Does LDS Faith Depend on Empirical Evidence?

[_Mister Scratch]

There is a second very good thread dealing with LDS scholarship over on the aptly named MADboard. In this thread, the very interesting (and probably soon-to-be-banned) critic named Yme is asking why LDS academics failed to submit a Book of Mormon geography article to a recent issue of Smithsonian. DCP has basically reiterated what Trevor has said elsewhere, which is that Book of Mormon geography is "manifestly religious." (I disagree, and think that claims pertaining to the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be examined from a secular standpoint, as Michael Coe has done.) In other words, Mopologists are merely saving secular academics from having to step over some imaginary line, as a matter of decorum. (Or something like that.)

Anyways, here was an especially interesting tidbit:

I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyle of the Book of Mormon peoples … as long as the scholarship is valid, i.e. as you say, the papers don’t “appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected.”

No. I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyles of the Book of Mormon peoples if their existence were essentially impervious to doubt and if accepting their existence did not entail theological advantage for a denominational claim.

But their existence is debated, and that debate inescapably involves sectarian controversy -- something in which government agencies may not, and mainstream secular academic venues do not, involve themselves.

(emphasis added)

There are a couple of funny/odd things about DCP's remarks here, I think. One is that he seems to admit the possibility that Book of Mormon historicity may all be one big fraud. The other thing which is striking to me is his insistence that Book of Mormon historicity is "inescapably sectarian." Now, I disagree with this, but if one is to follow the logical chain of though implicit in The Good Professor's statement, wouldn't you therefore have to admit that LDS faith is dependent upon whether or not Mopologists can find real evidence for the Book of Mormon? Obviously, the Church would have no problem revising current doctrine in order to suit the facts, but this thread, and DCP's remarks therein, struck me as being highly significant.

[_Some Schmo]

Obviously, the Church would have no problem revising current doctrine in order to suit the facts, but this thread, and DCP's remarks therein, struck me as being highly significant.

It's only significant if you regard the words and testimony of DCP to be significant.

But as I've long suspected, DCP doesn't really believe the church is true (clearly, not if he's as smart as he wants everyone to think he is); he just gets off on the idea that some people consider him the church's "leading apologist" and so he keeps it up because it strokes his fragile ego.

But in the end, I have to say... does it really matter what DCP says or thinks? It's seems about as important as Tom Cruise's religious beliefs, or any other idiot religious schlub. Not important at all.

[_charity]

You think DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

This shows you are living in la la land.

[_Runtu]

You think DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

This shows you are living in la la land.

From my interaction with DCP, I'm convinced that he is indeed a believer. His faith, like that of every other believing Mormon I've met, rests on his testimony, not on empirical evidence.

[_guy sajer]

You think DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

This shows you are living in la la land.

What's more likely: DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Mormon Church, or God really did send an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Josepth Smith with destruction if he didn't take women to bed with him?

What's the saying about the pot and kettle?

[_charity]

You think DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

This shows you are living in la la land.

From my interaction with DCP, I'm convinced that he is indeed a believer. His faith, like that of every other believing Mormon I've met, rests on his testimony, not on empirical evidence.

You are right, runtu. Thank goodness for one cool head on this board.

[_guy sajer]

You think DCP doesn't believe in the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

This shows you are living in la la land.

From my interaction with DCP, I'm convinced that he is indeed a believer. His faith, like that of every other believing Mormon I've met, rests on his testimony, not on empirical evidence.

You are right, runtu. Thank goodness for one cool head on this board.

For what it's worth, I have no reason to believe that DCP, the Bretheren, or any Mopologist is anything other than a devout believer.

My comment was more directed to your, again, lack of critical self-reflection. You live in a great big glass house, yet you insist on throwing stones.

[_moksha]

It is not like religious faith can ever rest on empirical evidence. That is why they call it faith and not "Believer Science".

[_The Nehor]

Uhhh...the reason we don't submit articles on Book of Mormon geography is that in purely secular terms we're going off a book delivered by an angel and a few guesses and correlations. Since most people dismiss books delivered by angels I don't see what we have to offer.

[_Ray A]

There are a couple of funny/odd things about DCP's remarks here, I think.

Strange that you should think that.