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?
I have been hanging out on critic boards for quite some time digesting their information and interpretations on how the book came into play. But quite often they contradict each other. I recall engaging in a thread where the anti's were expounding on the golden tea pot, spaulding, walter the magician, ethan smith, oliver cowdery, and sidney ridgon. All were presented as absolute possibilities that the book was a forgery or false. And those posting seemed to believe in all the theories without realizing that such theories seem to contradict each other. This is not very convincing to say the least.
In terms of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica, first we will need to recognize that the Book of Mormon is a poor testament for social history. In fact, I see very little social history in its pages. And of course, the abridgement is a good example of what could have been in its pages if it was not abridged. Second, the Book of Mormon is mainly concerned with salvation and how a human being can get closer to god. It is nothing more than that. But as far as a history of a people, it isn't. This is only my opinion.
And as strange it may seem, I have never equated the book with the american indian. I still remember that painting in the Book of Mormon with christ visiting the people in 3rd nephi and the resemblance to ancient mesoamerica.
why me wrote:All were presented as absolute possibilities that the book was a forgery or false.
What is an 'absolute possibility'? Is it something which is 'absolutely possible'? That's simply saying it's possible, not that it's absolutely true. What exactly is the issue here?
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:It does seem to me that critics are looking for absolute proof.
Then you simply do not understand what they say.
And as far as I know the evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims is much more powerful than critic explanations.
From an objective point of view, or from a presuppositional point of view? You see, if it was powerful from an objective point of view, there would be a lot fewer critics. But the evidence for the Book of Mormon's claims is only powerful from a presuppositional point of view.
The witnesses and the early history and the figures involved, create a nice story...
...which is full of contradictions at every turn, yes. Not very convincing.
However, absolute evidence of its truth, well...that is a tough one to come by and it will always be for the foreseeable future.
No one is asking for absolute proof.
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|
beastie wrote: 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.
You see beastie, the book is not about history. It will never be about history, nor about social history. It is a book that gives a claim: a second witness of christ. It is here that it will be judged. And so far, it has succeeded quite well. Let me put it this way. Most critics or exbelievers did believe at one time. And most likely, this belief was based on a personal testimony and a personal witness. Something was felt inside the soul and inside the being at that time in their life.
And this is why they are here attempting to debunk the book for personal peace. And that is where the book is the most powerful. Why? Because it spoke to an individual's heart. And it is here that it will be judged and not about its history or lack of history.
I can feel sorry for such people. I have seen it many times on critic boards: an attempt to debunk the power that the book had over them when they believed. It is not about the lds faith and its control...it is about the Book of Mormon story and the feeling that it gave when they believed. That is only my opinion, of course.
why me wrote:You see beastie, the book is not about history. It will never be about history, nor about social history.
You are ignoring the vast amount of history which is narrated in the book. Falsifiable history. Why are you ignoring it?
And this is why they are here attempting to debunk the book for personal peace.
Was this sentence written with any degree of seriousness?
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|
Fortigurn wrote: You are ignoring the vast amount of history which is narrated in the book. Falsifiable history. Why are you ignoring it?
And this is why they are here attempting to debunk the book for personal peace.
Was this sentence written with any degree of seriousness?
Hardly history. A record of faith and of war is not a complete history of a people. And yes, my sentence was written seriously. You see, fort, if I did not receive a witness to the book, I would not be a member. I would have left a long time ago for greener hills and its impact would be small.
And yes, I do believe that many critics are attempting to come to terms with the book and why they felt the way they did about the book when believers. It is not the church that gives control but the book itself.
And as you know I am not the greatest member but that witness is not for me to deny.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fortigurn wrote: ...which is full of contradictions at every turn, yes. Not very convincing.
As life is full of contradictions and not very convincing.
No, you're changing the subject. We're not talking about life being full of unspecified metaphysical 'contradictions'. And I don't know about you, but I find my life very convincing. What is it about yours which you don't find convincing?
As with the witnesses, we are only human.
The problems with the witnesses are:
* They contradict each other
* They are most frequently described as not contradicting each other
* Their witnesses are frequently misrepresented by the LDS church
* They are supposed to be reliable, not contradictory (people are actually asked to put their faith in them as if they were not contradictory)
But the witnesses never denied their testimony.
So what?
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|
A record of faith and of war is not a complete history of a people.
No one is talking about 'a complete history of a people'. My point was that the Book of Mormon contains a falsifiable historical record. We are asked to take that historical record seriously. This is difficult, when there is no evidence to support the historical record as factual and accurate.
And yes, my sentence was written seriously. You see, fort, if I did not receive a witness to the book, I would not be a member. I would have left a long time ago for greener hills and its impact would be small.
This doesn't actually address your claim that most critics and ex-Mormons received a witness to the book, a statement for which you provided no evidence.
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|