Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Kevin Christensen]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem with that is that religion is purely subjective- it is not about some realm of "reality" out in the world- it is about what is in our hearts.

You should be able to understand that the existence of God cannot be shown through objective evidence- again it is like knowing whom you should marry by subjective evidence.  Of course THAT question is subjective!

Science does not discuss relative importance of anything- science is not about what is important in life- it is about what con be observed of the world around us.

You are barking up the wrong tree, and will never find what you seek because you are asking the wrong question.

In the realm of religion and morality- subjectivity is king. 

 

I disagree about religion as purely subjective.  Here is Ian Barbour saying something that I do agree with:

Quote

Many philosophers in the last two decades, under the influence of

writings in the philosophy of science which extolled the objectivity of

science, were led to assert that religion can make no legitimate

cognitive claims.

Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for

all genuine knowledge, they concluded that religious language serves

only non-cognitive functions. I have suggested, however, that science is

not as objective, nor religion as subjective, as the view dominant among

philosophers of religion has held. Man the knower plays a crucial role

throughout science. Scientific models are products of creative analogical

imagination. Data are theory-laden; comprehensive theories are resistant

to falsification; and there are no rules for paradigm choice. To be sure,

each of these subjective features is more prominent in religion; there is a

greater diversity of models, greater influence of interpretation on data,

greater tenacity in commitment to paradigms, and greater ambiguity in

paradigm choice. But in each of these features I see a difference of

degree between science and religion rather than an absolute contrast.

  See Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion here:

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org Books/Barbour, Ian - Myths, Models and Paradigms-A comparative Stu.pdf

The word "religion" shares a root with ligament, which as Nibley points out, is what holds us together.  Personal religion is what we find personally binding, which includes formal covenants with God and society.  And though subjectivity plays an inevitable role in religious choice, there is more available in making religious decisions that pure subjectivity.  Not everyone bothers to figure that out.  But their resources are available to decide what choices are better that are not completely subjective, or completely paradigm-dependent, and therefore involving circular reasoning.  That's why I love Barbour's little book.  He clarifies things.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree that a Spiritual confirmation does not have to mean that the book is factually true (thought to say that God never tells anyone the answer to that question isn't possible), but that does not mean that the purpose of the prayer isn't to verify what the BOM is.  It doesn't have to verify that it is historically true to still be verifying something about it. 

Yes about the spiritual confirmation piece.  I still don't think God is telling people something about the BoM independently.  God may be telling them something about their relationship to the BoM, but not something objective about the BoM.  Thats my take on the whole Moroni's promise.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is more that they are putting themselves in the community of "Book of Mormon Believers" and thereby accepting the community's definition of "truth" in the same way that one perhaps defines it "true" that murder is bad or that "one should congratulate people in the service for protecting freedom" or that abortion is either moral or not.  Different communities create their own truths about these matters.

Truth always exists within a given community- physicists define physical "truth", believers define the "truth" of any given belief.  Physics is its own arcane belief system which is largely not understandable to those who do not belong to the inner sanctum and who do not understand its metholdologies.  Believers in UFO's have their community, Republicans have theirs, and Democrats their own separate realities.  

It is not surprising that Mormons tend to follow the epistemology of Protestants but they should not

Yes, I agree with this.  Its interesting how differently each individual within a community might describe their belief however.  I may be a republican, but I'm a very different kind than our recently elected President.  I think the strength of community is in its ability to accept a wide variety of truths, some of which contradict each other, and still affirm that we have some communal shared values.  

I'm a BoM believer, because I believe it has a net positive impact on its readers, and has had a net positive impact on me, but I don't believe its historical, literal, or God breathed.  I think it also contains elements that are morally questionable.  There are probably many others in the community of BoM believers that consider my beliefs threatening and illegitimate.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

If people are being asked to base so much of their lives on the truthfulness of the BoM, then I think it warrants both a spiritual and scientific examination, especially if it is the "most correct book" and the cornerstone of the religion.

I personally cannot rely solely on a warm/special witness and/or feeling at this point to confirm the BoM is true and actually happened (maybe I just lack faith).  Spiritual convictions might be good enough for some...but not me personally.  I do think that there are some are inspiring verses that promote good in the BoM, but for me personally, that doesn't mean that these people/events actually existed and took place.  Furthermore, there are numerous inspiring (fiction) books that I have read that evoke similar feelings, as some of the verses in the BoM.  Are those other books not as true as the BoM, if they give me warm/special feelings?

What if a person prays about the BoM (like I have done numerous times) but never received an answer (like others have)?  What if I have legitimate concerns/doubts that have not been reconciled?  What if my spiritual witness (gut feeling) tells me personally that the BoM narrative did not, in fact, actually happen?  It's very subjective I guess -- and each person is entitled to his/her own interpretations and convictions; one side is trying to prove that their feelings/convictions are correct.  If person A states that he knows the BoM is true, then person B is equally entitled to know that the book is not true, if truth is subjective.  

When it comes to scientific research, it is my opinion that, given the compilation of overwhelming DNA, linguistic and archeological evidence, the BoM did not actually happen (and the earth is not 6,000 years old).  

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-migration-patterns-north-america-are-hidden-languages-spoken-today-180950053/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/

It's interesting that even the church in its essay stated that:

"Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America."

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng#3

Even the church is saying that the primary purpose of the BoM is spiritual (not historical).  The historicity of the BoM narrative is hanging on a thread at this point for many members I know.  In my opinion, I won't be surprised if the church eventually abandons its historicity claim of the BoM in the future.

Finally, no offense meant here...if people want to believe the BoM is true via their feelings, then they are free to believe as they choose.  However, I am also entitled to the belief that these events did not occur via my own witness/conviction.  

I guess we are all correct in our own minds, right?  😀

You do not understand the statements made.

It is not about "what really happened"- that is unknowable.  I am sorry that you do not understand that concept, just know there are other ways of seeing this that you have not yet understood fully. Others here do understand it and my comments are primarily for them.

[Physics Guy]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is the point of asking for evidence if you are not willing to act on it?

I might conceivably be willing to convert to Mormonism if given really spectacular evidence. As several cogent posts in this very thread have pointed out, though, spectacular evidence is not to be expected in archaeology. So I am not asking for evidence to convert me to Mormonism, but to understand how Mormons think.

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So furnishing the "evidence" that you demand would do neither you nor us any good. Thanks for the advance notification that it would be an absolutely empty exercise.

If the only good you see in discussing with me is to convert me, then indeed you have no reason to discuss with me, and I am glad to have saved you some pointless trouble, because I am not a likely prospect. Neither am I gunning to convert Mormons, however. In the unlikely event that anyone ever feels moved to renounce their faith by my words, I would recommend reading, prayer, and talking with friends and family. Trusting your faith to some guy on the internet is ridiculous. I want to understand how Mormons think. To me this exercise does not seem empty. For my part, I'd welcome the chance to see how my own faith looks to an outsider. Your mileage may vary.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Science does not discuss relative importance of anything- science is not about what is important in life- it is about what con be observed of the world around us.

You are barking up the wrong tree, and will never find what you seek because you are asking the wrong question.

In the realm of religion and morality- subjectivity is king. 

I'm a middle-aged physics professor with a modest but respectable Hirsch index. I'm a life-long Christian. So I've thought about science and faith. I work on the "arrow of time" problem, and wonder quite often about what kind of laws the God in whom I believe might have made. I read the Bible, but don't believe it's inerrant; it has talking animals and atrocities and I think it only passes the Bechdel test by some verses in Ruth. 

I can't live with faith and science as entirely separate. Faith is subjective, but I want some constitutional checks and balances on the king. So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

If none of these concerns bother Mormons, well, thanks for letting me know that. If they do, how do you deal with them?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I disagree about religion as purely subjective.  Here is Ian Barbour saying something that I do agree with:

  See Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion here:

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org Books/Barbour, Ian - Myths, Models and Paradigms-A comparative Stu.pdf

The word "religion" shares a root with ligament, which as Nibley points out, is what holds us together.  Personal religion is what we find personally binding, which includes formal covenants with God and society.  And though subjectivity plays an inevitable role in religious choice, there is more available in making religious decisions that pure subjectivity.  Not everyone bothers to figure that out.  But their resources are available to decide what choices are better that are not completely subjective, or completely paradigm-dependent, and therefore involving circular reasoning.  That's why I love Barbour's little book.  He clarifies things.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thanks for you comments Kevin, I want to explore the Barbour quote in more detail and perhaps you will see that there is nothing here to "disagree" about- I think our differences if any are purely semantic.

Your Barbour quote:

Quote

 

Many philosophers in the last two decades, under the influence of

writings in the philosophy of science which extolled the objectivity of

science, were led to assert that religion can make no legitimate

cognitive claims.

Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for

all genuine knowledge, they concluded that religious language serves

only non-cognitive functions. I have suggested, however, that science is

not as objective, nor religion as subjective, as the view dominant among

philosophers of religion has held.

Man the knower plays a crucial role

throughout science. Scientific models are products of creative analogical

imagination. Data are theory-laden; comprehensive theories are resistant

to falsification; and there are no rules for paradigm choice

 

Barbour of course was not the first to make these claims, arguably they go back as far as Kant and Nietzsche, and are clearly present in the work of James and Dewey, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, and all the Phenomenologists, most prominently perhaps in Heidegger and all the Existentialists as well.  In fact this is THE major trend in philosophy through the latter 20th century and on to today

What is "analogical imagination" which Barbour says produces scientific models?  The words pretty much define themselves, but should be noted carefully.   It means that scientific models are ANALOGIES of "things as they are" and decidedly not "representations" of "things as they are.  As we know and need not discuss extensively here- representation of things as they are is impossible without the ability to know "things as they are", which is of course the major error of the correspondence theory of truth.  So here Barbour is really simply giving a casual and brief criticism of the correspondence theory.

Note the usage "creative analogical imagination".   That goes straight back to Kant and his "synthetic a priori" which is organized in the mind, creatively.  To put it all together what he is saying is that scientific models are imagined by humans creatively, and even the DATA used to verify the theory are themselves "theory laden"- meaning that the data themselves are essentially also part of the "creative analogical imagination" again because of the problems with correspondence theory.  Putting that into a single word for the peanut gallery, I used the word "subjective" partially for its shock value but mostly because we are here dealing with folks who do not have expertise in this area (good for them!) and need to have it all simplified.

Note that in the next part of the quote Barbour himself uses the "S" word!

Quote

 

To be sure, each of these subjective features is more prominent in religion; there is a

greater diversity of models, greater influence of interpretation on data,

greater tenacity in commitment to paradigms, and greater ambiguity in

paradigm choice. But in each of these features I see a difference of

degree between science and religion rather than an absolute contrast.

 

So here he says that religion is even more subjective than science, but the difference is a matter of degree.

I heartily endorse Barbour as well, but in the final analysis, I don't think we disagree about anything except applying the word "subjective".

If all we have to disagree about is the use of one word which is incredibly ambiguous to start off with, and which Barbour himself uses to make the same point, I think I find myself in excellent company.  

This notion of "man the knower" as creatively organizing reality is, I think, essential to the LDS view for many obvious reasons, and that view is hostile to the correspondence theory to which many many here erroneously subscribe.   I think frankly that that erroneous view needs to be supplanted in LDS thinking to the sorts of views to which you point, like those of Barbour and Kuhn and which are also represented in James, Dewey, the Pragmatists, Phenomenologists, Existentialists, and those who hold the deflationary theory of truth.

That's a whole lot of really great philosophers behind the Book of Mormon if we but understand them that way.  And here we sit debating the correspondence theory which was dead at least 75 years ago!   It has no place anymore in LDS theology, because it is actually hostile to understanding LDS theology.

Many of the problems the church faces now are with those who rely on historical statements to either criticize or affirm the truth of the church, based on the idea that it is possible for any verbal statement to "represent things as they are/were".

As long as the church itself SEEMS TO advocate this view of what "really is" as opposed to understanding reality as it "really is" as what is directly experienced and unspeakable, such as dreams and visions and other "creative analogical imaginings", we will be in trouble

But of course you know this perfectly.   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

I might conceivably be willing to convert to Mormonism if given really spectacular evidence. As several cogent posts in this very thread have pointed out, though, spectacular evidence is not to be expected in archaeology. So I am not asking for evidence to convert me to Mormonism, but to understand how Mormons think.

If the only good you see in discussing with me is to convert me, then indeed you have no reason to discuss with me, and I am glad to have saved you some pointless trouble, because I am not a likely prospect. Neither am I gunning to convert Mormons, however. In the unlikely event that anyone ever feels moved to renounce their faith by my words, I would recommend reading, prayer, and talking with friends and family. Trusting your faith to some guy on the internet is ridiculous. I want to understand how Mormons think. To me this exercise does not seem empty. For my part, I'd welcome the chance to see how my own faith looks to an outsider. Your mileage may vary.

I'm a middle-aged physics professor with a modest but respectable Hirsch index. I'm a life-long Christian. So I've thought about science and faith. I work on the "arrow of time" problem, and wonder quite often about what kind of laws the God in whom I believe might have made. I read the Bible, but don't believe it's inerrant; it has talking animals and atrocities and I think it only passes the Bechdel test by some verses in Ruth. 

I can't live with faith and science as entirely separate. Faith is subjective, but I want some constitutional checks and balances on the king. So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

If none of these concerns bother Mormons, well, thanks for letting me know that. If they do, how do you deal with them?

AHA! Thanks for the info- that helps considerably!

I deal with them, and Kevin and others here deal with them with a different view of philosophy of science as put forth by Kuhn and Ian Barbour and others which would be just as valuable to any believer- not just Mormons.  In fact informed atheists acknowledge the difference between science and religion- and I gave you several quotes and sources way back on this thread.   These are not Mormon authors- they are writers on the philosophy of science- what science can and cannot do.

When an Evangelical answers an altar call and "knows he is saved" does he have any scientific evidence for that claim?

Certainly you are smarter than to accept that Jesus died for your sins because there are some places and buildings and writings that seem to verify that?

As a scientist, how do you know the person Jesus even existed, or how could it be that one man's death would forgive the sins of the world???   What is the science behind that?

All the archaeology in the world would not prove that!!  You could be an eyewitness to the crucifixion and not know that!!

Are you acquainted with Kuhn?

I think Kevin Christensen is your man here to take this on with you- He is nice and I am an old grump.

I am 68 and dropped out of philosophy grad school after getting all the answers I needed, but have continued studying philosophy for the last 40 years or so.   So I do have some acquaintance with the subject.

The first step is understanding truth and the problems with the correspondence theory of truth.  This is easily googled.  Most scientists are totally ignorant of the correspondence theory and the problems it creates with knowing the world "as it is"

But please actually read the references if you actually want answers. 

I will repeat some here

Quote

 

Vagueness or circularity[edit]

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

 

In other words the idea that "this theory corresponds to the world as it is" is a circular argument because in order for you to KNOW that it "corresponds to the world" you would have to ALREADY know "the world as it is" to check the theory and say "YEP- I see the world as it is, and the theory corresponds to it!"  So to know if your data represents the world as it is, you would already have to know the world as it is to check the data.  The argument is circular.  It assumes the data is a true representation, and there is no way to check that.  That is pure physics- it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle applied to everything.  The very act of observation changes what is observed.  Is light a particle or wave, etc etc.

All you know is what your limited perception of what you data shows- AS YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THE DATA.  Same problem with biblical archaeology.  Because Jerusalem exists, and the Via Dolorosa, etc etc, then the death of Jesus happened and your sins are forgiven.

Really bad logic!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

But isn't that what all purveyors of fringy ideas think about the establishment? Mainstream academia is shutting us out because they can't handle the truth, and so forth. If there is anything to these theories, let them be put to the test, right? If the methodology and evidences are sound, the theory will win out in the end. 

I think the point to be made is that those of us who submit the Book of Mormon text to standard scientific scrutiny do so using regular peer-reviewed academic articles written primarily by non-Mormon scholars.  The reason is quite simple, and Hugh Nibley used to observe:  That gives the data "gentile respectability" it would not have if generated by Mormons -- whose beliefs make them highly suspect.  Anti-Mormon arguments in that instance are typically arguments against standard, peer-reviewed scholarship.  One would hope, therefore, that sound methodology and evidence would prevail in the end, but that is by no means certain in a hostile atmosphere.  Mainstream academia is not the problem, but rather that the man on the street who is hostile to Mormonism doesn't understand mainstream scholarship.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

I might conceivably be willing to convert to Mormonism if given really spectacular evidence. As several cogent posts in this very thread have pointed out, though, spectacular evidence is not to be expected in archaeology. So I am not asking for evidence to convert me to Mormonism, but to understand how Mormons think.

If the only good you see in discussing with me is to convert me, then indeed you have no reason to discuss with me, and I am glad to have saved you some pointless trouble, because I am not a likely prospect. Neither am I gunning to convert Mormons, however. In the unlikely event that anyone ever feels moved to renounce their faith by my words, I would recommend reading, prayer, and talking with friends and family. Trusting your faith to some guy on the internet is ridiculous. I want to understand how Mormons think. To me this exercise does not seem empty. For my part, I'd welcome the chance to see how my own faith looks to an outsider. Your mileage may vary.

I'm a middle-aged physics professor with a modest but respectable Hirsch index. I'm a life-long Christian. So I've thought about science and faith. I work on the "arrow of time" problem, and wonder quite often about what kind of laws the God in whom I believe might have made. I read the Bible, but don't believe it's inerrant; it has talking animals and atrocities and I think it only passes the Bechdel test by some verses in Ruth. 

I can't live with faith and science as entirely separate. Faith is subjective, but I want some constitutional checks and balances on the king. So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

If none of these concerns bother Mormons, well, thanks for letting me know that. If they do, how do you deal with them?

Are the "laws God made" ACTUALLY the "laws God made" or only reflecting back our own thoughts on the limits of what we can understand?

What if we see the limits of what our puny brains can come up with as "laws" beyond which our minds simply cannot see?

At what point does this puzzle collapse into semantic dust because the words themselves like "before" and "after" lose their meaning?

THAT is where we enter the mystic- that which is beyond language itself and thought itself.  What is ultimate "reality" when even physics cannot define it?

And the history of Jerusalem is supposed to help you with this question?

Where is the graven image?  Could it be in believing the words of scriptures which cannot define God in the first place?   Is the God of scripture subject to the verbal descriptions in the Bible, taken literally?  Can God be so limited as to be perfectly understood in words?  Could he have described himself in human words with perfection?

If not, then, aren't those words all subject to our interpretation to "reconstitute" them back to what is unspeakable about God through our own revelation?

Edited November 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think the point to be made is that those of us who submit the Book of Mormon text to standard scientific scrutiny do so using regular peer-reviewed academic articles written primarily by non-Mormon scholars.  The reason is quite simple, and Hugh Nibley used to observe:  That gives the data "gentile respectability" it would not have if generated by Mormons -- whose beliefs make them highly suspect.  Anti-Mormon arguments in that instance are typically arguments against standard, peer-reviewed scholarship.  One would hope, therefore, that sound methodology and evidence would prevail in the end, but that is by no means certain in a hostile atmosphere.  Mainstream academia is not the problem, but rather that the man on the street who is hostile to Mormonism doesn't understand mainstream scholarship.

This is one of the reasons I like atheistic philosophy used to promote Mormonism.  If the ideas of atheists support our epistemology, the critics have no place to go.  Their position dissolves. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes about the spiritual confirmation piece.  I still don't think God is telling people something about the BoM independently.  God may be telling them something about their relationship to the BoM, but not something objective about the BoM.  Thats my take on the whole Moroni's promise.  

That's fine if that's what you believe.  I would guess though that the majority of people who follow Moroni's promise believe they will receive (or are receiving) objective information about the BOM.

That was my experience serving a mission.  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's fine if that's what you believe.  I would guess though that the majority of people who follow Moroni's promise believe they will receive (or are receiving) objective information about the BOM.

That was my experience serving a mission.  

I totally agree, this is what I taught on my mission as well.  I think members come by this expectation honestly and this is how most church members think about it.  I see it very differently now.  

Its the whole problem with assuming that a feeling inside your bosom translates into a specific factual knowledge about something in the real world, and then the expansion of that very personal experience into a universal application.  My answer about the BoM means the BoM is objectively factual for everyone universally.  This is how Mormonism has taken something personal, mystical, majestic, ineffable and turns it into a commodity.  Maybe that's why we're so good at business??   :-) 

[strappinglad]

When it comes to philosophy , I admit massive ignorance so please bare with me as I try to understand some of what has been said here.

Suppose I relate a story to you about my travels today. I tell you about going to a nearby city, what roads I took, what stores I went to and a rough timetable of these events. I also relate an event in which I had a strong spiritual impression to stop by and see an old uncle that I haven't even spoken to for a year. When I do so I discover  my uncle lying on the floor of his house unable to get up having been there for several hours. He said he had been praying that someone could find him. OK, now I could conceivably come up with evidence that I left town at a certain time and drove the roads I said I did because I could find CCTV camera evidence to that effect. I might be able to produce a parking ticket given in front of a store I said I went to at the time I originally stated I was there. I might be able to provide eye witnesses at some of my stops and I certainly could get a statement from my uncle as to his participation in said event. What I cannot do and will never be able to prove is that I got that spiritual impression. A critic could easily mark the whole thing down to coincidence.

   Now what part, if any, of my whole story is " true " ?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

When it comes to philosophy , I admit massive ignorance so please bare with me as I try to understand some of what has been said here.

Suppose I relate a story to you about my travels today. I tell you about going to a nearby city, what roads I took, what stores I went to and a rough timetable of these events. I also relate an event in which I had a strong spiritual impression to stop by and see an old uncle that I haven't even spoken to for a year. When I do so I discover  my uncle lying on the floor of his house unable to get up having been there for several hours. He said he had been praying that someone could find him. OK, now I could conceivably come up with evidence that I left town at a certain time and drove the roads I said I did because I could find CCTV camera evidence to that effect. I might be able to produce a parking ticket given in front of a store I said I went to at the time I originally stated I was there. I might be able to provide eye witnesses at some of my stops and I certainly could get a statement from my uncle as to his participation in said event. What I cannot do and will never be able to prove is that I got that spiritual impression. A critic could easily mark the whole thing down to coincidence.

   Now what part, if any, of my whole story is " true " ?

All of it? 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your perspective, perfectly valid for you, but not valid for me and not consistent with my reading of scripture or the feelings I've felt. 

I'm curious how you read the numerous Book of Mormon explanations of the Atonement and its relation with justice and mercy.

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I'm a middle-aged physics professor with a modest but respectable Hirsch index. I'm a life-long Christian. So I've thought about science and faith. I work on the "arrow of time" problem, and wonder quite often about what kind of laws the God in whom I believe might have made. I read the Bible, but don't believe it's inerrant; it has talking animals and atrocities and I think it only passes the Bechdel test by some verses in Ruth. 

I can't live with faith and science as entirely separate. Faith is subjective, but I want some constitutional checks and balances on the king. So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

If none of these concerns bother Mormons, well, thanks for letting me know that. If they do, how do you deal with them?

Just want to welcome you to the board. I've enjoyed hearing your perspective. Its not often that a non-Mormon academic will engage this subject with such even-mindedness and genuine curiosity. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

One more

Could the demand for "evidence" be itself a false god?

Matt 16

Quote

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is one of the reasons I like atheistic philosophy used to promote Mormonism.  If the ideas of atheists support our epistemology, the critics have no place to go.  Their position dissolves. 

Exactly.  But say that to Mormons or to anti-Mormons and they all think you're loony toons.  They just don't get it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  But say that to Mormons or to anti-Mormons and they all think you're loony toons.  They just don't get it.

It's odd.

You remove every possible objection to the truth of the church, every way that even athiests can dream up, and no one gets it.

Very odd indeed.

[champatsch]

On 11/18/2016 at 3:35 PM, hope_for_things said:

The inspired but not historical position is the wave of the future and I think the only stable ground.  Looking at the big picture for all of scripture, this is the only way I see forward.  Non-literal, but still inspirational.

Actually . . . unstable and inaccurate is much more likely.  The textual evidence supports this view:

Joseph Knight (between 1833 and 1847):
A sentence would appear to Joseph Smith in bright Roman letters on the seer stone.
Then Joseph would dictate the sentence and the scribe would write it down.
Then that sentence would go away and the next sentence would appear, and so on.

(1) If that is close to what happened, which philological (textual) evidence strongly supports, that means God did deliver the text to Joseph word for word, sentence by sentence.

(2) To me this means that God did send Moroni to Joseph to tell him he would translate an ancient historical record written by New World inhabitants.

I'm interested to know specifically how others do not get (2) if (1) is accurate, since (1) tells us that something miraculous occurred in accordance with what JS asserted, and the content of (1) had been referred to in (2).

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I might conceivably be willing to convert to Mormonism if given really spectacular evidence. As several cogent posts in this very thread have pointed out, though, spectacular evidence is not to be expected in archaeology. So I am not asking for evidence to convert me to Mormonism, but to understand how Mormons think.

Hi, and welcome to the board - I like honest straight forward assessments like yours. It just so happens for a matter of years I have been working on just such "evidence." However, I will say as a convert to LDS Christianity, that I did not convert because of "evidence" and I doubt you will either. I converted because I began to question traditional Christianity at about age 10 or 11. I felt Jesus said too many things which seem to contradict the idea of the doctrine of the trinity - like no one knows when I will return - no, not the Son but the Father only. This is in fact supported by Isaiah saying that YHWH Elohim would tell His servant all things before they transpired. That just doesn't seem to comport with the Nicene ideal of "one substance." Another biblical teaching which won me over is the teaching that Jesus went to teach the spirits of the dead, so that those who had not heard His words could hear them in "spirit prison", 2 Peter, and be saved. That made much more sense to me from the gospel than the traditional Christian view that Jesus does not save those who never heard of him in this earthly life. In fact Jesus says as much in John

John 5:25

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Such verses seem to flat out contradict traditional Protestant Christianity - and even Catholicism, which has indulgences and prayers for the dead. LDS Christianity followed the Bible on these points, so I concede that it was not "evidence" that converted me, but the Bible.

Quote

If the only good you see in discussing with me is to convert me, then indeed you have no reason to discuss with me, and I am glad to have saved you some pointless trouble, because I am not a likely prospect. Neither am I gunning to convert Mormons, however. In the unlikely event that anyone ever feels moved to renounce their faith by my words, I would recommend reading, prayer, and talking with friends and family. Trusting your faith to some guy on the internet is ridiculous. I want to understand how Mormons think. To me this exercise does not seem empty. For my part, I'd welcome the chance to see how my own faith looks to an outsider. Your mileage may vary.

Well, the reason I discuss the gospel with people is because I want to offer my view of scriptures, and why I converted. That always involves offering my desire to convert them to the truth. In the end tho, I am powerless to convert them, and can only appeal to questions about their particular brand of beliefs that have them searching principles of truth, to appeal to the workings of the spirit in these matters. because it is the Spirit which bears witness to these truths in honest truth seekers.

Quote

I'm a middle-aged physics professor with a modest but respectable Hirsch index. I'm a life-long Christian. So I've thought about science and faith. I work on the "arrow of time" problem, and wonder quite often about what kind of laws the God in whom I believe might have made. I read the Bible, but don't believe it's inerrant; it has talking animals and atrocities and I think it only passes the Bechdel test by some verses in Ruth. 

I can't live with faith and science as entirely separate. Faith is subjective, but I want some constitutional checks and balances on the king. So I don't demand proof, but complete absence of evidence worries me. We're not supposed to worship graven images.

If none of these concerns bother Mormons, well, thanks for letting me know that. If they do, how do you deal with them?

And here is why I responded to you. Although I did not convert based upon "evidence" I have been working on such questions over the course of some years - and "surprisingly" I have found substantial evidence for most of the points of the Book of Mormon which historically have bothered people. I have been writing a book on the subject which so far I am calling a commentary on the scriptures. It also deals with questions that archaeologists have raised causing them to dismiss the Torah as history as well. In other words it answers who was pharaoh at the time of Joseph and the famine, at the time of Moses, etc. What I found is substantial archaeological evidence to support the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon. Given the confusion over the Book of Mormon even within the ranks of the church, I believe this work will eventually be helpful to the church, and those willing to seek the truths of the gospel in the church. Now if you are looking for a faith which has no contradictions and proclaims its leaders are inerrant, you probably will not be persuaded by my list of evidences, but if you are an honest truth seeker, I believe it may help resolve your list of reservations, and offer "scientific evidence" for the Book of Mormon, and that the Book cannot be a work of fiction, and therefore that indeed the restored gospel is true.

Being that my book is still a work in progress, let me offer that if you will PM me your email, I will send you a link or a copy when it is done. You may find you have to post a few more times to be able to PM me though. I wish you all the best on your faith journey friend.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's odd.

You remove every possible objection to the truth of the church, every way that even athiests can dream up, and no one gets it.

Very odd indeed.

I believe that is because just appealing to ideals isn't enough for people. They have become very skeptical of the many "brands" of truth out there, and most succumb to the usual "evidence" or arguments of church critics. They want something they can sink their teeth in - something tangible, they can see and touch. Something which tells them they don't believe in fictional history. I believe most traditional archaeologists have presented these problems for traditional Christianity as well, and many have come to believe that the "historical" Torah is fiction, and therefore have begun to leave Christianity. To the extent that we are able to offer such "historical evidence" I believe in the future the restored gospel will prosper, but the "Church" will see significant change.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

............................................................................  

Joseph Knight (between 1833 and 1847):
A sentence would appear to Joseph Smith in bright Roman letters on the seer stone.
Then Joseph would dictate the sentence and the scribe would write it down.
Then that sentence would go away and the next sentence would appear, and so on.

Yes, and Joseph Knight was at the Smith home when the plates were retrieved and the translation begun, and likely heard this version of the process from Joseph Smith personally.

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

(1) If that is close to what happened, which philological (textual) evidence strongly supports, that means God did deliver the text to Joseph word for word, sentence by sentence.

The Original Manuscript shows this very clearly, of course, but this does not mean that the words were "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16 theopneustos) except in the metaphorical sense.  Rather, it is clear from the philology that Joseph merely read off the stone an already completed human translation.  God consistently uses human vectors, even if we cannot readily identify each of them.  The notion of verbal plenary inspiration cannot be justified.  In this case, the word "translate" means "transmit," which is part of the semantic range of the word.

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

(2) To me this means that God did send Moroni to Joseph to tell him he would translate an ancient historical record written by New World inhabitants.

I'm interested to know specifically how others do not get (2) if (1) is accurate, since (1) tells us that something miraculous occurred in accordance with what JS asserted, and the content of (1) had been referred to in (2).

The Mormon God is at base a god of order and of natural law, not miracle -- even though we refer to amazing things and events with such hyperbolic language.

Judgments about the historical accuracy of the content of the Book of Mormon can only be determined by the same means any other text is to be judged, via historical and scientific measures.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that is because just appealing to ideals isn't enough for people. They have become very skeptical of the many "brands" of truth out there, and most succumb to the usual "evidence" or arguments of church critics. They want something they can sink their teeth in - something tangible, they can see and touch. Something which tells them they don't believe in fictional history. I believe most traditional archaeologists have presented these problems for traditional Christianity as well, and many have come to believe that the "historical" Torah is fiction, and therefore have begun to leave Christianity. To the extent that we are able to offer such "historical evidence" I believe in the future the restored gospel will prosper, but the "Church" will see significant change.

Either that or the culture will grow up and see things as are are.

But there are always sign seekers as the Savior taught

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Either that or the culture will grow up and see things as are are.

But there are always sign seekers as the Savior taught

Well seeking historical evidence vs signs, I believe are two different things. In the case of the Bible, there is an historical Jerusalem everyone accepts is Jerusalem. There are archaeological evidences which support the Biblical account. That is important for people. Going to visit Jerusalem is not "a sign." It's nothing miraculous, but it helps ground people in the Bible to walk where Jesus walked. I proffer the same is true for the Book of Mormon. If truth seekers were able to visit "the plains of the Nephites," and were able to geographically understand the presentation in the book, I believe it would be immensely helpful to them. Again, to be able to visit the "land of Nephi" is not any miraculous sign, but I believe would definitely help ground not only church investigators, but even members such as Jeremy. This combination of epistemological truths and "rational" philosophy may just prove to be the winning combination.