It was a very polarized thread, unfortunately. It might have helped if beastie had included some "outs" for the TBMs, like "this doesn't mean the Church is false, just that certain currently-popular interpretations of the Book of Mormon are not supported by (or are in conflict with) the evidence." You really have to say that over and over and over, or else well researched facts and a simple premise will be dismissed as anti-mormon bias.
I've mentioned several times that accepting the Book of Mormon as pseudographia has potential for believers, but most of them are just too wedded to the historicity of the Book of Mormon to consider that an "out".
I've just realized that I don't konw what pseudographia means.
For the apologist, it is always difficult to defend since much depends on one's faith in the Book of Mormon and other lds writings. Is there absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true? No. Nor will there be in the near future. If there were absolute proof, no one would be here criticizing Joseph Smith as a false prophet. And man would still be in the church, but only because tangible proof has been discovered and not because of faith.
And here is the problem in a nutshell. The apologist who defend will always be on the losing end of the stick. They can lead someone to a theory or even to an understanding but they can not provide absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true as Joseph Smith related it. However, that being said, the reason why the church has not fallen is also because, the Book of Mormon has not been proven to be a work of Joseph Smith or sidney. It still stands for what it claims to be and because of this, we have these critic/apologist debates about its origin. And this is what can be frustrating for the critic. And there is nothing to do about it. And if one thinks about it, perhaps this is the way god wants it to be. Based on faith and the speakings of the holy spirit.
It was a very polarized thread, unfortunately. It might have helped if beastie had included some "outs" for the TBMs, like "this doesn't mean the Church is false, just that certain currently-popular interpretations of the Book of Mormon are not supported by (or are in conflict with) the evidence." You really have to say that over and over and over, or else well researched facts and a simple premise will be dismissed as anti-mormon bias.
I've mentioned several times that accepting the Book of Mormon as pseudographia has potential for believers, but most of them are just too wedded to the historicity of the Book of Mormon to consider that an "out".
I've just realized that I don't konw what pseudographia means.
Pseudepigraphy is the writing of works and attributing them falsely to persons other than the author. Such works are typically referred to as pseudepigrapha.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
why me wrote:For the apologist, it is always difficult to defend since much depends on one's faith in the Book of Mormon and other lds writings. Is there absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true? No. Nor will there be in the near future. If there were absolute proof, no one would be here criticizing Joseph Smith as a false prophet. And man would still be in the church, but only because tangible proof has been discovered and not because of faith.
And here is the problem in a nutshell. The apologist who defend will always be on the losing end of the stick. They can lead someone to a theory or even to an understanding but they can not provide absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true as Joseph Smith related it. However, that being said, the reason why the church has not fallen is also because, the Book of Mormon has not been proven to be a work of Joseph Smith or sidney. It still stands for what it claims to be and because of this, we have these critic/apologist debates about its origin. And this is what can be frustrating for the critic. And there is nothing to do about it. And if one thinks about it, perhaps this is the way god wants it to be. Based on faith and the speakings of the holy spirit.
Critics are not asking for absolute proof. All they require is evidence that the explanation of the Book of Mormon given by the LDS church is a more credible explanation than alternatives. This, you tacitly acknowledge, is extremely difficult.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Fort is exactly right. I do not ask for absolute proof. I ask that the argument for the placement of the Book of Mormon in ancient Mesoamerica be coherent with the evidence and at least somewhat feasible. I also ask that the apologia doesn't depend on twisting the clear meaning of the Book of Mormon in order to force a fit. For example, don't pretend that the Book of Mormon doesn't describe a civilization that possessed a standing army when it has verses like this in it:
5 And now, Teancum saw that the Lamanites were determined to maintain those cities which they had taken, and those parts of the land which they had obtained possession of; and also seeing the enormity of their number, Teancum thought it was not expedient that he should attempt to attack them in their forts.
6 But he kept his men round about, as if making preparations for war; yea, and truly he was preparing to defend himself against them, by casting up walls round about and preparing places of resort. 7 And it came to pass that he kept thus preparing for war until Moroni had sent a large number of men to strengthen his army.
8 And Moroni also sent orders unto him that he should retain all the prisoners who fell into his hands; for as the Lamanites had taken many prisoners, that he should retain all the prisoners of the Lamanites as a ransom for those whom the Lamanites had taken.
9 And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side.
10 And Moroni also sent unto him, desiring him that he would be faithful in maintaining that quarter of the land, and that he would seek every opportunity to scourge the Lamanites in that quarter, as much as was in his power, that perhaps he might take again by stratagem or some other way those cities which had been taken out of their hands; and that he also would fortify and strengthen the cities round about, which had not fallen into the hands of the Lamanites.
11 And he also said unto him, I would come unto you, but behold, the Lamanites are upon us in the borders of the land by the west sea; and behold, I go against them, therefore I cannot come unto you.
Alma 52, BC 66
2 And Moroni went to the city of Mulek with Lehi, and took command of the city and gave it unto Lehi. Now behold, this Lehi was a man who had been with Moroni in the more part of all his battles; and he was a man like unto Moroni, and they rejoiced in each other’s safety; yea, they were beloved by each other, and also beloved by all the people of Nephi.
3 And it came to pass that after the Lamanites had finished burying their dead and also the dead of the Nephites, they were marched back into the land Bountiful; and Teancum, by the orders of Moroni, caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land, or the city, Bountiful.
4 And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height.
5 And this city became an exceeding stronghold ever after; and in this city they did guard the prisoners of the Lamanites; yea, even within a wall which they had caused them to build with their own hands. Now Moroni was compelled to cause the Lamanites to labor, because it was easy to guard them while at their labor; and he desired all his forces when he should make an attack upon the Lamanites.
6 And it came to pass that Moroni had thus gained a victory over one of the greatest of the armies of the Lamanites, and had obtained possession of the city of aMulek, which was one of the strongest holds of the Lamanites in the land of Nephi; and thus he had also built a stronghold to retain his prisoners.
7 And it came to pass that he did no more attempt a battle with the Lamanites in that year, but he did employ his men in preparing for war, yea, and in making fortifications to guard against the Lamanites, yea, and also delivering their women and their children from famine and affliction, and providing food for their armies. 8 And now it came to pass that the armies of the Lamanites, on the west sea, south, while in the absence of Moroni on account of some intrigue amongst the Nephites, which caused dissensions amongst them, had gained some ground over the Nephites, yea, insomuch that they had obtained possession of a number of their cities in that part of the land.
9 And thus because of iniquity amongst themselves, yea, because of dissensions and intrigue among themselves they were placed in the most dangerous circumstances.
Alma 53, BC 64
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Fort is exactly right. I do not ask for absolute proof. I ask that the argument for the placement of the Book of Mormon in ancient Mesoamerica be coherent with the evidence and at least somewhat feasible. I also ask that the apologia doesn't depend on twisting the clear meaning of the Book of Mormon in order to force a fit.
Coherent and somewhat feasible would probably be enough for me. Apparently, some apologists have a much lower threshold for coherent and feasible than I do. I look at the evidence, and it just doesn't add up. Might charity be right, and the evidence is discovered that makes me change my mind? Sure, but at this point, all evidence points away from the Book of Mormon. I think there's a reason for that.
why me wrote:For the apologist, it is always difficult to defend since much depends on one's faith in the Book of Mormon and other lds writings. Is there absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true? No. Nor will there be in the near future. If there were absolute proof, no one would be here criticizing Joseph Smith as a false prophet. And man would still be in the church, but only because tangible proof has been discovered and not because of faith.
And here is the problem in a nutshell. The apologist who defend will always be on the losing end of the stick. They can lead someone to a theory or even to an understanding but they can not provide absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is true as Joseph Smith related it. However, that being said, the reason why the church has not fallen is also because, the Book of Mormon has not been proven to be a work of Joseph Smith or sidney. It still stands for what it claims to be and because of this, we have these critic/apologist debates about its origin. And this is what can be frustrating for the critic. And there is nothing to do about it. And if one thinks about it, perhaps this is the way god wants it to be. Based on faith and the speakings of the holy spirit.
Critics are not asking for absolute proof. All they require is evidence that the explanation of the Book of Mormon given by the LDS church is a more credible explanation than alternatives. This, you tacitly acknowledge, is extremely difficult.
It does seem to me that critics are looking for absolute proof. And as far as I know the evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims is much more powerful than critic explanations. And that is the problem. And that is why the lds church survives. The witnesses and the early history and the figures involved, create a nice story without the bobbing and weaving of the critic explanations. However, absolute evidence of its truth, well...that is a tough one to come by and it will always be for the foreseeable future.
It does seem to me that critics are looking for absolute proof. And as far as I know the evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims is much more powerful than critic explanations. And that is the problem. And that is why the lds church survives. The witnesses and the early history and the figures involved, create a nice story without the bobbing and weaving of the critic explanations. However, absolute evidence of its truth, well...that is a tough one to come by and it will always be for the foreseeable future.
I would like to get an idea of what kind of background knowledge you base this statement on. How have you educated yourself about the history of ancient Mesoamerica in order to better evaluate the claims made by some believers?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Fort is exactly right. I do not ask for absolute proof. I ask that the argument for the placement of the Book of Mormon in ancient Mesoamerica be coherent with the evidence and at least somewhat feasible. I also ask that the apologia doesn't depend on twisting the clear meaning of the Book of Mormon in order to force a fit. For example, don't pretend that the Book of Mormon doesn't describe a civilization that possessed a standing army when it has verses like this in it:
I don't know about twisting since I do not know what all the apologists have said on the matter that you mention. I do happen to believe that the people that were discovered by the europeans were a people used to war. So, I don't see the problem. But as you know Beastie, no apologist can provide proof that the book is what it claims to be. Likewise for the Bible. No one can claim that the Bible is what it is claimed to be. Since there is no proof that christ was the actual christ. And so it will remain an act of faith to believe in Jesus as it is to believe in the Book of Mormon. If not, this life would not be a test but a sure thing.
And the fact that people are willing to digest the Book of Mormon and bring it forth into debate shows that the book has made some sort of impact in the concsiousness of some human beings. But it will still come down to faith.
I don't know about twisting since I do not know what all the apologists have said on the matter that you mention. I do happen to believe that the people that were discovered by the europeans were a people used to war. So, I don't see the problem. But as you know Beastie, no apologist can provide proof that the book is what it claims to be. Likewise for the Bible. No one can claim that the Bible is what it is claimed to be. Since there is no proof that christ was the actual christ. And so it will remain an act of faith to believe in Jesus as it is to believe in the Book of Mormon. If not, this life would not be a test but a sure thing.
That’s it? That’s the only match required to provide an argument for a feasible setting for the Book of Mormon? That the people engaged in war?
Jeez, whyme, then just about any setting could be feasible for the Book of Mormon.
There are many different ways in which people engage in war. These variables are affected by religious beliefs as well as population numbers, social complexity, and technology. None of these factors match between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica. The only thing that matches is that they fought wars. Well, so did America and Europe in the twentieth century. Would that also be a feasible match?
And the fact that people are willing to digest the Book of Mormon and bring it forth into debate shows that the book has made some sort of impact in the concsiousness of some human beings. But it will still come down to faith.
Whyme, the only people who debate it, with some few exceptions, are believers and exbelievers. With the exception of Michael Coe who addressed the issue a couple of times due to having Mormon colleagues (and apologists disregard his statements), no nonLDS Mesoamerica scholar has the slightest interest in the text. The reason it has impacted the consciousness of some human beings is largely due to accident of birth.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.