New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[AndyDnom]

the essay does not contain the word "Hor" .

 

Does that seem like a strange omission for an article that attemps to be comprehensive and helpful?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am curious about this line in the essay.

 

 

Why wouldn't it be possible to prove the exodus through archaeological evidence? Or did it mean to say that at this time it is not possible to prove the exodus happened due to a lack of archaeological evidence? In any case it is a strange example to use, because obviously if physical evidence of the exodus was discovered (or exists?) it would be possible to prove it happened.

I think you need to consider the definition to prove. It does not mean to give evidence in support of, although that does contribute to proving something. Thus, while there may be archaeological evidence of an exodus, that does not necessarily prove that the Biblical exodus happened. And it most assuredly doesn't prove the miraculous events associated with it, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the presence of manna, etc.

[wenglund]

the essay does not contain the word "Hor" .

 

Does that seem like a strange omission for an article that attemps to be comprehensive and helpful?

 

If the subject of the article was the extant Egyptian papyri rather than the Book of Abraham, you may have a point.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

The task of the critic, on the other hand, is to shut the door completely on any possibility that the truth seeker will obtain that witness. The critic is therefore the one who, in your words, is "making the claim," i.e. that Mormonism is false and thus there is no reason for anyone to make the effort to pray about it. As the one making that claim and attack, the critic is thus the one who bears the burden of proof.

 

To me that's an old paradigm of critics and defenders -- arguing certainly true or certainly false.

 

in the academic sense (taking out spiritual witness for a moment), both sides have similar goals.  In the end there is probably no way to prove, with 100% iron-clad certainty that a particular claim is either true of false.  The apologist provides evidence that make it appear MORE PROBABLE that the claim is true -- they make room for belief.  The critic is either attacking flaws in the provided evidence from the apologist or is providing their own evidence that make it appear LESS PROBABLE that the claim is true -- they make less room for belief.  And back and forth they go.  Round and round til the internet breaks.

 

I will grant you that the defender has the end trump card... and that's to say "it's possible."  (something I feel this essay does a few times)

 

Because yes, it's possible.  Just because something has a 0.000000000001 probability of actually happening... doesn't mean that it will never happen.  The least likely and most outlandish explanation for something actually could end up being the correct one.  Pulling from the old flood threads, It's possible that Rob is right in his belief that man rode around on dinosaurs.  

 

It's a very VERY low bar for something to be "possible."  It's much harder for something to be the most probable and plausible explanation. And that's the battleground.  

 

While almost nothing is certain... everything is not equally uncertain.

 

For me, faith is the belief in the "less probable" possibilities, which as we've said, might actually be true.  I don't think it's right to say someone has "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  That's a different category of belief.  But it is right to say someone has "faith" that the Cubs will win the NL Pennant this year.  Or that Transformers: Age of Extinction will win Best Picture.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Scott Lloyd]

 

in the academic sense (taking out spiritual witness for a moment), both sides have similar goals. 

But as I've tried to explain to you, this is ultimately not an academic argument, and the nature of it is such that we can't take out spiritual witness. Again, Mormons have as their sole intent to keep the question open so that one may feel reasonably confident to go to God in prayer about the matter. That is and always will be a personal, individual thing.

 

We don't say we can prove the Church's theological teachings academically; we have never made that claim; ergo we have no burden of proof. All we have to do is defend; to rebut the antagonist's arguments well enough that the question remains open. Until the antagonists prove the contrary -- and thereby close the question -- they have failed.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

But as I've tried to explain to you, this is not an academic argument, and the nature of it is such that we can't take out spiritual witness. Again, Mormons have as their sole intent to keep the question open so that one may feel reasonably confident to go to God in prayer about the matter. That is and always will be a personal, individual thing.

 

We don't say we can prove the Church's theological teachings academically; we have never made that claim; ergo we have no burden of proof. All we have to do is defend; to rebut the antagonist's arguments sufficiently enough that the question remains open. Until the antagonists prove the contrary, they have failed.

 

I'm saying the antagonists don't need to "prove" it wrong.  They never will, never have... but if they show evidence that it's "highly unlikely", or that there are other more probable explanations... then that's a win for them.  Because there's a lot people that choose not to believe things that are highly unlikely.  The critics don't need to get to the impossible "we proved it wrong" point.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham

As always, I am right yet again.  

 

My best quality is my modesty and humility. 

[mfbukowski]

But as I've tried to explain to you, this is ultimately not an academic argument, and the nature of it is such that we can't take out spiritual witness. Again, Mormons have as their sole intent to keep the question open so that one may feel reasonably confident to go to God in prayer about the matter. That is and always will be a personal, individual thing.

 

We don't say we can prove the Church's theological teachings academically; we have never made that claim; ergo we have no burden of proof. All we have to do is defend; to rebut the antagonist's arguments sufficiently enough that the question remains open. Until the antagonists prove the contrary -- and thereby close the question -- they have failed.

And of course to prove the contrary of the church's teachings they would have to have pictures of God as a being different than we know him, and have a recording of his words saying we were wrong, with scientific proof that indeed it was God speaking

 

A tad unlikely.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm saying the antagonists don't need to "prove" it wrong.  They never will, never have... but if they show evidence that it's "highly unlikely", or that there are other more probable explanations... then that's a win for them.

It's not a win for them. It never will be a win for them, so long as the question remains open, which, in the final analysis, is all that defenders are endeavoring to accomplish. That is quite enough to keep the way clear for someone to approach God in prayer for an answer.

 

 

Because there's a lot people that choose not to believe things that are highly unlikely.  The critics don't need to get to the impossible "we proved it wrong" point.

The task of the defender is to show that the things are not all that highly unlikely.

 

In the end, determining likelihood is subjective judgment, and people will "choose not to believe" or, for that matter, choose to believe what they will.

 

But if we have kept question open through reasoned argument, we can be content for the moment, because the unbeliever can never honestly conclude that the matter is settled, not so long as he has refused to approach God about it.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

As always, I am right yet again.  

 

My best quality is my modesty and humility. 

 

I think everyone is right.  Is there a theory or apologetic argument that this essay doesn't leave open as a possibility?

[Scott Lloyd]

And of course to prove the contrary of the church's teachings they would have to have pictures of God as a being different than we know him, and have a recording of his words saying we were wrong, with scientific proof that indeed it was God speaking

 

A tad unlikely.

What a drag it must be to be a detractor.

 

Once they realize what we are trying -- and not trying -- to do, they must then accept that we have beaten them on their own playing field. For they then must use purely academic argument to show that there can never any reason to take the question to God, never any possibility that He might answer the seeker.

 

And that's something they will never be able to accomplish.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think everyone is right.  Is there a theory or apologetic argument that this essay doesn't leave open as a possibility?

That's the genius of it.

 

If there's always an open possibility, there's always a reason to ask God about it.

[mfbukowski]

But the next generation might not be so blasé about not knowing.  After all, they know everything else (or at least, think they do).

Hopefully they will be well educated into the idea that there are no facts, only interpretations, especially in the religious sphere, since that is what most academic theologians think nowadays.

[mfbukowski]

I think everyone is right.  Is there a theory or apologetic argument that this essay doesn't leave open as a possibility?

Well it certainly eliminates the oft-heard critical argument that because it is supposedly a literal translation, it must be a fraud because of "translation errors", and it eliminates the need for the text to be historical in every way.  It affirms the BOA's spiritual nature and general historicity without having to get all the details exactly "correct" in terms of a word for word translation.  I think that's a big step toward countering 90% of the critical arguments we hear about it.

[mfbukowski]

What a drag it must be to be a detractor.

 

Once they realize what we are trying -- and not trying -- to do, they must then accept that we have beaten them on their own playing field. For they then must use purely academic argument to show that there can never any reason to take the question to God, never any possibility that He might answer the seeker.

 

And that's something they will never be able to accomplish.

Well one of the reasons I post here to help people realize that the search for religious truth has to do with finding meaning and purpose in one's life, not to find scientific or historical "facts".  THAT is a personal quest, and has little to do with what others teach you.  Each of us has to find that for ourselves.

 

Others can say essentially "try this and see what results you get in your life", and that is about all.  Notice that that also happens to be an instruction straight out of Alma 32..

 

So as long as we don't confuse ourselves in thinking that a quest for factual information is not the same as a quest for the meaning and purpose of life, we can't lose.

 

That's why I post on every thread about science and religion conflicting, because there is no possible conflict.  Facts do not give one meaning and purpose in life, and never will.

 

Everyone knows it is a fact that there are starving children in the world but how many become a Mother Theresa?  What we learn needs to strike a resounding chord in our spirits to make those facts become a  purpose for our lives

 

And THAT is precisely where our church comes in.  It is the only one which teaches that one must pray for an answer- and THAT allows the spirit to enter and give us the truth.

 

Some here think that we will lose members because our stands on certain issues are not "politically correct", but what we have yet to see is the influx of people who are seeking refuge with like-minded people.   That will be happening soon.  It is already happening, but I think we are about to explode in membership- all we have to do is stick to our values.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Some here think that we will lose members because our stands on certain issues are not "politically correct", but what we have yet to see is the influx of people who are seeking refuge with like-minded people. That will be happening soon.  It is already happening, but I think we are about to explode in membership- all we have to do is stick to our values.

 

It's already started here. About 10 years ago, I served as ward mission leader in our ward. We had one set of Elders, and they spent most of their time each day cold-contacting the unfriendly and the uninterested. As of last week, we now have four Elders and four Sisters serving in our ward. Again serving as WML, I begged the mission for the extra set of Elders because our one set simply could not keep up with the work, even with splits happening nearly every night. This past Sunday alone, we had an investigator (a professional chef) announce at the end of gospel principles class that she'd made the determination to be baptised. At the end of our services, a visitor (a construction worker) asked me if he could start the missionary lessons this week (appointment for tonight). A few minutes later, the missionaries informed me that another investigator (a painter) had told them he wanted to be baptised this Saturday. I learnt from the district leader yesterday that our brand-new Elders, who walked into nothing Monday night last week, had already taught nearly ten lessons. And like you, my sense is that we're on the leading edge of whatever this is going to be.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

[T]he search for religious truth has to do with finding meaning and purpose in one's life, not to find scientific or historical "facts".

 

As a professional historian, I'd like to reinforce what you already implied above: 'historical "facts"' do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. And of necessity interpretations emerge from our untestable (in the academic sense) assumptions about the world and how it works. In the end, all theorems rest on postulates.

[mfbukowski]

It's already started here. About 10 years ago, I served as ward mission leader in our ward. We had one set of Elders, and they spent most of their time each day cold-contacting the unfriendly and the uninterested. As of last week, we now have four Elders and four Sisters serving in our ward. Again serving as WML, I begged the mission for the extra set of Elders because our one set simply could not keep up with the work, even with splits happening nearly every night. This past Sunday alone, we had an investigator (a professional chef) announce at the end of gospel principles class that she'd made the determination to be baptised. At the end of our services, a visitor (a construction worker) asked me if he could start the missionary lessons this week (appointment for tonight). A few minutes later, the missionaries informed me that another investigator (a painter) had told them he wanted to be baptised this Saturday. I learnt from the district leader yesterday that our brand-new Elders, who walked into nothing Monday night last week, had already taught nearly ten lessons. And like you, my sense is that we're on the leading edge of whatever this is going to be.

We are also having tons of baptisms in our ward, far exceeding expectations.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We are also having tons of baptisms in our ward, far exceeding expectations.

 

We haven't reached the 'tons of baptisms' stage yet, but when things go from one set of missionaries teaching 0-2 lessons per week to four sets of missionaries each teaching 12-20 lessons per week, a significant shift has occurred, and I will be surprised if the conversions don't follow. And all this in a city that I can only describe as previously hostile to our message.

[cinepro]

In any other area, I would agree with you, Brian.  The person making the extraordinary claim normally has the burden of proof, but possibly not in the religious context. 

 

If the "religious" method is a good way to determine the truth of a specific extraordinary claim, then why wouldn't you want to use it for other claims? 

 

I would be really, really concerned if someone said that an otherwise reliable methodology for testing a claim didn't apply in their specific circumstance, and I should instead use this other methodology that they recommend.

[BlueDreams]

However, with my kids, this would be unacceptable.  They would immediately hop onto IMDB and not only get his name, but every film or movie in which he ever appeared.  Having immediate access to the store of human knowledge at all times might change their perspective about how much certainty they should expect from a religious belief.  I think we're seeing this to some extent with the young people who are leaving the Church today.  They tend to follow the rabbit hole much deeper than their parents do.  As a result, if they hear someone talk about seer stones or the Egyptian papyri, they are more prone to investigate the matter.  Why not?  It takes just a few clicks of a mouse.  However, if it required a trip to BYU or even just to the local library, they'd be less likely to make the effort, but rather shrug and say, "Who knows?  And what does it matter anyway?"

 

But the next generation might not be so blasé about not knowing.  After all, they know everything else (or at least, think they do).

 

I don't know, from what I see, the method of understanding is just a more complex decision for my gen/younger...with similar results. Most of us note a flexible understanding of the same ideas/facts/etc. Anyone with a good sense for investigating whichever matter through our best friend google quickly begins to realize that you can get radically different answers depending where you clicked and what you searched. So what you get is a mix of the suri gen, who only know really surface answers about everything. And then you have the search engine diggers who know a heck of a lot about a couple of things. For example, I know a ton about psychological/sociological issues....anything in those realms and I'm gold. Anything about quantum physics is what I got off of BBC/discovery style documentaries on youtube. What I know about knowledge aquisition is based off of the experience I've had so far seeking things out. 

 

From a slightly younger gen,

BD

Edited July 9, 2014 by BlueDreams

[BCSpace]

Once again, there does not appear to be any change in doctrine AND the BoA is considered historical by the Church.

[Calm]

In any other area, I would agree with you, Brian.  The person making the extraordinary claim normally has the burden of proof, but possibly not in the religious context.  Given that NO religion can fully support its claims, it often come down to a gut feeling (testimony) and the plausibility of the truth claim.  So long as the claim isn't demonstrably false or patently ridiculous, the believer can hold on to their faith.  In fact, I joined this Church with full knowledge of some of the "difficulties" with our truth claims, but was in the end able to say, "Well, it's POSSIBLE that JS didn't make it all up and the saints seem to embody what Christ told us His Church should look like.  I can swing with that."

 

However, I'm not so sure that this would work with my kids because I think they might have a different expectation of whether or not truth is knowable.  Growing up as a kid, there was so much that we simply didn't know and we just dealt with not knowing.  And I'm not referring to weighty matters.  If I was talking to a friend and we couldn't remember the name of the actor who played Paulie in the Rocky movies, then we would simply move on.  What else could we do?  Take a trip to the library?  Would we even find the answer there?

 

However, with my kids, this would be unacceptable.  They would immediately hop onto IMDB and not only get his name, but every film or movie in which he ever appeared.  Having immediate access to the store of human knowledge at all times might change their perspective about how much certainty they should expect from a religious belief.  I think we're seeing this to some extent with the young people who are leaving the Church today.  They tend to follow the rabbit hole much deeper than their parents do.  As a result, if they hear someone talk about seer stones or the Egyptian papyri, they are more prone to investigate the matter.  Why not?  It takes just a few clicks of a mouse.  However, if it required a trip to BYU or even just to the local library, they'd be less likely to make the effort, but rather shrug and say, "Who knows?  And what does it matter anyway?"

 

But the next generation might not be so blasé about not knowing.  After all, they know everything else (or at least, think they do).

And unfortunately ease of access to "knowledge" may give an undeserved sense of confidence in that knowledge which may in fact be wrong or superficial and not supplying what is essential to know about a subject in order to make wise decisions and judgments.

[Thinking]

Abraham 1:12

[Thinking]

The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost.

 

What are these saving truths? Are they only found in the Book of Abraham?