DiscussMormonism.com

Others can certainly provide answers, but I am interested in the viewpoints of the true believers on the following questions:

1) Is it reasonable to conclude that the bulk of the evidence available (not all, but the bulk) re Joseph Smith's translating abilities (i.e, evidence re the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, and the Book of Mormon translation process along with evidence re historicity (or lack thereof)) indicates that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient writings (is that a reasonable conclusion--not necessarily your conclusion, but a reasonable one)?

2) Is it reasonable to conclude that if Joseph Smith could not translate ancient writings as he said he could, his representations regarding the LDS Church being the only true church are also not worthy of credence?

3) Is it reasonable to refuse to rely on one's feelings about what is "true" or "false" as a religious proposition when the feelings are contra the bulk of the evidence on a particular matter?

In sum, is it reasonable to reject a "testimony" based on feelings given the current state of the evidence on these matters?

It seems to me that it is certainly possible to believe and at the same time consider non-believers who once believed to have come to a reasonable conclusion on these matters--or is it not possible to conclude both of these at the same time?

///

///

mms:

I personally am not here at this board to debate specific issues and new topics like this. I've limited my responses at the Shades board to things dealing directly with my own work (the one example being Scratch's critique of a blog post I made several months ago) and some comments on the SMPT conference, which is being discussed in another thread.

Fair enough.

Loap takes the 5th! That's pushing the easy button.

Great strategy!!

LOAP's relationship to this board is essentially mine, as well. I don't intend to participate here much. My posts of the past twenty-four hours deal with certain specific matters. I've avoided other threads quite deliberately. And I'll be backing away from the board again fairly soon.

But, since this thread specifically asks an answer of me, I'll say this: I think that there are legitimate grounds for doubting Mormonism. There is evidence against the claims of Joseph Smith.

But there are also legitimate grounds for belief, and evidence for those claims. On balance, I find the basis for belief satisfactory and superior.

Parenthetically, my decision has absolutely nothing to do with trying to avoid self-incrimination, or feeling as though I wouldn't have adequate responses. I wouldn't know because I haven't read mms's questions. I responded to his direct appeal to me only without even reading the thread. :)

Thank you for responding, DCP. To clarify, when you used the term "evidence", did you mean to include a spiritual witness, or do you mean that even without a spiritual witness, the evidence of the truth claims is superior to the evidence against them?

mms wrote:Thank you for responding, DCP. To clarify, when you used the term "evidence", did you mean to include a spiritual witness, or do you mean that even without a spiritual witness, the evidence of the truth claims is superior to the evidence against them?

I was not including the spiritual witness.

I was not including the spiritual witness.

Does that mean someone could make a secular case for Mormonism?

Gadianton Plumber wrote:

I was not including the spiritual witness.

Does that mean someone could make a secular case for Mormonism?

Yes, it does.