Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[cdowis]

The lack of any evidence for the existence of any life, location or culture described in the Book of Mormon is one of the most compelling witnesses to the veracity of the Book (but not the most compelling).

The lack of evidence is a compelling witness for the BOM? Not sure what you mean here.

[Gervin]

Worded awkwardly, perhaps.

The lack of any evidence for the existence of any life, location or culture described in the Book of Mormon compels me to question the veracity of the Book. That is, the people in the Book of Mormon - and their stories - (for me) don't ring true when compared to Paul's stories.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Gervin

[cdowis]

OK, that's what I thought you meant.

I think your statement "lack of any evidence" is rather overblown. There is ample evidence, but not overwhelming, so I can only assume that you have assumed the ostrich position with this statement.

We have lots of evidence for the time and place for Paul, because we have ample written records, while such records have been destroyed for the time and place of the BOM. But we have human sacrifice, extensive wars, towers used for religious purposes, cement, the calendar, hierarchy of kings (father and son), and this does not even touch on the evidence in Middle East. At what point will you stop calling it "just a coincidence", but that it is actually evidence. But to say there is NO evidence is silly.

Edited December 24, 2012 by cdowis

[Gervin]

OK, that's what I thought you meant.

I think your statement "lack of any evidence" is rather overblown. There is ample evidence, but not overwhelming, so I can only assume that you have assumed the ostrich position with this statement.

We have lots of evidence for the time and place for Paul, because we have ample written records, while such records have been destroyed for the time and place of the BOM. But we have human sacrifice, extensive wars, towers used for religious purposes, cement, the calendar, hierarchy of kings (father and son), and this does not even touch on the evidence in Middle East. At what point will you stop calling it "just a coincidence", but that it is actually evidence. But to say there is NO evidence is silly.

I don't want to derail this thread or start a "Book of Mormon Evidence" discussion. I could easily claim that you have assumed the head in the clouds position for your statements regarding "evidence." I think a claim of evidence is silly and even the claim of "coincidence" strains at credulity. The claim that the records of the LDS culture were destroyed is silly. I understand the LDS position that sees it differently. Have the last word, if you wish.

[Rob Bowman]

How very interesting. A post by a Mormon intellectual arguing that there is "absolutely no rational reason to believe" that Jesus Christ rose from the dead not only appears on a Mormon discussion board, but is given two "reputation points" in approval, apparently by fellow Mormons. I also find it telling that not one Mormon has so far raised a word in protest.

The Wikipedia article cited in support of the Mormon's argument cites no ancient or primary sources concerning any of the supposed Greek resurrection stories. If one were to poke each of these stories one would find that one of the following scenarios applies in each case: (1) The story is actually a modern rewriting of a different sort of story told in the ancient source; that is; in some cases there was no resurrection story at all. (2) The story is a myth, with no roots in actual history, about a figure who either did not exist or for whom no historical evidence corroborates his existence. For example, Asclepius appears to have been nothing more than a Greek mythological deity. In some cases both (1) and (2) apply to the same story. (3) The story dates from well after the time of Jesus and likely originated as a rival to the Christian belief in Jesus as the resurrected Lord (e.g., the story about Apollonius of Tyana, not mentioned in that Wikipedia article but often brought up by skeptics).

The citation of such stories to undermine the rationality of belief in Jesus' resurrection displays reckless disregard for the facts.

No matter how you cut it, you still have a story of a man coming back from the dead in writings thousands of years old. There are numerous accounts of similar claims in many religions including Greek mythology

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Resurrection

There is absolutely no rational reason to believe any of these accounts.

The only reason a rational individual would live their lives believing such things and acting on such beliefs is if God had somehow revealed such a thing to them personally. No rational, educated person would believe such things literlly occurred based on accounts written thousands of years ago in religious writings in contradiction of modern science or our own personal experience- people just do not come back from the dead.

Yet of course we have individual testimonies that such actually happened in the case of Jesus the Christ- not because of any evidence in any ancient book, but because Gold himself has chosen to testify to us that such is the case.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Which post were you referring to? I thought I did reply to your post.

See your post #226, where you excused yourself from responding to one of my posts by saying that I should publish an article somewhere if I really think I am on to something.

[Rob Bowman]

canard78,

You wrote:

Aren't you at risk of dodging the questions now? You've got to play fair too.

You're somewhat new here. I have had many exchanges with "Pa Pa," and my question to him was simply challenging him to commit to agreeing that evidence matters.

I agree that the discovery of a letter by one of the Three Witnesses as you described would lead to many Mormons leaving the religion. However, the evidence of other discoveries in the past fifty years or so suggests that many would not. The evidence that Joseph did not really translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri is overwhelming, and it has led many Mormons to abandon their faith in Mormonism, but many more Mormons remain committed because for them what matters is their personal experience, not the historical evidence. Likewise, I agree with you that such an admission made public by one of the three witnesses early in LDS history might have had a negative impact on the growth of the religion. Again, though, the capacity of people to accept irrational claims is almost boundless, and many people would still accept Mormonism even with such a damaging admission by one of the early witnesses.

[canard78]

And yet, you doubt the existence of certain signitures, even though there is both better quality and quantity of evidence that they did exist.

I've asked this multiple, multiple times. Where are these signatures? Although we have the non-denial, do we actually have the original signatures? We have lots of original documents... the original manuscript. The printer's manuscript. Joseph's journal etc. Where's the signed statement? Does it exist? Did it ever exist.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

I must have missed your post. I asked questions about your assumptions, specifically whether you think that modern revelation in addition to the Bible is possible, whether the Lord would speak to a modern prophet. As I remember, you pointedly refused to answer the questions.

No. I pointedly stated that you had completely misrepresented my argument and my beliefs. Of course modern revelation is possible. God can speak to modern prophets if he so chooses. That has nothing to do with the argument I had presented and to which you were supposedly responding. All you were doing was changing the subject.

[canard78]

canard78,

You wrote:

You're somewhat new here. I have had many exchanges with "Pa Pa," and my question to him was simply challenging him to commit to agreeing that evidence matters.

I agree that the discovery of a letter by one of the Three Witnesses as you described would lead to many Mormons leaving the religion. However, the evidence of other discoveries in the past fifty years or so suggests that many would not. The evidence that Joseph did not really translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri is overwhelming, and it has led many Mormons to abandon their faith in Mormonism, but many more Mormons remain committed because for them what matters is their personal experience, not the historical evidence. Likewise, I agree with you that such an admission made public by one of the three witnesses early in LDS history might have had a negative impact on the growth of the religion. Again, though, the capacity of people to accept irrational claims is almost boundless, and many people would still accept Mormonism even with such a damaging admission by one of the early witnesses.

Fair enough, I agree that many continue 'in-spite' of the evidence against. But I think that's largely because it is still not conclusive. It only is if you decide it is. That's not intended as derisory. I can understand why some people read enough to say, "game over, I'm out."

My wife is no longer a Mormon because, for her, the evidence against was sufficiently compelling. In an effort to understand where she was coming from I've read a lot of the mainstream critical arguments (and several more obscure ones). In doing so I've tried to approach it responsibly and have cross referenced all the quotes (and misquotes) and read many defenses of the evidence plus the original quotes in full.

I'm left with a conclusion of 'jury could not reach a verdict.' The Abraham issue is certainly not conclusive. To say so is to presume we have all the fragments ever in Joseph's possession, we don't. It's to presume that the fragments we have are the ones he translated from, they don't appear to have been. It's to presume that it was a literal, not spiritual translation or acted as a spiritual muse. It's to presume that the lacunae have been correctly filled in by the Egyptologists, we don't know that they have, given it's empty space - they're guessing. I've seen multiple statements that 'it's just like any other mummifications scene' - I've seen a few presented as 'the same,' but none of them are identical to the BoA one.

And then once you start raising issues against, you have to face the issue in favour. Of which there are many.

Unfortunately there's no conclusive evidence for or against. No 'slam dunk' on either side as Jeff Lindsay likes to call it. In the end people have to read it all (if they can be bothered) and reach their own conclusion. Given my conclusion is a frustrating 'inconclusive' - I do indeed mainly rely on a spiritual manifestation. But I continue to read and study.

[canard78]

How very interesting. A post by a Mormon intellectual arguing that there is "absolutely no rational reason to believe" that Jesus Christ rose from the dead not only appears on a Mormon discussion board, but is given two "reputation points" in approval, apparently by fellow Mormons. I also find it telling that not one Mormon has so far raised a word in protest.

The Wikipedia article cited in support of the Mormon's argument cites no ancient or primary sources concerning any of the supposed Greek resurrection stories. If one were to poke each of these stories one would find that one of the following scenarios applies in each case: (1) The story is actually a modern rewriting of a different sort of story told in the ancient source; that is; in some cases there was no resurrection story at all. (2) The story is a myth, with no roots in actual history, about a figure who either did not exist or for whom no historical evidence corroborates his existence. For example, Asclepius appears to have been nothing more than a Greek mythological deity. In some cases both (1) and (2) apply to the same story. (3) The story dates from well after the time of Jesus and likely originated as a rival to the Christian belief in Jesus as the resurrected Lord (e.g., the story about Apollonius of Tyana, not mentioned in that Wikipedia article but often brought up by skeptics).

The citation of such stories to undermine the rationality of belief in Jesus' resurrection displays reckless disregard for the facts.

I don't think mfbukowski would claim to be mainstream in his religious belief and (if I understand him) takes even the Book of Mormon's coming forth in a slightly non-literal way. I'd say he can speak for himself. But you two seem unable to have a reasonable conversation so I won't count on it.

[cdowis]

I don't want to derail this thread or start a "Book of Mormon Evidence" discussion. I could easily claim that you have assumed the head in the clouds position for your statements regarding "evidence." I think a claim of evidence is silly and even the claim of "coincidence" strains at credulity. The claim that the records of the LDS culture were destroyed is silly. I understand the LDS position that sees it differently. Have the last word, if you wish.

1. I am not talkjing about "LDS culture" but the records for mesoamerica. Virtually all of the records were destroyed.

2. Do you deny that towers in mesoamerica were used for religious purposes? Perhaps my "head in the clounds" considers it evidence. I do not consider it a coincidence, but evidence for the historical validity of the BOM.

Thank you for giving me the last word, since there have been several threads on this subject. This is not the place to discuss it, and I only brought it up because of your post.

[mfbukowski]

How very interesting. A post by a Mormon intellectual arguing that there is "absolutely no rational reason to believe" that Jesus Christ rose from the dead not only appears on a Mormon discussion board, but is given two "reputation points" in approval, apparently by fellow Mormons. I also find it telling that not one Mormon has so far raised a word in protest.

The Wikipedia article cited in support of the Mormon's argument cites no ancient or primary sources concerning any of the supposed Greek resurrection stories. If one were to poke each of these stories one would find that one of the following scenarios applies in each case: (1) The story is actually a modern rewriting of a different sort of story told in the ancient source; that is; in some cases there was no resurrection story at all. (2) The story is a myth, with no roots in actual history, about a figure who either did not exist or for whom no historical evidence corroborates his existence. For example, Asclepius appears to have been nothing more than a Greek mythological deity. In some cases both (1) and (2) apply to the same story. (3) The story dates from well after the time of Jesus and likely originated as a rival to the Christian belief in Jesus as the resurrected Lord (e.g., the story about Apollonius of Tyana, not mentioned in that Wikipedia article but often brought up by skeptics).

The citation of such stories to undermine the rationality of belief in Jesus' resurrection displays reckless disregard for the facts.

Well it's Christmas eve and I have much to do but I will give you the quick answer.

Aesclepius is mentioned in the Illiad which dates from the 8th century BCE and it appears that he was an actual historical individual, insofar as such things can be determined- which is indeed the entire point here.

In Homer's Iliad, Asclepius was a man, a physician to soldiers wounded on the battlefield at Troy. But by Hippocrates' day, he had become elevated to the status of a god.

http://www.greekmedicine.net/mythology/asclepius.html

That can be found in a number of sources and in the Illiad itself. Since I don't speak Greek, I cannot quote it directly but I take it on faith that it is actually in there.

As the cult of Aesclepius grew, he became associated with he healing powers of serpents and there is quite a controversy about whether or not this myth influenced the Hebrew story of Moses raising the brazen serpent as a healing device, the story which is found in the Bible.

My point obviously was not to question the reality of Jesus' resurrection but simply to show that one cannot base one's testimony on historical evidence.

Indeed if you do that, you ARE definitely in the realm of myth.

If you want to quote myths as history and base your religion on it- you have put yourself on thin ice. That's your problem- not mine. God himself told me that Jesus is the Christ. If you want to base your beliefs on myths, be my guest.

[cdowis]

No. I pointedly stated that you had completely misrepresented my argument and my beliefs. Of course modern revelation is possible. God can speak to modern prophets if he so chooses. That has nothing to do with the argument I had presented and to which you were supposedly responding. All you were doing was changing the subject.

OK, with your statement that the Lord can call a prophet today, that the Bible does not preclude additional revelation, I can now clarify my view of your argument.

JS received revelation from the Lord to wait for the proper time to show the plates, and that the plates were not to be placed on permanent display. The Lord has his own time and methods, even if it makes it appear to the public and critics that JS was a fake. The critics mock, "if the plates are real, put them on public display"

A similar situation when the critics demanded that Christ come down from the cross, and they mocked "he cannot even save himself." The Lord has His own will and methods.

So, JS was being obedient to the commandments and revelations of the Lord, to the will of the Lord.

Edited December 24, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

I don't think mfbukowski would claim to be mainstream in his religious belief and (if I understand him) takes even the Book of Mormon's coming forth in a slightly non-literal way. I'd say he can speak for himself. But you two seem unable to have a reasonable conversation so I won't count on it.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

For me this is an epistemological issue- how we can know the Book of Mormon is "true".

I want to state unequivolcally that I know the BOM is the Word of God and is an ancient document translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates buried in a hill by the angel Moroni before he was a resurrected being.

Now the question becomes HOW I know that. I know that because the spirit has testified to me that it is true.

Can such a belief be based on reason alone? No. Does historic evidence have anything to do with belief in the resurrection of Christ? Absolutely not.

Are there many possible explanations which are reasonable which cohere with the known facts in the case AND which explain rationally the entire story of Joseph and his revelation? YES ABSOLUTELY.

I consider myself a TBM who is highly skeptical rationally. But on the other hand reason is not at all important in religious matters. I see many ways that Joseph's story could be true and rational, and I discuss these online. But it should never be taken to imply that I deny the classical story of Joseph and the plates we all know and love.

What is important is what God speaks to your heart. And once he has spoken, you cannot deny it. I know that with all that is within me.

Reason is of virtually no use whatsoever in religious matters, and religious experience is everything. Religion teaches how to give meaning to your life and meaning and value have nothing to do with reason.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mathonihah]

See your post #226, where you excused yourself from responding to one of my posts by saying that I should publish an article somewhere if I really think I am on to something.

I did not fail to reply to your post. That was my reply to your post.

[MiserereNobis]

Reason is of virtually no use whatsoever in religious matters, and religious experience is everything. Religion teaches how to give meaning to your life and meaning and value have nothing to do with reason.

Your philosophy continues to fascinate me. Your statement is as modern as it gets, but then most modernists continue on and say that religion is irrational and therefore should be discarded or is no longer useful, etc (the "God is dead" crowd).

Honestly, it's not very often that someone who is thoroughly modern/post-modern is also a staunch religious believer. Thank you for showing us that all combinations are possible

[mathonihah]

Reason is of virtually no use whatsoever in religious matters, and religious experience is everything. Religion teaches how to give meaning to your life and meaning and value have nothing to do with reason.

Your philosophy continues to fascinate me. Your statement is as modern as it gets, but then most modernists continue on and say that religion is irrational and therefore should be discarded or is no longer useful, etc (the "God is dead" crowd).

Honestly, it's not very often that someone who is thoroughly modern/post-modern is also a staunch religious believer. Thank you for showing us that all combinations are possible

I would say reason has a lot to do with religion:

“Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.” (D&C 45:10)

“Wherefore, hearken and I will reason with you, and I will speak unto you and prophesy, as unto men in days of old.” (D&C 45:15)

“And my servant Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you my servants; and by so doing I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper.” (D&C 49:4)

“Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me.

“And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

“Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

“Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.” (D&C 50:9–12)

“And now, behold, for your good I gave unto you a commandment concerning these things; and I, the Lord, will reason with you as with men in days of old.” (D&C 61:13)

“Go unto the eastern lands, bear testimony in every place, unto every people and in their synagogues, reasoning with the people.” (D&C 66:7)

“MY servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.” (D&C 68:1)

“Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

“Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.” (D&C 71:7– 8 )

“And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity—” (D&C 133:57)

[mfbukowski]

Your philosophy continues to fascinate me. Your statement is as modern as it gets, but then most modernists continue on and say that religion is irrational and therefore should be discarded or is no longer useful, etc (the "God is dead" crowd).

Honestly, it's not very often that someone who is thoroughly modern/post-modern is also a staunch religious believer. Thank you for showing us that all combinations are possible

Well indeed, Rorty himself said that he could worship a God who was a "friend" and not the transcendent Neoplatonic God of the sectarians.

You absolutely must must must read the article I will cite in a moment. Weave into this your knowledge that Mormons worship Man- indeed the Man of Holiness. God is seen as a glorified exalted Being who is ontologically exactly like us- yet infinitely above us. He is one of other gods and together, three who have achieved solidarity of purpose have organized this universe from existing material which is "matter unorganized".

The D&C quotes in numerous places that the savior sees us as "friends" and wants to be regarded himself, as our friend.

With that in mind, you must read this article, and note who the author is and where he comes from. I promise it will be quite enlightening for you.

http://www.firstthin...nd-religion--45

There is much I disagree with Rorty about- the primary area is in his belief in contingency of the individual "self"- I think he contradicts himself there. I think that contradiction ultimately leads to an incorrect understanding of the nature of the individual and subsequently I think the notion of a contingent self must be abandoned. But ultimately it is that idea of a contingent self which leads Rorty down the path toward his liberal politics; on the other hand I think that seeing the individual as ultimately non-contingent in certain ways leads not toward the political left but toward the political right.

But I certainly do not disagree at all with Rorty in his view of neo Pragmatism and what you term "postmodernism" above.

Read that article. You are among the few who hang out here who will really appreciate it. It could be a philosophically important to you as well.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I would say reason has a lot to do with religion:

“Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.” (D&C 45:10)

“Wherefore, hearken and I will reason with you, and I will speak unto you and prophesy, as unto men in days of old.” (D&C 45:15)

“And my servant Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you my servants; and by so doing I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper.” (D&C 49:4)

“Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me.

“And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

“Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

“Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.” (D&C 50:9–12)

“And now, behold, for your good I gave unto you a commandment concerning these things; and I, the Lord, will reason with you as with men in days of old.” (D&C 61:13)

“Go unto the eastern lands, bear testimony in every place, unto every people and in their synagogues, reasoning with the people.” (D&C 66:7)

“MY servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.” (D&C 68:1)

“Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

“Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.” (D&C 71:7– 8 )

“And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity—” (D&C 133:57)

Yes, I know thank you.

I am not debating that or any content of those scriptures. Indeed without reason I would have no reason for my religious beliefs. I have used reason to show that there is no need for reason in faith.

Faith is like the hole in a donut that begs to be filled while the donut is reason. Without reason (the donut) there is no hole to fill. Religion fills what reason cannot, but you have to understand that using reason or you think that religion is nonsense.

In many ways, religion is the only thing that makes sense.

That might be unintelligible to some, but for me, it expresses exactly what I mean. You cannot understand why religious experience and revelation makes sense unless you have the theory to support it.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Worded awkwardly, perhaps.

The lack of any evidence for the existence of any life, location or culture described in the Book of Mormon compels me to question the veracity of the Book. That is, the people in the Book of Mormon - and their stories - (for me) don't ring true when compared to Paul's stories.

The fact that you are unaware of the evidence that is in existence says more about you than it does about the Book of Mormon.

[Vance]

For me, it's not so much that "every hand written copy" of LDS must be questioned but certainly the Book of Mormon should be questioned and scrutinized. The reference to Paul bring a good case in point. While I don't think Vance really believes Paul is a fictional character - or a real person who made up fictional stories - his record, as codified in the Bible, shows that his life and stories are consistent with a historical setting and historical record within a known geography.

Yet that means nothing with regard to the truth of what he wrote concerning the Christ, the gospel, or his claimed experiences. The only witness of the truth of Paul's words is the Holy Spirit. The preeminent witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon and it's coming forth is also the Holy Spirit.

Concepts that you seem to fail to grasp.

[Vance]

I agree that the discovery of a letter by one of the Three Witnesses as you described would lead to many Mormons leaving the religion.

Rumor has it that Mark Hofman "discovered" such a document.

[Vance]

Indeed if you do that, you ARE definitely in the realm of myth.

Anti-mormons generally hang out in the realm of myth.

[mfbukowski]

Again, though, the capacity of people to accept irrational claims is almost boundless, and many people would still accept Mormonism even with such a damaging admission by one of the early witnesses.

Shall we go through the list of irrational claims that Evangelicals believe?