Why Can'T We Ask The Questions For Once?

[CASteinman]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I understand you want to make a point, but I don't really have any questions for them. I don't think that they have anything to teach me and I oppose asking questions for the purpose of undermining their faith or beliefs. So, I can't think of any reason to do this.

[CASteinman]

But what of the individual who has sincerley read the BOM (many times actually) and applied and lived by it's teachings in faith and still receives no confirmation that it is what it represents?

How are you doing? Are you active in the Church? Paying tithing? things like that?

[Palerider]

How are you doing? Are you active in the Church? Paying tithing? things like that?

Ahhh....Someone who is genuinely interested in my welfare.....? Or are you perhaps presuming to be my bishop?

Please re-read the second sentence in my post above. I think I see you coming from a very long distance off....

[cinepro]

Because there is much knowledge that is not in the realm of religious faith and at present can only be ascertained by such inquiry.

As far as I can tell, any claim about anything can be a faith claim. I suspect the only reason people make claims that aren't faith claims (and thus require empirical evidence) is because lots of people won't accept faith claims about certain things.

But if everyone would accept faith claims not just about supernatural things but about everything, think how much better the world would be. Think how much more knowledge we would have about everything!

[zerinus]

But what of the individual who has sincerley read the BOM (many times actually) and applied and lived by it's teachings in faith and still receives no confirmation that it is what it represents?

What about them?

Will you resort to the usual Mormon tactic of blaming the individual and finding fault with them rather than allowing that perhaps there is a hole in your claim?

Will you resort to the usual anti-Mormon tactic of dismissing the individual who reads and gains a testimony of the Book of Mormon as deluded, duped, deceived by the devil etc.?

Does the church keep or even seek to know how many millions of people have actually sincerley read the BOM and found it lacking?

Have you worked that out? What was your methodology for gathering that information? Have you conducted a survey, interviewed people, etc.? Will you provide us with the details of your methodology and findings, and where you get your "millions of people" figure from?

As I recall Mr. Hinkley used to proudly hold up the BOM in general conference referencing it as a physical (empirical) proof that cannot be dismissed and implies the critics cannot explain it's origins. Therefore he issues the challenge and opens the door to a discussion on an empirical level rather than soley one of faith.

That is not what he was trying to do. He meant that it was a tangible object that could be put to the test of faith.

In reality many of the critics claims are every bit as plausible as your own if plausibility is your standard........

So what? You are welcome to go and believe them. Nobody is stopping you. Luckily for us, however, there are also many people who read the Book of Mormon and do gain testimony of its truth, and join the Church. The Book of Mormon and the restored gospel are intended for them, not for those who don't believe. Our message is intended for those who believe, not for those who don't. The unbelievers are welcome to believe whatever they want to believe. Nobody is stopping them. We don't need any lectures from them though. We think we know how to do our job. We don't think we need any advice from them on how to improve our performance.

[CASteinman]

Ahhh....Someone who is genuinely interested in my welfare.....?

Maybe. If you were still active, I had a thought for you.

Or are you perhaps presuming to be my bishop?

Not at all. I have less than zero desire for that.

Please re-read the second sentence in my post above.

I read it. It does not pertain to me.

I think I see you coming from a very long distance off....

I don't think so. I am disappointed in your "between the lines" accusation.

[Avatar4321]

I dont think "putting them on the defensive" or anyone else on the defensive is a good idea. If we want to truly communicate with others, we need to get them to put their defenses down.

However, I do think we can lower defenses by asking questions, if we ask the right questions with love and kindness.

[blackstrap]

Even Paul prayed long and hard with real intent to have an affliction removed.It didn't happen apparently.What should we take from that? One of the spiritual gifts listed in the scriptures is for one to believe on the words of others. May I suggest that receiving a personal revelation may not be the ONLY way to believe in the truth of the BoM.

[Scott Lloyd]

But what of the individual who has sincerley read the BOM (many times actually) and applied and lived by it's teachings in faith and still receives no confirmation that it is what it represents?

I would wish such an individual well and hope that he or she continues to seek such a confirmation by praying in faith "with real intent." But the fact he or she has not yet succeeded does not invalidate the spiritual confirmation received by those who have.

Will you resort to the usual Mormon tactic of blaming the individual and finding fault with them rather than allowing that perhaps there is a hole in your claim?

This is a false dichotomy. I can stand by my position without "blaming the individual" who, for whatever reason, has not received the confirmation.

Does the church keep or even seek to know how many millions of people have actuUally sincerley read the BOM and found it lacking?

I would see no merit or value in such an endeavor. The truth of God is not established by public opinion polls. Rather, it is established in the heart of each humble and seeking individual, and it is done one person at a time as God, in His perfect wisdom, sees fit to bestow such sacred personal revelation.

Moreover, I have no doubt that, were such a survey to be taken, there would be many, many persons whose contempt and hatred for the Church of Jesus Christ and consuming passion to discredit it s such that they would readily lie about having read the Book of Mormon in the first place or about having asked God with faith and "real intent" if it is true. Ergo, even if the concept of such a survey were deemed to have any merit, the survey itself would be useless because of sheer unreliability.

Without the other side of the equation you really can't trumpet your successes as actually being spiritual "proofs".

I don't see anyone doing such trumpeting. On the contrary, I posited that all the Church seeks to do is establish and preserve plausibility so that a humble truth seeker might be motivated to ask God for himself or herself. My post was in response to someone who implied that the "burden of proof" is on the Church. I rejected that notion saying that the Church is not seeking to "prove" anything by the conventional means that the poster had in mind. On the other hand it is the antagonists who have the burden to prove the Church of Jesus Christ false, and thus far they have collectively failed.

I'm sure all of those who reject the BOM and the story of it's origin are all lacking in faith and probably "worldly" types.

No, not all.

I recall encountering years ago an anonymous poster on a message board, someone of the Evangelical Protestant persuasion, who gleefully announced that she had "tried it and it worked." She had prayed and been told the Book of Mormon is false. It was transparently obvious, from her posting history, that she had lacked the "real intent" necessary to receive a manifestation of truth. Rather, she was driven by her personal hostility toward Mormonism. Her prideful allegiance to the supremacy of her own preconceived conclusions had left her unprepared to receive sacred personal revelation, and it was clear that whatever the source of her "answer," it was not the Holy Ghost.

(By the way, it occurs to me this discussion would be more productive if you were to remove the chip from your shoulder.)

As I recall Mr. Hinkley used to proudly hold up the BOM in general conference referencing it as a physical (empirical) proof that cannot be dismissed and implies the critics cannot explain it's origins. Therefore he issues the challenge and opens the door to a discussion on an empirical level rather than soley one of faith.

I suspect you are taking President Hinckley's words out of context.

In reality many of the critics claims are every bit as plausible as your own if plausibility is your standard........

"Plausibility" doesn't prove the Church of Jesus Christ wrong any more than it proves it right.

What it does do is leave the question open so that a sincere seeker can go to the Lord in prayer (see above). As I said, that is contrary to what the Church's antagonists have in mind.

I doubt it will ever be possible, prior to the Second Coming of Christ, to conclusively prove the Church true through purely empirical means. That would remove the need for faith, and we are in mortality to learn and develop faith.

On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the antagonists will never be able to conclusively falsify the Church. They are destined to failure in that attempt.

The most they can do is sow seeds of doubt, and the work of the apologist (defender) is to counter them in that effort.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I, for one, would never want to be in the position of making a direct assault on the religious faith of another. For too long, I have seen antagonists engaging in that endeavor against the Church of Jesus Christ, and I find it highly distasteful.

Enter the CARMites and Christian Apologists.

I find apologetics to be somewhat pointless. It seems to affirm known truth and leaves very little room for any further light or knowledge.