The issue is again about the reach of the claim: it extends beyond the realm where faith is applicable and into the real world, where we can actually test it (Nibley used to brag about this aspect of the Book of Mormon!). The wise thing is not to test it because by the usual standards that these tests are run, Book of Mormon of historicity is absurd. The mature thing is to admit that, to "own it," as they say, but instead our apologists friends tamper with the standards and rewrite the tests so that they can make it look like it has passed. "I believe there were Nephites" is good enough for me, but "the linguistic data support my belief that there were Nephites" is inviting a take down. It's hubris.
It is different from the something like the Trinity, which is also absurd, but that logical absurdity, which can't be empirically verified or refuted, is accepted and reinterpreted as a mystery, something beyond ordinary understanding. That is why no traditionalist Christian with a PhD in math goes around trying to revamp number theory and all of mathematics in order to show that, contrary to billions of humans have believed, one and three really are the same number and are interchangeable in calculation. Christian apologists who argue about the Trinity with other Christians don't make appeals to math.
In a Facebook group dedicated to the cause of fighting the IBWO status change, people regularly post their opinions, pro and con, about various possible sightings. One memorable poster gave a very convincing story, with many details, about how she has repeatedly seen one in her yard, which is located in a very rural area not far from where the last sightings of the bird were documented about 80 years ago.
She then said she had pictures and would post them. people were very excited and encouraged her to do so, asap! Finally the pictures went up, to the confusion of the group members. One person politely posted, "I'm not seeing any birds in your pictures, just background. Are you sure these are the correct photos?"
The woman wrote back, "oh no, these are the right pictures. They show the location where the bird was when I saw it..."
I would only add one thing that the topic of the opening post is unique to Mormonism. The distance (and confusion) between the expectations created by a claim and the instantiation of that claim in the real world are not inherently the problem, because as you point out this can arise in any religion—and probably does in every religion. This gives way to all kinds of metaphysical speculation which can be fruitful and which allows adherents to discover or just make up responses of great emotional depth. I don't see how senines and the Reign of the Judges can do that, however. I'm not saying it can't be done, but if these would-be theologians in Mormonism were serious they would find something better than the Religious Studies explanation ("these texts build communal identity" and similar mundane obviousness couched in ever shifting neologisms) or the "god is testing you" explanation. My own view is there just isn't enough depth to the Book of Mormon anyway, and anyone attempting a deep dive is bound to get a head injury plunging into such shallow waters. But perhaps "god is testing you" really is the best use of it.
Symmachus,You seem to be circling an interesting point, pardon my selecting only a piece to copy and relate to. But perhaps mine is only a minor touch.
In comparison to the Bible ones relationship to the Book of Mormon is more take it or leave it. I find I cannot leave the question of history for the Bible out completely. Its depth is related to real peoples experience even if substantial fanciful narration is involved in the telling of the experience. For my own experience with faith it is relating to those human experiences that continue.
I may be only repeating what you intended about the trinity. The mathematics involved does not extend past what one learns in grade school. One remains one and three persons remains three. One number does not transmute into the other. The difference is the whole point of the idea.
//////
I wanted to add that Marcus's example of belief faith evidence is a wonderful example. I don't think I will forget it.
Ordinary experience. I don't think this needs clarification, and it comes off as a hook to say "well just because you haven't seen an angel help a farmer translate gold tablets doesn't mean another person didn't." Of course that is logically true, but it is irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that this is very, very far outside the realm of normal experience.
Well, that much is true. Ordinary experience doesn’t lend itself to fully understanding and/or accepting that which is beyond “normal experience”.
Both you and doubtingthomas are proving the accuracy of what I’ve been proposing in my recent posts on this thread. You’ve fallen into ‘the trap’.
Regards,
MG
I see you’re just going to double down with babbling and assertions. Hrm . . . who to believe? The Mormon ‘prophets’, apostles, and various publications produced by the Mormon church itself, or MG’s lies?
This is a tough one. Maybe you should let this one marinate for ten days, and then you can come back at me with a stupid Socratic question.
+ Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Both you and doubtingthomas are proving the accuracy of what I’ve been proposing in my recent posts on this thread. You’ve fallen into ‘the trap’.
Regards,
MG
I see you’re just going to double down with babbling and assertions. Hrm . . . who to believe? The Mormon ‘prophets’, apostles, and various publications produced by the Mormon church itself, or MG’s lies?
This is a tough one. Maybe you should let this one marinate for ten days, and then you can come back at me with a stupid Socratic question.
+ Doc
Now they call it Street epistemology. But I don't know if MG would be receptive to that.
Faith is hard, and the true test is not of germ theory but of your capacity to believe in it." Well, I hope you can understand why I'd start to get a bit skeptical about germ theory.
Sure. But I don’t think this directly applies to faith in God and by implication the restoration narrative. Initially the educated masses didn't know who, what , and how to worship at the alter of germ theory until Ignaz Semmelweis came along. His ‘prophethood’ was not recognized and initially he was a pariah and an outcast. Once the ‘truth’ was recognized/discovered he THEN took his place in history.
Previous to him coming along the capacity to believe was nonexistent because there wasn’t a knowledge/experiential foundation/base to even start on. All sorts of whacky ideas persisted until…they no longer did. Now Semmelweis is a hero and a scientific ‘prophet’ of sorts.
Before Joseph Smith came along there wasn’t anything in specificity to exercise the capacity to believe in until Joseph restored lost truths. He was the one that ‘discovered’ what had not been known. The capacity to believe in his message was non existent until he became the unlikely ‘discoverer’ of that which was not known.
I can understand why you might be skeptical to begin with about the restoration narrative. I was too during an extended period of my life. But I don’t think, at least in my case, that the test is simply to see if I have the capacity to believe. There’s a heck of a lot more to it than that.
…who to believe? The Mormon ‘prophets’, apostles, and various publications produced by the Mormon church itself, or MG’s lies?
First off, I’d always default to the doctrinal positions currently taught over the pulpit and in the authoritative publications of the church. With the caveats that I have already gone at some length to lay out/express in this thread.
Which you’ve probably not spent the time to read and assimilate/understand. I think you’re lazy.
Faith is hard, and the true test is not of germ theory but of your capacity to believe in it." Well, I hope you can understand why I'd start to get a bit skeptical about germ theory.
Sure. But I don’t think this directly applies to faith in God and by implication the restoration narrative. Initially the educated masses didn't know who, what , and how to worship at the alter of germ theory until Ignaz Semmelweis came along. His ‘prophethood’ was not recognized and initially he was a pariah and an outcast. Once the ‘truth’ was recognized/discovered he THEN took his place in history.
Previous to him coming along the capacity to believe was nonexistent because there wasn’t a knowledge/experiential foundation/base to even start on. All sorts of whacky ideas persisted until…they no longer did. Now Semmelweis is a hero and a scientific ‘prophet’ of sorts.
Before Joseph Smith came along there wasn’t anything in specificity to exercise the capacity to believe in until Joseph restored lost truths. He was the one that ‘discovered’ what had not been known. The capacity to believe in his message was non existent until he became the unlikely ‘discoverer’ of that which was not known.
I can understand why you might be skeptical to begin with about the restoration narrative. I was too during an extended period of my life. But I don’t think, at least in my case, that the test is simply to see if I have the capacity to believe. There’s a heck of a lot more to it than that.
Regards,
MG
I like what you're trying to say here with the germ theory of disease idea. That maybe Joseph and Mormonism is connecting with something real but not proven yet.
I think the main problem though is that we can test the germ theory of disease at home. I can take two petri dishes with bacteria, and put penicillin in one and get a real objective idea of how well that works.
I can't do that with the power of prayer, prophesy, discernment, water dousing, near death experiences, ect ect ect. They are all dependent on belief/feelings and not objective facts.
So unlike the germ theory of disease, we cannot ever prove Mormonism true.
Sure. But I don’t think this directly applies to faith in God and by implication the restoration narrative. Initially the educated masses didn't know who, what , and how to worship at the alter of germ theory until Ignaz Semmelweis came along. His ‘prophethood’ was not recognized and initially he was a pariah and an outcast. Once the ‘truth’ was recognized/discovered he THEN took his place in history.
Previous to him coming along the capacity to believe was nonexistent because there wasn’t a knowledge/experiential foundation/base to even start on. All sorts of whacky ideas persisted until…they no longer did. Now Semmelweis is a hero and a scientific ‘prophet’ of sorts.
Before Joseph Smith came along there wasn’t anything in specificity to exercise the capacity to believe in until Joseph restored lost truths. He was the one that ‘discovered’ what had not been known. The capacity to believe in his message was non existent until he became the unlikely ‘discoverer’ of that which was not known.
I can understand why you might be skeptical to begin with about the restoration narrative. I was too during an extended period of my life. But I don’t think, at least in my case, that the test is simply to see if I have the capacity to believe. There’s a heck of a lot more to it than that.
Regards,
MG
I like what you're trying to say here with the germ theory of disease idea. That maybe Joseph and Mormonism is connecting with something real but not proven yet.
And I keep coming back to this thing called faith. I know it sounds like a cop out. I get that. The result a creator God not fully revealing Himself…the silver platter God I referred to earlier…is that we see MANY folks taking different and varied paths of/to ‘truth’. The question I would ask in connection with this is whether or not this is a bug or a feature.
Agency and choice would demand that it is a feature.
Would you disagree?
You would have to admit, I think, that the overall result of God not fully revealing Himself willy nilly is that throughout the world and its history we observe people making choices between right and wrong…and deciding what right and wrong are…based upon their own internal compasses that either do or don’t lead them and others towards a ‘greater good’. Independent human beings making choices without constant intervention and/or knowledge of ‘big brother’ standing over them every minute of every day of existence.
I see that as a plus as far as personal growth and progress are concerned.
Of course, there IS the downside…
But that’s where the Atonement of Jesus Christ may play an integral part in the ‘plan’.
Regards,
MG
Last edited by MG 2.0 on Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I like what you're trying to say here with the germ theory of disease idea. That maybe Joseph and Mormonism is connecting with something real but not proven yet.
And I keep coming back to this thing called faith. I know it sounds like a cop out. I get that. The result a creator God not fully revealing Himself…the silver platter God I referred to earlier…is that we see MANY folks taking different and varied paths of/to ‘truth’. The question I would ask in connection with this is whether or not this is a bug or a feature.
Agency and choice would demand that it is a feature.
Would you disagree?
You would have to admit, I think, that the overall result of God not fully revealing Himself willy nilly is that throughout the world and its history we observe people making choices between right and wrong…and deciding what right and wrong are…based upon their own internal compasses that either do or don’t lead them and others towards a ‘greater good’. Independent human beings making choices without constant intervention and/or knowledge of ‘big brother’ standing over them every minute of every day of existence.
I see that as a plus as far as personal growth and progress are concerned.
Of course, there IS the downside…
But that’s where the Atonement of Jesus Christ may play an integral part in the ‘plan’.
Regards,
MG
You could have the same thing if god were around or at least if he popped in from time to time. If god were around, we could choose to follow him or not, just like in the supposed pre-existence. Our parents, for most of us, were around, perhaps still, giving guidance and we still had and have the ability to choose for ourselves. Do your parents stand over you constantly? Does the fact that your parents were around negate your freedom of choice?
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
