simple minded Book of Mormon apologetics

[_why me]

whyme,

So if I understand your response correctly, your self education in terms of ancient mesoamerican history has been to read boards such as this?

No. But what I am trying to say is that history and the Book of Mormon does not have the cohesion that you may think it should have nor will it ever have. It is a record of a war-like people aptly described by writers with a good imagination for the sensational. But it is more of a record to bring one closer to christ. And it is here that it should be judged and not by its (lack of) social history or (lack of) social practice.

[_why me]

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.

This is my feeling. I can only go by my own logic. If I did not receive a witness to that book, the church would have no hold on me. I would have walked away a long time ago without regret and I certainly would not be posting away on cyberboards about it all.

Most people who are critics now, actually believed in the book as a second testament of christ. If not, they should not be wasting time trying to debunk something that was never important to them anyway. But the impact of the book is not found in its lack of history but in its power to speak to someone's heart and soul.

[_Fortigurn]

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.

This is my feeling. I can only go by my own logic.

Exactly what logic leads you to this as yet totally unsubstantiated conclusion:

Most people who are critics now, actually believed in the book as a second testament of christ. If not, they should not be wasting time trying to debunk something that was never important to them anyway.

Both those sentences seem totally bizarre to me. How did you reach such a conclusion?

But the impact of the book is not found in its lack of history but in its power to speak to someone's heart and soul.

I assure you that it's lack of verifiable history has certainly spoken to my heart and soul with considerable power.

[_moksha]

I've just realized that I don't konw what pseudographia means.

From the Wikipedia:

Pseudepigrapha, from Greek pseudes = "false", "epigraphe" = "inscription"— see Epigraphy— are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded. For instance, few Hebrew scholars would insist that the Song of Solomon was actually written by the king of Israel or ascribe the Book of Enoch to the prophet Enoch, and not all Christian scholars would insist today that the Third Epistle of John was written by John the Evangelist, or that the Second Epistle of Peter was written by Saint Peter. Nevertheless, in some cases, especially for books belonging to a religious canon, the question of whether a text is pseudepigraphical elicits sensations of loyalty and can become a matter of heavy dispute. The authenticity or value of the work itself, which is a separate question for experienced readers, often becomes sentimentally entangled in the association. Though the inherent value of the text may not be called into question, the weight of a revered or even apostolic author lends authority to a text. This is the essential motivation for pseudepigraphy in the first place.

[_why me]

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.

This is my feeling. I can only go by my own logic.

Exactly what logic leads you to this as yet totally unsubstantiated conclusion:

Most people who are critics now, actually believed in the book as a second testament of christ. If not, they should not be wasting time trying to debunk something that was never important to them anyway.

Both those sentences seem totally bizarre to me. How did you reach such a conclusion?

But the impact of the book is not found in its lack of history but in its power to speak to someone's heart and soul.

I assure you that it's lack of verifiable history has certainly spoken to my heart and soul with considerable power.

What conclusion would you have reached if you were me? Are you willing to tell me that most critics never believed in the Book of Mormon as a second witness for christ? And that this belief was not based on a personal witness or testimony after having the spirit confirm it?

I can tell you that if I joined the lds church without a confirmation but rather for other reasons such as a girlfriend hoping to get some action or for some other non-religious reason, I would have no compulsion in leaving and certainly I would not be posting here or anywhere Mormon related only because I would not care one way or the other.

[Tator]

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.

whyme, the religious sections of the book have a background which, as fort said, is full of falsifiable historical claims. Take, for instance, my earlier example of a standing army. Despite what Brant Gardner once claimed in a conversation on MAD, the Book of Mormon clearly describes a standing army in the verses I cited. Whether or not polities in ancient Mesoamerica during the specified time period actually had standing armies is something that can be verified.

There are an abundance of other examples. I’m dwelling in particular on the wars, since you seem to believe that is the litmus test. Different types of wars are fought by different types of societies for various reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier. Brant Gardner agrees with my statement that “conquest wars”, ie, wars in which the conquered polity was “taken over” by the victors in the sense that the victors completely controlled the polity and even moved into the polity itself, did not happen in ancient Mesoamerica before around 378 AD. There are many reasons for this, but one simple one is that the polities of the time period were not powerful enough to control another polity so completely prior to that time period. Yet the Book of Mormon describes, over and over, “conquest wars”.

Aside from war, the sermons in the Book of Mormon tell us about the culture in which the sermons took place. It was a culture that demonstrated clear social stratification. There was often a clear division between the rich and poor, sometimes even separating their manner of worship. This type of social stratification only occurs in certain powerful polities in ancient Mesoamerica, so we must conclude that the Nephites were the rulers of very powerful, precociously developed polities. This leads to another problem – the Mesoamerican religious worldview was completely enmeshed within their politics and government. Yet we are asked to believe the most powerful polities of the period were actually Judeo-Christian, and yet had absolutely no impact on the cultural evolution of the area? I develop this idea more fully in this essay:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... /Holy_Lord

You are fooling yourself when you tell yourself there is not enough “history” in the Book of Mormon for informed individuals to make a reliable decision about whether or not it is feasible if the book occurred in certain settings.

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.
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.

This is naïve mind-reading.

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.

Of course you would not be a member if you did not receive a witness of the book. Nobody believes the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record except those who have received spiritual witnesses of the book.

In contrast, there are plenty of nonChristians and atheists, such as myself, who accept that many sections of the Bible were actually written in roughly the time period claimed. Accepting the archaeological evidence supporting the background context of the Bible does not depend upon a spiritual witness.

John Clark, a well respected Mesoamerican scholar, made a telling statement in his BYU address, in the Q/A period afterward:

Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...

But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.

Dr. Clark would never make such a statement about any other sort of archaeological/historical evidence. Other artifacts and written texts must be judged as to whether or not they are valid historical artifacts through accepted means of science and logic. But the Book of Mormon – well, that takes a spiritual witness.

And this statement of his in the same address was important:

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

If the case for the Book of Mormon’s historicity is as strong as you claim (In other words, the critics only reject it because they want absolute proof) then he would not make this statement. His colleagues would be able to see the correlation between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica. They don’t. And by Dr. Clark’s own admission, the only way they ever will is to first obtain a spiritual witness.

I said:

So if I understand your response correctly, your self education in terms of ancient mesoamerican history has been to read boards such as this?

whyme:

No. But what I am trying to say is that history and the Book of Mormon does not have the cohesion that you may think it should have nor will it ever have. It is a record of a war-like people aptly described by writers with a good imagination for the sensational. But it is more of a record to bring one closer to christ. And it is here that it should be judged and not by its (lack of) social history or (lack of) social practice.

I can’t figure out what your answer is. Have you or have you not done anything other than participate on internet boards between critics and believers to further your background understanding of ancient Mesoamerica? For example, have you read any books written by Mesoamerican scholars about the history of ancient Mesoamerica and how archaeology works in the area? At the risk of being accused of “goading”, I’d like a clear yes/no answer.

[_Sethbag]

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.

Why Me, I freely admit that I had a "witness" of the Book of Mormon, in my heart, as you describe. Yeah, I felt it. But the feelings I had only had convincing power to me while I accepted the "Holy Spirit" narrative and accepted the claim that these feelings were somehow indicative of truth. I have since realized that these feelings are not indicative of truth. I've recognized the same kinds of feelings and experiences in a lot of other people, who believed that these kinds of feelings testified to them the Truth about things I knew were simply false. As one small example, I have been to born-again Christian meetings were the preacher got people so worked up in "the Spirit" that he walked up to some people and blew on their foreheads and said something about Christ and they literally collapsed onto the floor sobbing in some kind of "spiritual" ecstasy. I've seen people bear testimony that Adam truly was the first human being, 6000 years ago, and before he fell nothing died on the entire earth. I've had people tell me they had a spiritual witness that the Noah's Ark story was literally true, and that the earth had indeed been completely flood past the tops of the highest mountains, and that literally all animal life on the earth today could trace its ancestry back to the animals Noah's family packed on board the Ark.

Why Me, there are something like 6.5 billion people on this earth. Literally billions of them are utterly convinced that their religious beliefs are true, and yet as Latter-Day Saints we must conclude that their beliefs are not true, because they are different from what "really is true", ie: the LDS church and its version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What does that tell you about how susceptible people are to powerful conviction regarding false religious beliefs? Statistically speak, almost every single person on earth who is powerfully convinced that their religious beliefs are true is in fact wrong. A sense of spiritual humility ought to tell us that no matter how clever we think we are, the likelihood that we're so darn smart and clever that we've escaped being fooled regarding our religious beliefs, whereas almost nobody else in the world has, is pretty darn slim.

I freely admit that I'm not clever enough to boldly state that I'm above being fooled into believing false religious teachings. I'm probably a lot like everyone else in the world, and just as susceptible as the other fairly smart people out there who are yet devout Hindus, or Muslims, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Moonies, or Wiccans, or Southern Baptists, or what have you.

Anyhow yeah, I've had a witness of the Book of Mormon before. It was a good feeling. It was a strong enthusiasm. It was a powerful emotion. It was a lot of things. But what it wasn't, was a reliable witness from God about the truth of the Book of Mormon.

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.

It is an opinion, however it is a ill-informed opinion. My "testimony" of the Book of Mormon was just as powerful as the testimonies of my Born-Again Christian friends that their version of the Gospel was true and that Satan was the author of the LDS church and its beliefs. If someone converted to the LDS church from such a Born-Again Christian faith, and then started explaining away their previous powerful Spiritual witness that Satan was the founder of the LDS church and its beliefs, what would you say? Would they just be debunking the power their previous beliefs had to make themselves feel good? Would they be going against the "greater light" they once knew, to justify their current course of action? What say you? Your approach is good enough for the goose, but how about the gander?

[_why me]

Why Me, there are something like 6.5 billion people on this earth. Literally billions of them are utterly convinced that their religious beliefs are true, and yet as Latter-Day Saints we must conclude that their beliefs are not true, because they are different from what "really is true", ie: the LDS church and its version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What does that tell you about how susceptible people are to powerful conviction regarding false religious beliefs? Statistically speak, almost every single person on earth who is powerfully convinced that their religious beliefs are true is in fact wrong. A sense of spiritual humility ought to tell us that no matter how clever we think we are, the likelihood that we're so darn smart and clever that we've escaped being fooled regarding our religious beliefs, whereas almost nobody else in the world has, is pretty darn slim.

I freely admit that I'm not clever enough to boldly state that I'm above being fooled into believing false religious teachings. I'm probably a lot like everyone else in the world, and just as susceptible as the other fairly smart people out there who are yet devout Hindus, or Muslims, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Moonies, or Wiccans, or Southern Baptists, or what have you.

Anyhow yeah, I've had a witness of the Book of Mormon before. It was a good feeling. It was a strong enthusiasm. It was a powerful emotion. It was a lot of things. But what it wasn't, was a reliable witness from God about the truth of the Book of Mormon.


It is an opinion, however it is a ill-informed opinion. My "testimony" of the Book of Mormon was just as powerful as the testimonies of my Born-Again Christian friends that their version of the Gospel was true and that Satan was the author of the LDS church and its beliefs. If someone converted to the LDS church from such a Born-Again Christian faith, and then started explaining away their previous powerful Spiritual witness that Satan was the founder of the LDS church and its beliefs, what would you say? Would they just be debunking the power their previous beliefs had to make themselves feel good? Would they be going against the "greater light" they once knew, to justify their current course of action? What say you? Your approach is good enough for the goose, but how about the gander?

I cannot speak for other people but I do know people that have felt the spirit in other churches and I think that that is great. But I have a different take on it than you. I truly believe that god tesifies to many people who wish to find christ in many churches. The lds church has no inclusive right to the holy ghost. But that is not the point. I am sure that god speaks to good people who can find holiness in the catholic church or in protestant sects. If it brings one closer to god, the holy ghost will testify to that person. And it is done with love. We are all on different levels and some can be good catholics but terrible lds. But the lds have other claims to truth. And the spirit provides a witness to the book. And that means a great deal. And this is one reason that critics have such a difficult time of it all. And why the lingering remains.

Perhaps a rationalization can kick in but the lingering feeling is still there.

Satan is in charge of evil and the lds church isn't evil. But truthfully, I can also have no explanation to spiritual witnesses.

[_Sethbag]

So, back in Joseph Smith's time it was "with their lips they profess me, but their hearts are far from me" and "their creeds are all an abomination in my sight", and nowadays it's "yeah, everyone feels the Spirit".

This all begs the obvious next question. If billions of people on earth can feel the Spirit and be convinced because of that that their churches are true, and yet they aren't "the real True church" on earth, then how can you be confident that the LDS are not also part of this same pattern, feeling the Spirit and incorrectly being convinced that the LDS church is true when it really isn't?

You guys are willing to give away the farm in order to rationalize things. The Holy Spirit goes from this powerful testifier of Truth that one can rely on to know the LDS church is true, to something that any sincerely faithful person can feel, even if that feeling of it incorrectly leads them to conclude that their (false) churches are really the True church of God. In order to justify the Spirit as a witness at all, you give away its entire convincing power and reliability as a witness. You cannot be any more sure that the Spirit is really telling you the LDS church is true than any of the other billions of people on earth who you say actually do feel the Spirit, and believe it's testifying to them that their churches are true.

[_Fortigurn]

What conclusion would you have reached if you were me?

I have no idea. I'm not you.

Are you willing to tell me that most critics never believed in the Book of Mormon as a second witness for christ? And that this belief was not based on a personal witness or testimony after having the spirit confirm it?

I think it most likely.

I can tell you that if I joined the lds church without a confirmation but rather for other reasons such as a girlfriend hoping to get some action or for some other non-religious reason, I would have no compulsion in leaving and certainly I would not be posting here or anywhere Mormon related only because I would not care one way or the other.

That's interesting, but not on topic.