Faith V. Doubt

[Mystery Meat]

About a week Tacenda asked why some people's testimonies seem unshakable and others do not. I think it is a good question and in my reply I said I think there are as many answers as there are individuals. I wanted to explore that topic a little bit more.

 

I feel like there almost two sides to this debate. On the first side you have people whose testimonies cannot be shaken, and it seems sometimes, that nothing could cause these folks to doubt their testimony. On the other side you have people who go through a faith crisis that does irreparable damage to their faith (in practicum I realize there is probably a scale of people who fall anywhere in between and perhaps outside). Both sides, at least those who participate in a website like this, have access to the same information. So what is the difference?

 

I believe that faith is a choice as is doubt. When I say that I don't mean doubters don't have good reason for their doubts, because they do. I know a girl who lost her testimony. Every once and a while we talk about it. I get the impression from her and other doubters that they don't believe they had a choice in the matter. When I explain my testimony and continuing faith to this girl, she usually gives me one of two arguments. First, if I knew what she knew I wouldn't have a testimony. Once we establish that I know just about everything that she knows, she proceeds to her next argument. She insists that my testimony is based on cognitive dissonance or something to that effect. Now, I used to be offended by this argument. I admit that there have been times in my life that my faith is reduced to nothing more than a desire or deep hope that the Church is true because it is seemingly all I have left. That sounds like something similar to cognitive dissonance. But that doesn't account for all of the other times in my life where I have had deeply profound and spiritual faith building experiences...even when I am on top of the world and everything is going my way.

 

I don't mean to say that all doubters are like the doubters I know, but I have noticed a trend that many believe anyone who has faith is either ignorant of the truth or simply trying to delude themselves into believing. Maybe one of those applies in many cases. The first one is easy for me to overcome. The second is a debate I have found you can't win. There is nothing you can do to convince some people that you have had spiritual experiences that support your assertion of testimony. I am okay with that, in fact I may even concede that point.

 

I believe because I chose to believe. Maybe the line between faith and cognitive dissonance is paper thin. I don't care. I still believe it is a choice. And for the most part, if you want to believe you will. 

[Palerider]

Another possibility:

 

Even Mormons believe that if a person lives a commandment he/she will receive the blessing from God for doing so. They point this out in other Christian religions all the time.

 

Yet because of their paradigm they find it impossible to turn this same principle around and view themselves through that lens.

 

To me it is entirely possible that Heavenly Father will bless people in the LDS faith with testimonies of His laws and commandments without necessarily meaning that the LDS faith is true. But because the individual is a member of that faith they ASSUME that because they were blessed in that instance, that the entire church must be true.

 

It doesn't necessarily follow!

 

To me the LDS faith is a tree that has false doctrine grafted in among it's true doctrines, just like all other religions. So if an individual in the LDS faith is trying their best to seek and serve God, do you think He's going to say, "Oh, Joe Priesthood is trying really hard to do the right thing down there but I'm not going to bless him with any witnesses or testimonies, because he's in the wrong church. I don't care how hard he tries........"     I don't think so.

 

Especially in view of what the LDS view as the Great Apostacy (in which I see some validity), there IS no true church out there waiting for us to find, so how could Heavenly Father not bless our efforts?

 

What the LDS faith and others e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, do is they put us in mind to look to God in every aspect of our lives on a daily basis, unlike many other churches today.

 

Have you ever tried to convinvce a Jehovah's Witness that the testimonies they have received weren't true?  Ask yourself honestly, what makes YOUR testimony better than theirs? 

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

Have you ever tried to convinvce a Jehovah's Witness that the testimonies they have received weren't true?  Ask yourself honestly, what makes YOUR testimony better than theirs?

 

I think this is part of the discussion for sure and it is an argument that has been used against me by my friend. Basically, everybody thinks their right. What makes their testimony different than yours? And honestly, that is not a question I can answer. I don't know. I can only comment on the basis for my own testimony. And a lot of that basis is rested in the restoration of the gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith as a special witness of Jesus Christ. Yes, serving others and keeping commandments has strengthened my testimony of the Savior, but so has learning about the life (including some of these details we are all aware of) of Joseph Smith, not to mention reading the Book of Mormon.

[pmccombs1]

Have you ever tried to convinvce a Jehovah's Witness that the testimonies they have received weren't true?  Ask yourself honestly, what makes YOUR testimony better than theirs? 

 

Right, the choice isn't usually to either have faith or to doubt. I could point out that faithful Mormons have extreme doubts about the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Catholics. A hypothetical missionary from one of those faiths would see as his major challenge the task of removing doubt from the mind of the LDS, who is considered to lack certain truths and to uphold falsehoods.

 

The usual choices are about what things we will faithfully believe in, and which we will therefore not believe. A real doubter is someone who has a hard time believing anything at all.

 

Those who desire to believe in something will find themselves supplied with a rich variety of profound spiritual experiences regarding that thing, whatever it is (Mormonism or not).

[CV75]

So what is the difference?

Agency, and the factors that promote or prevent its exercise and/or enjoyment. Some people can help their circumstances, and some cannot. Those who observe these dynamics (or what they think are these dynamics) in others are exercisig their agency to observe within those same factors themselves.

Ask yourself honestly, what makes YOUR testimony better than theirs? 

 

What makes their testimony different than yours?

Conveying the significance of spiritual experiences is only accomplished when the Spirit carries the message to the recipient, and then is successful in helping the recipient to receive it.

[pmccombs1]

Conveying the significance of spiritual experiences is only accomplished when the Spirit carries the message to the recipient, and then is successful in helping the recipient to receive it.

 

This is true. And, like music, we find that there are groups of people who are receptive to quite a variety of different kinds of "messages." There remains no measure for "better" or "truer," however. There is only the question of whether or not one is receptive to a particular frequency or not, but no objective judge of the universal quality of the frequency itself.

[Ahab]

Faith is an assurance that something is true, and the assurance can come from any person.  I could assure you that someting is true and if you believed me you could then rightly say that your assurance had come from me.  Or you could assure your own self that something is true and your faith would then be based on your own self assurance.  But that's not what we usually mean when we talk about having faith.  What we usually mean is that we are sure our faith was given to us from God, and we say that because we feel sure about that.  But is it true?  Not necessarily.  We can be sure that our faith is from God because we have accepted our own self assurance.  But on the other hand, it could be that God is the one who assured us.  So how can we tell the difference?  By knowing the difference between ourselves and God, or the difference between other people and God.  And by the use of the word "God" in this case I'm referring to our Father in heaven, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost.  So what do you think?  Are you sure about that?

 

I'm sure to the point where I know I am not our Father, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, and to the point where I know what he/they have told me.

[Kenngo1969]

Here’s my answer to the question, “(Dis-)Belief: Choice, or Not?”

 

http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

 

And here’s my answer to the question, “What about all the members of all of the other churches who have received a spiritual witness?”

 

http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

 

For what they’re worth …

[CV75]

This is true. And, like music, we find that there are groups of people who are receptive to quite a variety of different kinds of "messages." There remains no measure for "better" or "truer," however. There is only the question of whether or not one is receptive to a particular frequency or not, but no objective judge of the universal quality of the frequency itself.

I agree that there remains no objective measure for "better" or "truer," but that yes, God is perfectly subjective.

[pmccombs1]

Here’s my answer to the question, “(Dis-)Belief: Choice, or Not?”

 

http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

 

And here’s my answer to the question, “What about all the members of all of the other churches who have received a spiritual witness?”

 

http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

 

For what they’re worth …

 

From your second article:

 

 

 

I believe that the gospel as promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ is capable of yielding the most bounteous harvest—“an hundredfold”—in my life.  However, my exposure to my brothers and sisters who espouse equal devotion to differing faith traditions compels me, not to look down my nose at their “sixtyfold” or “thirtyfold,” 

 

 

Even if there is a potential for greater blessings in the Church...

 

 

So, your answer to the question of spiritual affirmations in other churches is that what we have in the LDS church is quantitatively more? In subjective terms ("in my life," as you say), I can accept that. Some people clearly prefer LDS doctrines and narratives. As a measure for what is objectively and universally true, however, this approach is ineffective. Some people discover that they have only thirtyfold in the LDS church, and that greater things can be found elsewhere.

 

For instance, I have spoken with some former LDS who have had the Holy Ghost come to them and tell them that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and to get up to the Lord's true church, the Catholic Church. These faithful have assured me that what they received in their new faith far outshines what they had when they were Mormon, and they are now devoted to Christ in a way they could never fully have been before. 

 

Did they lose their faith?  The LDS would say yes. But the Catholics would say they have found it.

[Palerider]

I look at it this way, as an example:

 

When Joseph through D&C 84:20 says:

 

20. "Therefore, in the ordinances thereof (of the priesthood), the power of godliness is manifest."

 

And the Savior says in the Matt.12:7:

 

"But if you had known what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless."

 

Rendered more plainly here in the New Living Translation:

 

"But you would not have condemned my innocent disciples if you knew the meaning of this Scripture: 'I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.' "

 

 

I realize that outward ordinances (such as animal sacrifice under the mosaic law) take a definitive backseat to a life lived righteously as opposed to a philosophy of man that states that you can only attain the powers of godliness through a specific temporal ordinance (which in reality is meaningless).

 

Because the Savior's words feel correct to me and are edifying as I pray about them, I then choose to have faith in them and to reject the other.



 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

"Do not confuse familiarity with truth. It is human nature to assume that those thoughts most tightly integrated into our psyche are more likely to be true and what is foreign to us feels false and wrong.

It is surprisingly easy to convince ourselves of something without evidence just by repeating it enough times. 

 

Truth is revealed by the sum of the evidence for something and not through vacuous repetitions."   

 

Saw this the other day and wonder if this was me most of my life.  I know this doesn't apply to many, but did it to me?  I don't know, but it would seem so, since I didn't EVER question, nor even wonder if the church was true, because I knew it was true.  Maybe that's why I fell so hard when I realized it wasn't what it seemed to be all those years.  Maybe my parents/teachers are to blame, haha, blame game....for not teaching me all the history beforehand, but then again they weren't taught possibly.     

[Ahab]

From your second article:

 

 

 

So, your answer to the question of spiritual affirmations in other churches is that what we have in the LDS church is quantitatively more? In subjective terms ("in my life," as you say), I can accept that. Some people clearly prefer LDS doctrines and narratives. As a measure for what is objectively and universally true, however, this approach is ineffective. Some people discover that they have only thirtyfold in the LDS church, and that greater things can be found elsewhere.

 

For instance, I have spoken with some former LDS who have had the Holy Ghost come to them and tell them that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and to get up to the Lord's true church, the Catholic Church. These faithful have assured me that what they received in their new faith far outshines what they had when they were Mormon, and they are now devoted to Christ in a way they could never fully have been before. 

 

Did they lose their faith?  The LDS would say yes. But the Catholics would say they have found it.

Faith in what, though?  And from who?  Faith is an assurance that comes from someone, so if God assures someone that the Book of Mormon is true, for example, and that person accepts that assurance at one point and then later rejects it, that person has lost that faith from God they once had even if they gain faith from someone else about something else.

[pmccombs1]

"Do not confuse familiarity with truth. It is human nature to assume that those thoughts most tightly integrated into our psyche are more likely to be true and what is foreign to us feels false and wrong.

It is surprisingly easy to convince ourselves of something without evidence just by repeating it enough times. 

 

Truth is revealed by the sum of the evidence for something and not through vacuous repetitions."   

 

Sometimes the only evidence we will ever get is that feeling of "familiarity."

 

I do not believe that religious truth is the same kind of truth that speaks to objective reality. That sort of truth requires objective evidence, and religion is notoriously sparse on that front. 

 

Jesus said that whoever was of the truth would hear its voice, so in a sense truth is vocation. It is precisely this "familiarity," according to Jesus.

 

Perhaps the reason you "fell so hard" was not because the church was something other than it seemed, but that religious truth is something other than what many religious believers assume it is. When they discover that religious truth can't be justified in the same way that objective truth can be, they think it's not worth having. If you look at a painting, you have a personal story about why is beautiful, or why it is not. If someone takes that story away from you, and leaves you with just the mechanical facts of the painting, then you have lost the beauty because you lost the story. If anything, a church is the mechanical aspect of religion. It's the medium. That people should come to regard a "church" as something either true or false is pure idolatry--akin to believing that the beauty of a painting is found in its medium rather than in the thing it attempts to convey. 

 

The point of religious truth is not to reveal God from the "outside in."  It is to reveal God from the "inside out."  Who are we, really? Who do we aspire to become? What moves us? It's easy to answer that question by looking at the truths that people attach themselves onto. It's too bad when churches stand in for truths. They were meant only to convey truths.

Edited November 22, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Ahab]

Sometimes the only evidence we will ever get is that feeling of "familiarity."

 

I do not believe that religious truth is the same kind of truth that speaks to objective reality. That sort of truth requires objective evidence, and religion is notoriously sparse on that front. 

 

Jesus said that whoever was of the truth would hear its voice, so in a sense truth is vocation. It is precisely this "familiarity," according to Jesus.

 

Perhaps the reason you "fell so hard" was not because the church was something other than it seemed, but that religious truth is something other than what many religious believers assume it is. When they discover that religious truth can't be justified in the same way that objective truth can be, they think it's not worth having. If you look at a painting, you have a personal story about why is beautiful, or why it is not. If takes that story away from you, and leaves you with just the mechanical facts of the painting, then you have lost the beauty because you lost the story. If anything, a church is the mechanical aspect of religion. It's the medium. That people should come to regard a "church" as something either true or false is pure idolatry--akin to believing that the beauty of a painting is found in its medium rather than in the thing it attempts to convey. 

 

The point of religious truth is not to reveal God from the "outside in."  It is to reveal God from the "inside out."  Who are we, really? Who do we aspire to become? What moves us? It's easy to answer that question by looking at the truths that people attach themselves onto. It's too bad when churches stand in for truths. They were meant only to convey truths.

Churches are groups of people, and yes we should not think too highly of the people that compose those churches because those people are not what we are to worship.  We're in the Church of Christ, meaning we are his group of people, but people his people doesn't mean we are perfect and should be relied upon in every particular.  Christ is the one we are to worship and emulate, and his Church is only as perfect as the people in it.

[teddyaware]

"Do not confuse familiarity with truth. It is human nature to assume that those thoughts most tightly integrated into our psyche are more likely to be true and what is foreign to us feels false and wrong.

It is surprisingly easy to convince ourselves of something without evidence just by repeating it enough times. 

 

Truth is revealed by the sum of the evidence for something and not through vacuous repetitions."

It is interesting to note that my experience in converting to Mormonism stands in stark contradistinction to the line of reasoning set forth in this quote.

1 As a 21 year old, I had zero exposure to Mormonism.

2 There was no familiarity with Mormonism that could have become tightly integrated into my psyche.

3 Mormonism was totally foreign to my understanding and yet I knew from the start it was true.

4 There was no repeating of things needed to persuade me the Church was true.

5 I did not at all consider the missionary discussions and the LDS scriptures to be vacuous.

6 I didn't have to convince myself, because with great power the Holy Ghost revealed the truth.

7 For me, the evidence was and still is overwhelming, and I know for a surety Mormonism is true.

8 I have a comprehensive knowledge of all the anti-LDS arguments, and they haven't even put a minute dent into my testimony.

[Tacenda]

Sometimes the only evidence we will ever get is that feeling of "familiarity."

 

I do not believe that religious truth is the same kind of truth that speaks to objective reality. That sort of truth requires objective evidence, and religion is notoriously sparse on that front. 

 

Jesus said that whoever was of the truth would hear its voice, so in a sense truth is vocation. It is precisely this "familiarity," according to Jesus.

 

Perhaps the reason you "fell so hard" was not because the church was something other than it seemed, but that religious truth is something other than what many religious believers assume it is. When they discover that religious truth can't be justified in the same way that objective truth can be, they think it's not worth having. If you look at a painting, you have a personal story about why is beautiful, or why it is not. If takes that story away from you, and leaves you with just the mechanical facts of the painting, then you have lost the beauty because you lost the story. If anything, a church is the mechanical aspect of religion. It's the medium. That people should come to regard a "church" as something either true or false is pure idolatry--akin to believing that the beauty of a painting is found in its medium rather than in the thing it attempts to convey. 

 

The point of religious truth is not to reveal God from the "outside in."  It is to reveal God from the "inside out."  Who are we, really? Who do we aspire to become? What moves us? It's easy to answer that question by looking at the truths that people attach themselves onto. It's too bad when churches stand in for truths. They were meant only to convey truths.

Beautiful!!  I feel like it's time to face the music and get a testimony of my God/Saviour, like never before.  Kind of like...I need to grow up now.    

[Palerider]

It is interesting to note that my experience in converting to Mormonism stands in stark contradistinction to the line of reasoning set forth in this quote.

1 As a 21 year old, I had zero exposure to Mormonism.

2 There was no familiarity with Mormonism that could have become tightly integrated into my psyche.

3 Mormonism was totally foreign to my understanding and yet I knew from the start it was true.

4 There was no repeating of things needed to persuade me the Church was true.

5 I did not at all consider the missionary discussions and the LDS scriptures to be vacuous.

6 I didn't have to convince myself, because with great power the Holy Ghost revealed the truth.

7 For me, the evidence was and still is overwhelming, and I know for a surety Mormonism is true.

8 I have a comprehensive knowledge of all the anti-LDS arguments, and they haven't even put a minute dent into my testimony.

 

 

And what were you before you became a Mormon? Just curious.

[Tacenda]

It is interesting to note that my experience in converting to Mormonism stands in stark contradistinction to the line of reasoning set forth in this quote.

1 As a 21 year old, I had zero exposure to Mormonism.

2 There was no familiarity with Mormonism that could have become tightly integrated into my psyche.

3 Mormonism was totally foreign to my understanding and yet I knew from the start it was true.

4 There was no repeating of things needed to persuade me the Church was true.

5 I did not at all consider the missionary discussions and the LDS scriptures to be vacuous.

6 I didn't have to convince myself, because with great power the Holy Ghost revealed the truth.

7 For me, the evidence was and still is overwhelming, and I know for a surety Mormonism is true.

8 I have a comprehensive knowledge of all the anti-LDS arguments, and they haven't even put a minute dent into my testimony.

 Did you notice I put this....."I know this doesn't apply to many, but did it to me?"   

[pmccombs1]

Faith in what, though?  And from who?  Faith is an assurance that comes from someone, so if God assures someone that the Book of Mormon is true, for example, and that person accepts that assurance at one point and then later rejects it, that person has lost that faith from God they once had even if they gain faith from someone else about something else.

 

That argument doesn't work.

 

They key lies in discerning what is or is not from God. That requires continual seeking and experimentation. At first, you may believe an experience comes from God, not having any other experience to compare it with. So you believe the initial assurance, or faith, comes from God, not having any reason to doubt it or to presume otherwise.

 

Then you continue to seek and you receive another experience, which you estimate to be quantitatively superior to the former experience. Comparatively speaking, the former was thirtyfold, and the latter a hundredfold. Now the cup overflows, and it is the difference of night and day. You then have received evidence and know that the former experience was not from God, but that the latter is from God, because it is the greater miracle. 

 

In the Old testament, Pharaoh's magicians cast their staves on the ground and they became snakes. It was a miracle. It was something that demanded belief in a supernatural power channeled by those men. Then Moses cast his staff on the ground, and it consumed all of the other snakes. It was a greater miracle, and it demanded greater belief. 

 

So it is with these ex-mormon Catholic acquaintances of mine. They had once witnessed a supernatural miracle that convinced them to believe in Mormonism, and they thought their faith was from God. But after continuous seeking and experimenting, they found a much greater witness that gave to them a hundredfold. They were able to discern the greater miracle from the lesser, and were thus led to the truth.

[pmccombs1]

Churches are groups of people, and yes we should not think too highly of the people that compose those churches because those people are not what we are to worship.  We're in the Church of Christ, meaning we are his group of people, but people his people doesn't mean we are perfect and should be relied upon in every particular.  Christ is the one we are to worship and emulate, and his Church is only as perfect as the people in it.

 

There are many groups of people, not all of them churches. There is more than merely "groupness" that makes a church. The church is a specific medium that binds the people together. It is a symbol of something they wish to identify themselves with. Unfortunately, many people confuse that symbol with the thing it is meant to symbolize. It becomes more than a medium, but a golden calf that demands their devotion.

[Palerider]

Sometimes the only evidence we will ever get is that feeling of "familiarity."

 

I do not believe that religious truth is the same kind of truth that speaks to objective reality. That sort of truth requires objective evidence, and religion is notoriously sparse on that front. 

 

Jesus said that whoever was of the truth would hear its voice, so in a sense truth is vocation. It is precisely this "familiarity," according to Jesus.

 

Perhaps the reason you "fell so hard" was not because the church was something other than it seemed, but that religious truth is something other than what many religious believers assume it is. When they discover that religious truth can't be justified in the same way that objective truth can be, they think it's not worth having. If you look at a painting, you have a personal story about why is beautiful, or why it is not. If takes that story away from you, and leaves you with just the mechanical facts of the painting, then you have lost the beauty because you lost the story. If anything, a church is the mechanical aspect of religion. It's the medium. That people should come to regard a "church" as something either true or false is pure idolatry--akin to believing that the beauty of a painting is found in its medium rather than in the thing it attempts to convey. 

 

The point of religious truth is not to reveal God from the "outside in."  It is to reveal God from the "inside out."  Who are we, really? Who do we aspire to become? What moves us? It's easy to answer that question by looking at the truths that people attach themselves onto. It's too bad when churches stand in for truths. They were meant only to convey truths.

 

 

But there is an imperative for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can go and see the Sea of Galilee. Josephus writes contemporaneously about the Savior and his crucifixion.

 

Please show me the location of the ruins of Zarahemla. Show me ANY artifact from the Americas that has reformed egyptian written on it that mentions anything regarding Nephi or any character of the BOM by name.

 

The LDS have to make up these astounding theories as to where the Hill Cumorah is located because if it is located in New York where all the early leadership thought it was (and many members probably still do), there is zero archeological evidence to support it.

 

And there should be....... plenty.      But they make you feel like a scoundrel for asking.  It's like when buying a car someone says, "Yeah this baby has a turbo-charged V8 with 450 horsepower", and you say, "Wow, let's look under the hood!", and they get all insulted and say, "You can't really expect to find what you're looking for THERE!, Just take my word for it......have a little faith......"  

 

And then when you drive it, it doesn't feel all that punchy. It looks good on the outside, it has some nice features, but you still want to take a peek under the hood.

 

"No, you gotta buy it to look under there......"   

Edited November 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Ahab]

That argument doesn't work.

 

They key lies in discerning what is or is not from God. That requires continual seeking and experimentation. At first, you may believe an experience comes from God, not having any other experience to compare it with. So you believe the initial assurance, or faith, comes from God, not having any reason to doubt it or to presume otherwise.

 

Then you continue to seek and you receive another experience, which you estimate to be quantitatively superior to the former experience. Comparatively speaking, the former was thirtyfold, and the latter a hundredfold. Now the cup overflows, and it is the difference of night and day. You then have received evidence and know that the former experience was not from God, but that the latter is from God, because it is the greater miracle. 

 

In the Old testament, Pharaoh's magicians cast their staves on the ground and they became snakes. It was a miracle. It was something that demanded belief in a supernatural power channeled by those men. Then Moses cast his staff on the ground, and it consumed all of the other snakes. It was a greater miracle, and it demanded greater belief. 

 

So it is with these ex-mormon Catholic acquaintances of mine. They had once witnessed a supernatural miracle that convinced them to believe in Mormonism, and they thought their faith was from God. But after continuous seeking and experimenting, they found a much greater witness that gave to them a hundredfold. They were able to discern the greater miracle from the lesser, and were thus led to the truth.

We're pretty much in agreement on principle even though we don't agree on which beliefs are better, or who has more truth.

 

For some people Catholicism feels like a better thing to them than Mormonism simply because they like what they get out of Catholicism more than they like what they get out of Mormonism.  It doesn't mean Mormonism isn't as good as Catholicms or that the beliefs are inferior.  It just means some people like Catholicism more than Mormonism, and they could still feel that way even if God didn't approve of Catholism.  People like what they like, regardless of whehter or not something is good for them.  Someone else could like Satanism more than they like Catholicism or Mormonism and think that's the best thing there ever could be.  It still doesn't make it true, though.  Truth is independent of what people like or don't like, just like God lives even though some people prefer the idea that God doesn't live.

[Tacenda]

But there is an imperative for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can go and see the Sea of Galilee. Josephus writes contemporaneously about the Savior and his crucificion.

 

Please show me the location of the ruins of Zarahemla. Show me ANY artifact that has reformed egyptian written o it that mentions anything regarding Nephi or any character of the BOM by name.

 

The LDS have to make up these astounding theories as to where the Hill Cumorah is located because if it is located in New York where all the early leadership thought it was (and many members probably still do), there is zero archeological evidence to support it.

 

And there should be....... plenty.      But they make you feel like a scoundrel for asking.  It's like when buying a car someone says, "Yeah this baby has a turbo-charged V8 with 450 horsepower", and you say, "Wow, let's look under the hood!", and they get all insulted and say, "You can't really expect to find what you're looking for THERE!, Just take my word for it......have a little faith......"  

 

And then when you drive it, it doesn't feel all that punchy. It looks good on the outside, it has some nice features, but you still want to take a peek under the hood.

 

"No, you gotta buy it to look under there......"   

I agree with this too!  How did I go nearly 50 years without asking any of this?  Duh!  And maybe go in faith full throttle, or have some facts behind the faith may be a little more comforting.  But, one can say, whatever vehicle gets you to God, if that's what you're after, could work too, whether it's all fantasy or not.          

[pmccombs1]

But there is an imperative for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can go and see the Sea of Galilee. Josephus writes contemporaneously about the Savior and his crucifixion.

 

Please show me the location of the ruins of Zarahemla. Show me ANY artifact that has reformed egyptian written o it that mentions anything regarding Nephi or any character of the BOM by name.

 

The LDS have to make up these astounding theories as to where the Hill Cumorah is located because if it is located in New York where all the early leadership thought it was (and many members probably still do), there is zero archeological evidence to support it.

 

And there should be....... plenty.      But they make you feel like a scoundrel for asking.  It's like when buying a car someone says, "Yeah this baby has a turbo-charged V8 with 450 horsepower", and you say, "Wow, let's look under the hood!", and they get all insulted and say, "You can't really expect to find what you're looking for THERE!, Just take my word for it......have a little faith......"  

 

And then when you drive it, it doesn't feel all that punchy. It looks good on the outside, it has some nice features, but you still want to take a peek under the hood.

 

"No, you gotta buy it to look under there......"   

 

Well, it's not like much of the Old Testament doesn't suffer from the same class of problem that critics heap on the Book of Mormon. The archaeologist most sympathetic to Biblical geography that I know of, William Dever, can't seem to find any evidence of a mass exodus of Hebrews from Egypt, but does find evidence of them living elsewhere. The best "objective" evidence we have suggests that much of it was fabricated during the Persian captivity, since that period seems to best match the geography in the narrative.

 

Of course, even Bart Ehrman admits that Jesus is an historical figure, as did Thomas Jefferson. But neither one of them would likely agree that there exists any evidence for the supernatural aspects of that biblical "history." All sorts of historical fiction is written; just because we can verify people and places used in those fictions does not mean that the stories they recount are "true" in that same objective sense.

 

My point is that the truth in religion is found independent of the material context surrounding it. If the story of Enos in the Book of Mormon has the power to profoundly touch the life of the one reading it, then it is true whether it happened or not. The narrative reconstructs a past that is just as material in the present time as that past that left its remains behind.