Golden Plates

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

The witnesses were asked over and over again about their experience. No witness ever retracted their experience. Also, the witnesses saw their testimony in the book. It is obvious that they gave their permission for it to be there. Mary Whitmer also saw the plates. She was shown the plates and never denied her spiritual experience also. Emma saw them under a thin cloth. At any moment she could have snuck a peek. But it seems she never did. Why not? She was also running around trying to hide them.

Here is an interesting tidbit: the 12 apostles who saw the risen christ never denied their experience either. Did they see the risen christ with temporal eyes or spiritual eyes?

The point is that just as no fallen man can see God without first being quickened by the Spirit, so too no mortal could be allowed to participate in the sacred experience of seeing the plates, and most solemnly testifying to their reality, without also being justified and quickened by the Spirit. In much the same way, I see the sacramental emblems of the lord's flesh and blood as being sacred (sanctified) with my spiritual eyes, not with my natural eyes.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point is that just as no fallen man can see God without first being quickened by the Spirit, so too no mortal could be allowed to participate in the sacred experience of seeing the plates, and most solemnly testifying to their reality, without also being justified and quickened by the Spirit. In much the same way, I see the sacramental emblems of the lord's flesh and blood as being sacred (sanctified) with my spiritual eyes, not with my natural eyes.

The gold plates were physical, tangible objects.  Why would they have to be "quickened by the spirit" or why would they not be able to see them with their "natural eyes"?  Or do you believe that the plates didn't actually, physically exist?

That makes no sense and it sounds like you are just making this up.  Do you have any references for this information?  (I would sincerely love to read more on it if you have references).

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

The gold plates were physical, tangible objects.  Why would they have to be "quickened by the spirit" or why would they not be able to see them with their "natural eyes"?  Or do you believe that the plates didn't actually, physically exist?

That makes no sense and it sounds like you are just making this up.  Do you have any references for this information?  (I would sincerely love to read more on it if you have references).

My post explains it. The Lord wanted people who had a SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the work Joseph Smitj was engaged in was true. Any disinterested Tom, **** or Harry could have seen the plates with their eyes, without that spiritual witness, but such disinterested parties would have quite likely immediately said the whole thing was a hoax once ant-Mormon opposition began ti rear its ugly head. In this case -- as it was in the case of those who were given the privilege to see and testify to the reality of the risen Lord --  faith preceded the privilege of testifying to the reality of the plates. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

My post explains it. The Lord wanted people who had a SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the work Joseph Smitj was engaged in was true. Any disinterested Tom, **** or Harry could have seen the plates with their eyes, without that spiritual witness, but such disinterested parties would have quite likely immediately said the whole thing was a hoax once ant-Mormon opposition began ti rear its ugly head. In this case -- as it was in the case of those who were given the privilege to see and testify to the reality of the risen Lord --  faith preceded the privilege of testifying to the reality of the plates. 

I'm asking where it is written that this was the case?  How do you know what the Lord wanted?  Do you have a source or is this just your opinion?

The witnesses that Joseph selected himself were not a "disinterested Tom, **** or Harry".  It makes no sense that they could not see the physical, tangible plates with their natural eyes (unless the plates were just a vision).

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If you're willing, just for the fun of it, let's pretend I'm Elder David O Bednar. So now in the simplest and most succinct way possible, please explain to me (David O Bednar) why it's unimportant whether or not Moroni and the Book of Mormon plates actually exist?

I ask the above question in humility and with the acknowledgement you are a great thinker who's posts often greatly impress me. If your point is that no physical evidence at all is needed for one to come to know the Book of Mormon is divinely authentic, then I agree with you (and Moroni) 100%. But if you're saying that in the end it doesn't at all matter if Moroni and the plates don't actually exist, and that Joseph Smith and the other eleven witnesses lied or were deceived, that's the proposition I would really appreciate having explained.

Thanks for the appeal to my ego, but it was not necessary.  Ask my wife if I am a "great thinker" when I cannot find my socks carefully hidden in my other hand.  She is Wisdom personified.

I write on the internet in the presumption that it is possible that Elder Bednar or anyone else may or will read my posts.  I am not a fool to post things I do not believe or stand behind, so that presumption is perfectly irrelevant.

There is no historical evidence for the plates other than the witnesses.  That is good enough for me.  There "really were" what the witnesses said there were, which is ambiguous.

As always all we have is ambiguous semantics left for us to interpret.

Part of my religion tells me that belief in the content of the plates- or whatever the witnesses saw- is- well- part of my religion.

Belief in the existence of the plates must be taken on faith, like belief in the existence of God.  These are not scientific beliefs- they are religious beliefs.

Because I religiously believe int eh Bible, I also believe that something like the Moses 10 commandment story "really happened", but I believe that as a religious belief.

I am an educated person and know that the very existence of a person named "Moses" who allegedly did what such a person allegedly did, is about as scientifically likely as the existence of an actual person named "Adam" who lived in a garden.

But I also know from D&C 93 that truths are revealed in their "sphere" or "context" or as Wittgenstein would say, "in their language game".  The religious language game is not the same as the scientific language game.  No possibility to translate between these two languages.  Science is about evidence, religion is about what what you know in your heart that gives you emotional support and what has been revealed to you about your purpose in life.

Science does not even look at the "purpose" of life, as if it even understood the question, much less the purpose of the life of Mark Bukowski or Ms. Bobbieaware.

It's like talking about cream cheese vs basketball.  Science cannot, does not, nor wil it ever even comprehend these questions.

So we can either go with reason- rational justifications for belief, or religious justifications for belief.  William James and others have taught what a reasonable justification for religious belief is- and those justifications include religious experiences.

I have had several religious experiences which convince me beyond any possible doubt, that God wants me to be a Mormon and believe Mormon beliefs, and that this is where I belong.  I am convinced that these understandings ARE what define my personal purpose in life- that these beliefs will provide me with perfect answers about why I am here, where I am going, and what God wants of me.  I have absolute certainty that this is where I belong because God has told me these things in my heart.

But I am also a rational being, and so I believe science that scientific beliefs are produced by a different, non- religious way of seeing the world which is as valid as the religious way of seeing the world.

 I know that all that is possible for humans is to understand only what humans CAN understand, and that is different paradigms for what works in different situations.  It is an illusion to believe that there is "one truth" for all situations and contexts- as represented by the "correspondnece theory of truth-" and that in itself is probably a book-long argument in itself.

Alma 32 tells me that in a religious context, truth is what is "sweet" to me.

DC 93 tells me that truth exists in its "sphere" which is precisely also what Wittgenstein tells me.  So i see this belief is justified both philosophically and religiously, as a Mormon.

So I render unto science the things that are scientific and to God the things that are God's.

The belief in the separation of these "realities" is justified by my personal reason as well as the scriptures I live by and by the philosophy I live by.

No conflicts of understanding.  Feeling like it all falls into place.  Total confidence in everything I believe, because I have justifications for it all.  It is a wonderful point of view, I am convinced.  Peace, intellectually and religiously, combined.   Ahhhhh.

I have found that the correspondence theory of truth leads to confusion and error, and the pragmatic view leads to harmony and peace.   To me, the choice is a no-brainer since combining both Wittgenstein and D&C- AS A PHILOSOPHY lead to this wonderful harmony I have now experienced for 40 years.

So as a philosophy- the source of the belief is irrelevant.  I don't care if Wittgenstein was a drunken carouser or not (he as neither).  Kant's life is irrelevant to what he wrote.  The philosophical part of me doesn't care about Joseph's life either.  Totally irrelevant to what he wrote.

Religiously, I believe that Joseph saw God, was a prophet, and taught the most sublime truth knowable by mankind.  I have a strong testimony about its truth.

Plates?  Yes I believe what the church teaches as a RELIGIOUS position.  This belief gives me peace.

I was not there- I was not a witness, and know God COULD have done it that way if God wanted to do it that way.

"What really happened" is irrelevant because that is totally UNKNOWABLE.  We might as well be talking about what happened eons ago in a galaxy far away- the "truth" of "what happened", since it is unknowable is irrelevant.

Did Org of Klaktar really kill the Beast of Nokwak thereby saving his people?  If that belief follows Alma 32 and gives me peace and a construct by which I can live my life and receive a testimony form God that I am on the path he wants, it is fine with me.  THAT would be my religion.

Scientifically I would look at that, know it is impossible to prove or disprove, and that these are separate "language games" which justify my life.

Millions of soldiers have died for the BELIEF that they "died for their country" or for "freedom".

Did they?  All who died in Viet Nam somehow saved our freedoms? Was that "really true"?  

It is unknowable, yet people die daily for beliefs about what is unknowable.  What they are dying for is their "testomonies" of the truth of the position that indeed they are "dying for their country".

Belief in the unknowable is what gives us purpose in life, and when the alleged"reality" is unknowable, that changes nothing.  BELIEF is what counts- not some unknowable "reality" which we guess might have "really happened" or not.

So Elder Bednar, I love you and love your beliefs and know you are a prophet, and I know that by the power of God in my heart, and I affirm all you have said and written and believe BECAUSE of what my religion teaches me, and that belief is, like those of those who "die for their country" is a religious truth, not a scientific one.

But of course you already know that.

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm asking where it is written that this was the case?  Do you have a source or is this just your opinion?

The witnesses that Joseph selected himself were not a "disinterested Tom, **** or Harry".  It makes no sense that they couldn't see the physical, tangible plates with their natural eyes (unless the plates were just a vision).

They wouldn't be ALLOWED to see the plates with their natural eyes. Nevertheless, seeing the plates with their natural eyes was less important than simultaneously seeing them as being authentic holy relics with their spiritual eyes.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

They wouldn't be ALLOWED to see the plates with their natural eyes.

And, how do you know that?

I'm asking for some references or sources here, please.  Did Joseph state this?

If it's just your opinion, state that too and that's fine.

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point is that just as no fallen man can see God without first being quickened by the Spirit, so too no mortal could be allowed to participate in the sacred experience of seeing the plates, and most solemnly testifying to their reality, without also being justified and quickened by the Spirit. In much the same way, I see the sacramental emblems of the lord's flesh and blood as being sacred (sanctified) with my spiritual eyes, not with my natural eyes.

Yes, so see the plates that way for yourself, and quit worrying and arguing about what confused people do not understand?

What you know in your heart as a religious belief trumps all the silly theories based on other silly theories about them not being "real".   This is a religious belief and what is important is that the BELIEF ITSELF is real, and that is what gives our lives purpose.

The importance in your life is not the "reality" which cannot be proven either way- the importance in your life is that the belief GIVES your life importance, and is intellectually justified for that reason alone.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, so see the plates that way for yourself, and quit worrying and arguing about what confused people do not understand?

What you know in your heart as a religious belief trumps all the silly theories based on other silly theories about them not being "real".   This is a religious belief and what is important is that the BELIEF ITSELF is real, and that is what gives our lives purpose.

The importance in your life is not the "reality" which cannot be proven either way- the importance in your life is that the belief GIVES your life importance, and is intellectually justified for that reason alone.

I guess you could say your mindset gives scientists, agnostics and those like me that doubt, ways to believe this church could be true.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the plates just couldn't be looked at.  

I did not see what you were responding too, can you put into context and expand on what you mean? 

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the appeal to my ego, but it was not necessary.  Ask my wife if I am a "great thinker" when I cannot find my socks carefully hidden in my other hand.  She is Wisdom personified.

I write on the internet in the presumption that it is possible that Elder Bednar or anyone else may or will read my posts.  I am not a fool to post things I do not believe or stand behind, so that presumption is perfectly irrelevant.

There is no historical evidence for the plates other than the witnesses.  That is good enough for me.  There "really were" what the witnesses said there were, which is ambiguous.

As always all we have is ambiguous semantics left for us to interpret.

Part of my religion tells me that belief in the content of the plates- or whatever the witnesses saw- is- well- part of my religion.

Belief in the existence of the plates must be taken on faith, like belief in the existence of God.  These are not scientific beliefs- they are religious beliefs.

Because I religiously believe int eh Bible, I also believe that something like the Moses 10 commandment story "really happened", but I believe that as a religious belief.

I am an educated person and know that the very existence of a person named "Moses" who allegedly did what such a person allegedly did, is about as scientifically likely as the existence of an actual person named "Adam" who lived in a garden.

But I also know from D&C 93 that truths are revealed in their "sphere" or "context" or as Wittgenstein would say, "in their language game".  The religious language game is not the same as the scientific language game.  No possibility to translate between these two languages.  Science is about evidence, religion is about what what you know in your heart that gives you emotional support and what has been revealed to you about your purpose in life.

Science does not even look at the "purpose" of life, as if it even understood the question, much less the purpose of the life of Mark Bukowski or Ms. Bobbieaware.

It's like talking about cream cheese vs basketball.  Science cannot, does not, nor wil it ever even comprehend these questions.

So we can either go with reason- rational justifications for belief, or religious justifications for belief.  William James and others have taught what a reasonable justification for religious belief is- and those justifications include religious experiences.

I have had several religious experiences which convince me beyond any possible doubt, that God wants me to be a Mormon and believe Mormon beliefs, and that this is where I belong.  I am convinced that these understandings ARE what define my personal purpose in life- that these beliefs will provide me with perfect answers about why I am here, where I am going, and what God wants of me.  I have absolute certainty that this is where I belong because God has told me these things in my heart.

But I am also a rational being, and so I believe science that scientific beliefs are produced by a different, non- religious way of seeing the world which is as valid as the religious way of seeing the world.

 I know that all that is possible for humans is to understand only what humans CAN understand, and that is different paradigms for what works in different situations.  It is an illusion to believe that there is "one truth" for all situations and contexts- as represented by the "correspondnece theory of truth-" and that in itself is probably a book-long argument in itself.

Alma 32 tells me that in a religious context, truth is what is "sweet" to me.

DC 93 tells me that truth exists in its "sphere" which is precisely also what Wittgenstein tells me.  So i see this belief is justified both philosophically and religiously, as a Mormon.

So I render unto science the things that are scientific and to God the things that are God's.

The belief in the separation of these "realities" is justified by my personal reason as well as the scriptures I live by and by the philosophy I live by.

No conflicts of understanding.  Feeling like it all falls into place.  Total confidence in everything I believe, because I have justifications for it all.  It is a wonderful point of view, I am convinced.  Peace, intellectually and religiously, combined.   Ahhhhh.

I have found that the correspondence theory of truth leads to confusion and error, and the pragmatic view leads to harmony and peace.   To me, the choice is a no-brainer since combining both Wittgenstein and D&C- AS A PHILOSOPHY lead to this wonderful harmony I have now experienced for 40 years.

So as a philosophy- the source of the belief is irrelevant.  I don't care if Wittgenstein was a drunken carouser or not (he as neither).  Kant's life is irrelevant to what he wrote.  The philosophical part of me doesn't care about Joseph's life either.  Totally irrelevant to what he wrote.

Religiously, I believe that Joseph saw God, was a prophet, and taught the most sublime truth knowable by mankind.  I have a strong testimony about its truth.

Plates?  Yes I believe what the church teaches as a RELIGIOUS position.  This belief gives me peace.

I was not there- I was not a witness, and know God COULD have done it that way if God wanted to do it that way.

"What really happened" is irrelevant because that is totally UNKNOWABLE.  We might as well be talking about what happened eons ago in a galaxy far away- the "truth" of "what happened", since it is unknowable is irrelevant.

Did Org of Klaktar really kill the Beast of Nokwak thereby saving his people?  If that belief follows Alma 32 and gives me peace and a construct by which I can live my life and receive a testimony form God that I am on the path he wants, it is fine with me.  THAT would be my religion.

Scientifically I would look at that, know it is impossible to prove or disprove, and that these are separate "language games" which justify my life.

Millions of soldiers have died for the BELIEF that they "died for their country" or for "freedom".

Did they?  All who died in Viet Nam somehow saved our freedoms? Was that "really true"?  

It is unknowable, yet people die daily for beliefs about what is unknowable.  What they are dying for is their "testomonies" of the truth of the position that indeed they are "dying for their country".

Belief in the unknowable is what gives us purpose in life, and when the alleged"reality" is unknowable, that changes nothing.  BELIEF is what counts- not some unknowable "reality" which we guess might have "really happened" or not.

So Elder Bednar, I love you and love your beliefs and know you are a prophet, and I know that by the power of God in my heart, and I affirm all you have said and written and believe BECAUSE of what my religion teaches me, and that belief is, like those of those who "die for their country" is a religious truth, not a scientific one.

But of course you already know that.

 

Excellent! The only place where I may part company with you is I believe one day -- when ALL things past, present and future will be made plainly manifest by the omniscient God himself -- the true religion, and (by then) fully-informed science, will intersect and become one. But I guess you probably believe this too. A possible difference of opinion may lie in the fact that the true practice of science is only needed and applicable when all things are not yet revealed and known. So science, as it is known and practiced in mortality, may no longer be needed for those who already know all things. So in heaven, what we now call scientific knowledge may be known by a different name since there will be nothing left to experiment upon, repeatedly replicate, and prove. So science ( not the laws science uncovers) will become a defunct and unnecessary discipline.

[Jim Stiles]

del

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I did not see what you were responding too, can you put into context and expand on what you mean? 

Just responding to the whole thread.  Why so secretive?  We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the plates?  It can't have been a faith thing, if indeed the witnesses saw the actual plates and not with visionary eyes or eyes of just believing them to be true.  I just don't get it, but if they were in existence I will just have to wait for the answer.

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

http://www.bullshitbingo.net/cards/bullshit/

I guess I'm getting under your skin. Because I try to be kind, I won't report your profane link and its language  to the moderators.

[ALarson]

45 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

They wouldn't be ALLOWED to see the plates with their natural eyes.

CFR

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point is that just as no fallen man can see God without first being quickened by the Spirit, so too no mortal could be allowed to participate in the sacred experience of seeing the plates, and most solemnly testifying to their reality, without also being justified and quickened by the Spirit. In much the same way, I see the sacramental emblems of the lord's flesh and blood as being sacred (sanctified) with my spiritual eyes, not with my natural eyes.

In other words, you deny the resurrection.

[Jim Stiles]

15 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I guess I'm getting under your skin. Because I try to be kind, I won't report your profane link and its language  to the moderators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword_bingo

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

They wouldn't be ALLOWED to see the plates with their natural eyes. Nevertheless, seeing the plates with their natural eyes was less important than simultaneously seeing them as being authentic holy relics with their spiritual eyes.

They would not be allowed to see the plates because the plates did not exist.

[why me]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just responding to the whole thread.  Why so secretive?  We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the plates?  It can't have been a faith thing, if indeed the witnesses saw the actual plates and not with visionary eyes or eyes of just believing them to be true.  I just don't get it, but if they were in existence I will just have to wait for the answer.

The dead sea scrolls don't prove that god exists. They are words on ancient paper and nothing more. The plates would be definite proof. Do we have proof that the bible is true. The witness testified to many people that they saw and felt the plates. Even john whitmer who left the church confirmed his experience. I don't believe that they had a out of body experience. They saw the plates and handled them. Where does the spiritual eyes come into it.  

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Excellent! The only place where I may part company with you is I believe one day -- when ALL things past, present and future will be made plainly manifest by the omniscient God himself -- the true religion, and (by then) fully-informed science, will intersect and become one. But I guess you probably believe this too. A possible difference of opinion may lie in the fact that the true practice of science is only needed and applicable when all things are not yet revealed and known. So science, as it is known and practiced in mortality, may no longer be needed for those who already know all things. So in heaven, what we now call scientific knowledge may be known by a different name since there will be nothing left to experiment upon, repeatedly replicate, and prove. So science ( not the laws science uncovers) will become a defunct and unnecessary discipline.

Yep, I can go with that.  But presently we have no clue what that even means- to see things "as they are".  Our brains won't let us go there.  THAT is the problem!

The bottom line is that we cannot now know "reality" and are limited by our senses and our paltry tiny brains.  I mean what color are cosmic rays? What stars which we still see went supernova thousands of years ago and are no longer "real"?  What "sounds" come from the center of the earth which are too low in frequency for our ears to detect?

We invent machines that show us squiggles on a page "corresponding" to something- but that is not something we can hear with our ears.

Everything we know is filtered by our senses and what we can comprehend- we know nothing that is independent of what our brains and senses can understand and perceive.

For all practical purpose we know nothing about "reality" outside of what our brains let us see- and even that is manufactured by our brains.  What is "blue" - in "reality" independent of what our brains interpret as "blue"?  We make up explanations of "frequencies" and "angstrom units" of wavelengths but that is not SEEING.  Is light a wave or particle?  What is the "reality"?  We do not have words for it, just analogies, no direct perception of "what is" and no way to check those perceptions against the unknowable "what is".

No such answers are possible.

So for now it is "through a glass darkly, but then, face to face". 

It is all literally a "poke in the dark"- stumble over something and figure out what to call it through what our brains permit  us to theorize.

That is why "correspondence" doesn't work- we can't get outside our minds to check if what is IN our minds "corresponds" to anything OUTSIDE what our minds tell us.

That is ultimately why positivism fails.  All "empirical evidence" tells us about what is "out there" is what our brains can perceive.

And my mind perceives a whole reality of spiritual truth through perceptions in my heart that science does not even look at.  Science doesn't even TRY to learn about the "reality"it cannot see.

[salgare]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep, I can go with that.  But presently we have no clue what that even means- to see things "as they are".  Our brains won't let us go there.  THAT is the problem!

The bottom line is that we cannot now know "reality" and are limited by our senses and our paltry tiny brains.  I mean what color are cosmic rays? What stars which we still see went supernova thousands of years ago and are no longer "real"?  What "sounds" come from the center of the earth which are too low in frequency for our ears to detect?

We invent machines that show us squiggles on a page "corresponding" to something- but that is not something we can hear with our ears.

Everything we know is filtered by our senses and what we can comprehend- we know nothing that is independent of what our brains and senses can understand and perceive.

For all practical purpose we know nothing about "reality" outside of what our brains let us see- and even that is manufactured by our brains.  What is "blue" - in "reality" independent of what our brains interpret as "blue"?  We make up explanations of "frequencies" and "angstrom units" of wavelengths but that is not SEEING.  Is light a wave or particle?  What is the "reality"?  We do not have words for it, just analogies, no direct perception of "what is" and no way to check those perceptions against the unknowable "what is".

No such answers are possible.

So for now it is "through a glass darkly, but then, face to face". 

It is all literally a "poke in the dark"- stumble over something and figure out what to call it through what our brains permit  us to theorize.

That is why "correspondence" doesn't work- we can't get outside our minds to check if what is IN our minds "corresponds" to anything OUTSIDE what our minds tell us.

That is ultimately why positivism fails.  All "empirical evidence" tells us about what is "out there" is what our brains can perceive.

And my mind perceives a whole reality of spiritual truth through perceptions in my heart that science does not even look at.  Science doesn't even TRY to learn about the "reality"it cannot see.

Excellent post in the other thread Mark, thank you for a direct and honest declaration of your thoughts on the issue of a desire to move away from “belief in ontological semantic mysteries” to moving forward, adopting “philosophical views consistent with the Restoration”.  

I also enjoyed your new signature.   I found the Rorty video you had mentioned to me before:

Rorty said:

“Pragmatism comes along with things like the French Revolution and industrial technology, all the things that made the 19^th century belief in progress.   When you think that the aim of life is to make things better for our descendants rather than to reach outside of history and time it alters the sense of what philosophy is good for.  In the platonist and theistic epoch the point of philosophy was to get you out of this mess into a better place”.

Just not sure why it had to get ugly, but its good to see it out.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Belief in the unknowable is what gives us purpose in life, and when the alleged"reality" is unknowable, that changes nothing.  BELIEF is what counts- not some unknowable "reality" which we guess might have "really happened" or not.

I'm following better each time you explain your paradigm.  Thanks for the detailed explanation for people like me without training in philosophy.  I'd like to understand better why you say BELIEF counts.  Does it matter because that is what GOD wants out of us?  God wants us to believe in something because our belief transforms us and causes us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do without a strong belief? 

What if the cause that we believe in is immoral and unjust?  Racism or prejudice against particular segments of society.  Like your earlier Vietnam war analogy, did those soldiers that died, die for a just cause for their country?  What about the soldiers fighting for Germany in WWII.  Did they die for a just cause?  

Or are you saying that the outcome doesn't matter, just the process?  The process of belief is important, and if that's the case, then why? Why is that process of belief so important, especially if the beliefs we have are immoral and causing harm to society. 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just responding to the whole thread.  Why so secretive?  We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the plates?  It can't have been a faith thing, if indeed the witnesses saw the actual plates and not with visionary eyes or eyes of just believing them to be true.  I just don't get it, but if they were in existence I will just have to wait for the answer.

First the "Dead Sea Scrolls" were hidden and centuries later found, and many other text. Second, because of the scrolls that are known there are 1,000's of translations of the Bible. The KJV, that we use was retranslated to become the foundation of the Church of England, the Jehovah's Witness did the same to establish their faith. For the most part we have one translation for the Book of Mormon. There is no source to go back to a retranslate to create 1,000's of denominations, we do have some offshoots, but only a few. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

First the "Dead Sea Scrolls" were hidden and centuries later found, and many other text. Second, because of the scrolls that are known there are 1,000's of translations of the Bible. The KJV, that we use was retranslated to become the foundation of the Church of England, the Jehovah's Witness did the same to establish their faith. For the most part we have one translation for the Book of Mormon. There is no source to go back to a retranslate to create 1,000's of denominations, we do have some offshoots, but only a few. 

According to some historians there are over 400 offshoot groups of the Mormon tradition.  

http://www.amazon.com/Divergent-Paths-Restoration-Steven-Shields/dp/0830905693/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460582280&sr=1-1&keywords=divergent+paths+of+the+restoration

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, why me said:

The dead sea scrolls don't prove that god exists. They are words on ancient paper and nothing more. The plates would be definite proof. Do we have proof that the bible is true. The witness testified to many people that they saw and felt the plates. Even john whitmer who left the church confirmed his experience. I don't believe that they had a out of body experience. They saw the plates and handled them. Where does the spiritual eyes come into it.  

The Dead Sea Scrolls do establish that the Jews about the time of John Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE) used basically the same Hebrew Bible as our Old Testament.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls do add to the provenance of the Old Testament.