The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peterson

[_MisterTabernacle]

But, but, the world was in a state of total APOSTASY in the 1500s and 1600s. There was no one on the face of the Earth who had the priesthood or keys of seership. And clearly the language of the peoples would be corrupted just like their morals and religions. So God would NEVER use the language of corrupted peoples who had no priesthood. It just doesn't make sense.

Seriously though, this argument will not go over well for TBMs I know. The church has done such a great job skewering all other religions and eras prior to Joseph Smith that suddenly discovering 15th/16th century language in the Book of Mormon undermines more than it helps.

[_Jaybear]

But, but, the world was in a state of total APOSTASY in the 1500s and 1600s. There was no one on the face of the Earth who had the priesthood or keys of seership. And clearly the language of the peoples would be corrupted just like their morals and religions. So God would NEVER use the language of corrupted peoples who had no priesthood. It just doesn't make sense.

If you take into account the time that it would take God to travel from England to his home planet near Kolob, and then back to New York, its most likely that God was the translator, but was not fully up to speed on the changes to the English language since his last visit.

[_tld]

Basic to this discussion, as well as other similar discussions, is the question of whether or not consciousness can exist outside of brain function. The evidence we have available suggests that it does. Materialists who claim that the brain is the source of consciousness have no credibility, thus they must resort to ridicule to try to minimize the evidence that consciousness
does not require a brain.

I am old enough to remember the debate, back during the 1950s and 1960s, between behaviorists and cognitive psychologists (of which there were very few). Behaviorists ridiculed the cognitive psychologists because they suggested that rats, in learning a maze, developed a “cognitive map” of the maze which allowed them to reach the goal of food by various routes. Now it is recognized that we all develop cognitive maps of our environment which allows us to get from point A to point B by various means.

The point is: all that any of us has available to us is our conscious experience. We may have the experience of a material world, but this is not evidence that a material world actually exists, only that we are having such and such a conscious experience. We assume that the brain is the source of this conscious experience, but there is no evidence to justify this assumption. In fact, the brain is part of our conscious experience, and by making the brain the source of our conscious experience we are suggesting that what we are experiencing is the source of what we are experiencing, which is the source of what we are experiencing....

If and when we accept the possibility that consciousness is basic to all experience and that consciousness can exist separate from brain function, then we can stop ridiculing various non-material explanations and begin to try to explain how the Book of Mormon might have a source other than the ones that materialism requires.

[_DarkHelmet]

Basic to this discussion, as well as other similar discussions, is the question of whether or not consciousness can exist outside of brain function. The evidence we have available suggests that it does. Materialists who claim that the brain is the source of consciousness have no credibility, thus they must resort to ridicule to try to minimize the evidence that consciousness
does not require a brain.

I am old enough to remember the debate, back during the 1950s and 1960s, between behaviorists and cognitive psychologists (of which there were very few). Behaviorists ridiculed the cognitive psychologists because they suggested that rats, in learning a maze, developed a “cognitive map” of the maze which allowed them to reach the goal of food by various routes. Now it is recognized that we all develop cognitive maps of our environment which allows us to get from point A to point B by various means.

The point is: all that any of us has available to us is our conscious experience. We may have the experience of a material world, but this is not evidence that a material world actually exists, only that we are having such and such a conscious experience. We assume that the brain is the source of this conscious experience, but there is no evidence to justify this assumption. In fact, the brain is part of our conscious experience, and by making the brain the source of our conscious experience we are suggesting that what we are experiencing is the source of what we are experiencing, which is the source of what we are experiencing....

If and when we accept the possibility that consciousness is basic to all experience and that consciousness can exist separate from brain function, then we can stop ridiculing various non-material explanations and begin to try to explain how the Book of Mormon might have a source other than the ones that materialism requires.

In other words, the only way the Book of Mormon is "true" is if you turn off your brain. I agree 100%.

[_tld]

In other words, the only way the Book of Mormon is "true" is if you turn off your brain. I agree 100%.

See what I mean by resorting to ridicule?

[_Bazooka]

In other words, the only way the Book of Mormon is "true" is if you turn off your brain. I agree 100%.

See what I mean by resorting to ridicule?

I thought the source of the Book of Mormon was a group of ancient Native Americans who really lived about two thousand years ago? Is it not?

[_Gadianton]

Materialists who claim that the brain is the source of consciousness have no credibility,

please, tld -- no credibility? if reductive physicalism is wrong, it's not so obviously wrong that it fully lacks credibility.

The evidence we have available suggests that it does

what evidence is that? NDEs? lol. if so, let me point out NDEs still don't explain consciousness and they don't refute materialism.

Daniel Dennett may come close to saying physicalism has no credibility, and he offers one of the most "credible" -- at least in terms of number of citations -- non-physicalist version of mind there is. However, he denies the "experience" aspect of consciousness.

On the other end of the spectrum is David Chalmers, who is a physicalist, and who absolutely does endorse experience, yet, I believe he does not forbid strong AI. So as you see, "materialism" has little to do with whether sims with conscious experience are possible.

[_Fence Sitter]

Where does Mormonism teach that the brain and consciousness are separate? Don't our spirits also have brains?

[_DarkHelmet]

In other words, the only way the Book of Mormon is "true" is if you turn off your brain. I agree 100%.

See what I mean by resorting to ridicule?

How is it ridicule when I agree with you?

[_MisterTabernacle]

None of this is actually helping me understand how the Book of Mormon as a 16th/17th century transcript is a GOOD thing for apologetics.