Charity,
No matter how many times I witness you doing this, it never fails to stun me for just a second. I sit back, blink my eyes, shake my head, and then continue. This is how you interpreted my comments:
She said you can't be sure of anything or it is hubris, so I was turning it back on her.
Blink. Shake.
No, here's what I said:
Fervency of conviction has nothing to do with accuracy of conviction, absent external validating evidence.
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=105And the context of the conversation is important - we were discussing people who are 100% certain that God told them something, and yet are actually wrong. You agreed with me that this does occur. So, given that undeniable reality, I advised that caution and humility should be exercised when asserting that you KNOW something because God told you so.
Here is what I advised charity:
I didn't say you were doing damage. I said that, realizing there's a possibility you may be one of those who is absolutely certain she is right, but is actually wrong, should bestow some caution and humility in you. You normally behave and speak as if you KNOW there is no way you are wrong, but there IS a way you could be wrong. To refuse to allow this reality to modify your world-view smacks of hubris.
There is a WORLD of difference between my statements, and how charity summarized them:
She said you can't be sure of anything or it is hubris, so I was turning it back on her.
Charity,
Let me tell you that, unless you want to embrace radical agnosticism, which I don't, there are lots of things you can be sure of, without suffering from hubris. You can be sure of these things because there is plenty of external (ie, empircal) evidence backing them up. Or you can be sure of your own internal states. You can be sure you love someone, for example. And I can be sure that when Book of Mormon apologists point to evidence they believe points to Mesoamerica, they are pointing to evidence that is generic or so common as to be useless as a marker. You can be sure of this because it's just a description of what, to this point (and I don't expect it to change) occurs in Book of Mormon apologia.
Sorenson's list of "hits" is so generic as to be utterly useless. Even more careful apologists, like Gardner, point to things that are too generic or common. One of his favorites is the traits of kingship - that the kingship goes from father to son, and that there are "over-kings" who have more power over subordinate kings. That does describe what occurred in ancient Mesoamerica. But it is useless as a marker because it is too common throughout the history of the world, including the form of kingship with which nineteenth century Americans like Joseph Smith would have been most familiar - the British Isles.
Now, as to your spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon, and loving it. I have never argued against those sort of things, and never would. You have as much right to view the Book of Mormon as god-inspired and as teaching god-inspired ways to live, as mainstream Christians have to view the Bible as such, or Muslims have to view the Koran as that. That is a very distinct, and separate argument from the historicity of the Book of Mormon.