DiscussMormonism.com

Having studied the Book of Mormon for over 20 years, I can see where Ray and others are coming from. But like so many other Mormons just rooting for the home team I wonder if he has much understanding of what it really is:

Obviously, these are short lists:

1) If Joseph Smith actually had a hand in revealing it, he never studied it. If he studied it, he either didn't understand it or was indifferent to it's teachings:

a) The chapters in Jacob concerning sexual misconduct actually explain why poligamy is evil and why God would not command it.
b) The chapters on charity define a person's relationship to God/Jesus - the rest is just fluff.
c) For those that believe in the miracle forgiveness (being born again), it gives many detailed examples and explanations.
d) For those that believe in such things, it defines our inner compass that encourages us to live a righteous/peaceable life.
e) It encourages tolerance to all belief systems that do not infringe on the rights of others.
f) It encourages personal responsibility and explains right reason for a democratic form of government
g) It defines the righteous justification to go to war and examples of what it means to win or end the conflict
h) It demonstrates the downsides of a caste system and the nature of a human to gravitate towards it
I) It makes a distinction between a chosen people of God and those that live it's corrupted form.
j) It defines a secret combination, what it's effects are to society, how to identify it and how and why to remain unaffiliated with it.
k) It gives several examples of how demonstrating unconditional love for enemies can have a more powerful effect than the sword
l) It explains why and how God is not a respector of persons
m) It explains that God is not the author of confusion


2) Through out the life of the church, it's leaders have instituted doctrine inconsistant with the principles in the Book of Mormon:

a) Situational disrespect for the laws of the land
b) Justification of plural marriage
c) The law of blood atonement
d) Justification for a religious group to seek vengeance
e) Justification of the use of force to bring about the practice of a new doctrine
f) Improper use of guilt as a motivator for righteous works
g) Justification for certain "righteous" secret combinations


3) Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, it's a book of fiction:

a) DNA evidence really kills any connection with the "American Continent"
b) The math that attempts to explain the noted number of inhabitants that occupied it's geography is dizzying
c) The geography (locations of the story) has no permanent and definable reference points.
d) Theories and references of the "Great White God" of the Inca, Maya and others are inacurrate to the point where the church has shelved it's Faith-Promoting Rumor's (faith promoting rumors) concerning them.
e) One of the most important aspects of the book is not clearly defined: Who does one pray to for forgiveness of sins? Who is the book referring to as "Lord"?
f) Metalergy issues
g) From where did Jacob learn his Latin derivitive French word "Adieu"?
h) If the Book of Mormon is true, then God is the author of confusion.
I) Where is Mr. Ed? There is no horse of course

Because the church has defined itself by being either "all or nothing", I see how there are many that leave that have been conditioned to conclude there is nothing good - that it is all a fraud. It is as if the church is saying that if you don't accept all of it you are not entitled to any of (even if some of the stuff may be good). I would reject the church's claim.

The difficult challenge that I am having is to sort through the deceipt and hold to those things that would bring me peace.

Shame on them for insisting that any of the good is as bad as the evil if I don't accept their way of thinking.

(edited for clarification and typo's)

Inconceivable stated:

Having studied the Book of Mormon for over 20 years, I can see where Ray and others are coming from. But like so many other Mormons just rooting for the home team I wonder if he has much understanding of what it really is:

Since information has increased exponentially since the 1800s, claims by religious pundits of that time or more ancient times should be regarded with the greatest skepticism.

Biblical authors knew nothing about germs, viruses, or DNA. They attributed falsely disease and plagues, etc. to God’s disapproval.

Absent evidence for God claims, such claims should be disregarded.

Your list of questions seem irrelevant to the larger questions regarding claims for theistic explanations of anything.

JAK

JAK wrote:Your list of questions seem irrelevant to the larger questions regarding claims for theistic explanations of anything.

Sorry JAK,

To clarify, the "..nearer to God.." phrase comes from the quote made by Joseph Smith in the Intro to the Book of Mormon,

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

(Book of Mormon | Preface Introduction:6)

I refer to this quote to suggest the irony, seeing that Joseph Smith disregarded much of it's teachings. Yet he was the man that was considered by his followers, closest to God.

From a previous post, you stated:

Inconceivable stated:

Because the church has defined itself by being either "all or nothing", I see how there are many that leave that have been conditioned to conclude there is nothing good - that it is all a fraud. It is as if they are saying that if you don't accept all of it you are not entitled to any of it that may very well be good. I would reject their claim.

The difficult challenge that I am having is to sort through the deceipt and hold to those things that are would bring me peace.

Shame on them for insisting that any of the good is as bad as the evil if I don't accept their way of thinking.

I understand why you conclude as you do. But, you are correct in the “all or nothing” position for most religious mythology. That extends to Islam and non-theistic mythologies as well. The claim of the first part is quite within the Christian tradition. That is, one must accept all the doctrines.

Why is it a “difficult challenge”? You appear to be a rational person or at least would like to be. If a claim lacks evidence, you have maybe two options. One is to accept it on faith knowing it’s irrational. The other is to be skeptical of the claim or reject it. No doubt, some people prefer to leap from the cliff, close their eyes, and scream I believe, I believe, I believe. Depending upon just how intellectually honest they can be, such an approach may not produce much “peace” as you phrase it. For others, intellectual integrity is more satisfying and more honest.

I’m always amused when people become angry if their irrational beliefs are questioned. “Amused” is not quite the right word. People can be engaged on a forum such as this in a way they cannot be in real life.

JAK

JAK wrote:I’m always amused when people become angry if their irrational beliefs are questioned. “Amused” is not quite the right word. People can be engaged on a forum such as this in a way they cannot be in real life.

I'm curious about this. There isn't much that I've shared on this board that I haven't shared with people in 'real life' both LDS and not.

JAK wrote: Inconceivable stated:

The difficult challenge that I am having is to sort through the deceipt and hold to those things that would bring me peace.



Why is it a “difficult challenge”? You appear to be a rational person or at least would like to be. If a claim lacks evidence, you have maybe two options. One is to accept it on faith knowing it’s irrational. The other is to be skeptical of the claim or reject it...

... For others, intellectual integrity is more satisfying and more honest.

JAK

I agree that the formula you speak of seems simple enough, however, because I have spent an entire life permitting myself to be indoctrinated by both viable and foolish concepts I am overwhelmed by how so many things interrelate with one another.

The best example I can think of is how I used to conlude that all of the spiritual clues I received led me to believe that the church was actually true. I am now re-evaluating what each may have meant or actually referred to. I have found that to be quite a difficult process. Perhaps that is why it is preferable for some to just throw it all out and trust nothing of a spiritual nature.

Inconceivable observed:

The best example I can think of is how I used to conlude that all of the spiritual clues I received led me to believe that the church was actually true. I am now re-evaluating what each may have meant or actually referred to. I have found that to be quite a difficult process. Perhaps that is why it is preferable for some to just throw it all out and trust nothing of a spiritual nature.

I have yet to find any compelling discussion/analysis which characterizes “spiritual” as anything but emotion or an emotional reaction to some experience.

I also appreciate that those indoctrinated in religious myth find great difficulty and even pain when intellect meets unreasoned claims.

What we might consider an Islamic extremist, has even greater challenges (probably) than you, Inconceivable. I don’t know any of them. But the willingness and even eager desire to die in the killing of others as suicide bombers do is belief and indoctrination beyond that of yours -- don’t you think?

It would seem that skeptical review is preferable to blind faith or blind commitment to a set of religious dogmas. Even so, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that many, many people prefer blind faith to rational thinking.

I suspect the emergence (evolution of religious doctrine) of a one God notion was as traumatic as is the emergence/evolution of doubt -- in the agnostic is today. Coming to honest recognition that any regiment of doctrine is unreliable is most difficult for those most successfully indoctrinated (brainwashed in religion).

In another post, I quoted Paul Tillich (1886-1965) who challenged many notions which were in the tradition of Protestantism. He was not liked by other theologians/philosophers in his life-time -- too far ahead.

JAK

JAK wrote:[
I have yet to find any compelling discussion/analysis which characterizes “spiritual” as anything but emotion or an emotional reaction to some experience.

I also appreciate that those indoctrinated in religious myth find great difficulty and even pain when intellect meets unreasoned claims.

It would seem that skeptical review is preferable to blind faith or blind commitment to a set of religious dogmas. Even so, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that many, many people prefer blind faith to rational thinking.

Coming to honest recognition that any regiment of doctrine is unreliable is most difficult for those most successfully indoctrinated (brainwashed in religion).

JAK

I get what you are saying. When I heard Tal Bachman's interview, I got to asking myself whether I would have been willing to strap a bomb to myself if the mission president commanded it. I was pretty desperate to be "totaly worthy" so I could finally baptise - blind faith. It's a good thing some of the abuse has had a few checks and balances at least during part of the last century.

However, I have experienced a number of spiritual manifestations over the years that were unexpected. In other words, some had not even been sought out and some not expected. Although afterwards some manifestations illicited an emotional response, the "miracle" had occurred inspite of the emotion. These are some of the "clues" I'm refering to. My conclusion at present is that they didn't make any church or priesthood truer than any other. But they happened nevertheless.

Some of us have a tendency to place the scientifically "unexplainable" into the "Unreasoned claims" trash can. It does seem to keep part of life simple.

Inconceivable stated:

Some of us have a tendency to place the scientifically "unexplainable" into the "Unreasoned claims" trash can. It does seem to keep part of life simple.

Keep in mind that “unexplainable” should likely be not yet explained. It’s been an extremely short time (in the 4.5 billion year history of earth) that the human species emerged. And, it’s been an even shorter time that we have had language and science. What was not scientifically explained 500 years ago, has been explained today. (Arbitrary time frame) Science is making new discoveries daily. Further, those discoveries are reasoned.

JAK

Inconceivable stated:

The best example I can think of is how I used to conlude that all of the spiritual clues I received led me to believe that the church was actually true. I am now re-evaluating what each may have meant or actually referred to. I have found that to be quite a difficult process. Perhaps that is why it is preferable for some to just throw it all out and trust nothing of a spiritual nature.

If we recognize that spiritual really means emotional, we can avoid much confusion. Our emotions are constantly affected by our health, our plans, our set-backs, etc. Religion capitalizes on emotion. While doing that, religious pundits often use the word “spiritual” or some form of the appeal. But we recognize love for our children, family, dogs, food, etc. While love is a generic here for other possible terms, I refer to emotion in a broad sense.

I don’t think we humans want to throw out emotions. It’s a part of our nature to experience joy and sadness -- and sometimes at the same time. But “spiritual” as it is frequently used, attempts to link to supernatural for which there is no evidence. However, emotions are often unreliable. 50% of marriages in the USA end in divorce. Marriages, which end in divorce, began with one emotion different from that at the time of divorce.

A friend of mine once observed the two happiest days in his life:
One when he opened his new swimming pool.
The Second, when he closed it, filled it in and planted grass and gardens.

Emotional experiences of joy at different ages and times in life.

JAK