an important distinction to you- fair enough!

The situation of course, with most of the world, is that they have not been exposed to the possibility that even if the BOM is true, there are alternatives to the LDS church.

You guys gotta get the word out better I guess!

I agree with that 150%

[Hamba Tuhan]

This is what I was thinking, would LDS even give any validity to empirical study results in spiritual matters. My guess is that they would not.

And for very good, soundly logical reasons. God is not a machine or a force of nature. He's a Father who perfectly understands the thoughts and intents of his children's hearts and then individualises His responses accordingly.

My suspiscion is more that people need to be led down a path, before they receive an "answer" that the BoM is true.

It's purely anecdotal evidence, but I suspect there are thosands of people you could interview whose exposure to the Book of Mormon was purely accidental (a la Vincenzo di Francesca) or outright hostile (I'm thinking of a couple I knew on my mission who read the book on the airplane whilst heading to California in order to convince an aunt that she was about to join a 'cult') and therefore included no 'leading' whatsoever.

In other words, I think they must first want the story to be true. I have trying to think of ways this could be tested....

How would you propose to separate out this presumed phenomenon from the alternate possibility: That some people have reasons for wanting the Book of Mormon not to be true?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Whether God is a force (like gravity) or not......He *must* behave like it.

Not so. It is not 'error' to individualise responses when One is privy to the infinite variables belonging to each individual in question. That's the rule. It's not 'playing favourites'; it's doing what is best by and for each person involved. That's the real blessing of omniscience. 'One size fits all' is the retreat of those who lack perfect knowledge.

It's like chaos theory. Because there are an infinite number of variables, it is impossible to predict what the next outcome will be, but, in retrospect, one can see a definite pattern emerge, one that only becomes clearer and clearer over time despite remaining impossible to predict.

Gravity does not alter its effects based on what is in the best interest of the person experiencing it; God does. For which we can all be grateful.

[TAO]

It should work. The subjects can have faith, even if the people doing the study are empiricists.

Yes, they can have faith, but in other words... the test must be done on two thousand or so people who are unaware they are being observed, who are curious into reading the Book of Mormon. Also, data must be included as to what the person's personal feelings are (it isn't just a test of the promise, it is also a test of personal sincerity). With all of these variables, it would require an amount of secret monitoring which would probably be illegal.

That's the problem with it .

Not saying it wouldn't be possible... but it would so difficult to gauge that it would be not worth the time and energy spent - as well as having to have a permit to get around the personal-privacy part of the law.

CV75's post also outlines another problem - there is no way to measure serious intent for us (only Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father and others up there they permit to having the knowledge of such can determine it).

[mfbukowski]

How would you propose to separate out this presumed phenomenon from the alternate possibility: That some people have reasons for wanting the Book of Mormon not to be true?

Precisely!

[maupayman]

While I agree, that a study of this nature would be difficult to design, I don't think real intent could be impossible to determine. Questions could be given to classify people along a spectrum. things like do you believe in God? Are you searching for further light and knowledge from God etc. Participants could be ranked, relative to each other.

[CV75]

While I agree, that a study of this nature would be difficult to design, I don't think real intent could be impossible to determine. Questions could be given to classify people along a spectrum. things like do you believe in God? Are you searching for further light and knowledge from God etc. Participants could be ranked, relative to each other.

For that to work the administrator would have to be much smarter than all the participants so they could not lie or game the test, and then how would he screen out those smarter than him pretending to be less?