Apologetics: Why bother?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're a fool, Joey. And a monotonous one, too.

According to Wikipedia, a reference source that we have here in Provo (where I don't live) but that you may not have in outer Dogpatch, dork is "USA slang for a quirky, silly and/or stupid, socially inept person." (It has other meanings -- including an obscene one, but I don't think highly enough of you to use it in that sense.)

USA, in case you don't catch the reference, is a country that we have here in Provo (where I don't live).

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I am seriously liking the current Ray. ;-)

I've actually always felt this way, harmony. Well, I lie. From about 1994. Professor David Wright completely overturned any literal understanding I had of the Book of Mormon.

Some of Wright's points I find very interesting. I don't see them precluding an actual ancient Book of Mormon, though.

[_Trevor]

If all you take for this is the information on this board, I don't have any doubt! lol........ however, I have other areas which show far differently.

I accorded you respect, and this is how you repay it?

[_JustMe]

Trevor

I accorded you respect, and this is how you repay it?

Nuthin but the truth so help me God. You need not take offense at the obvious. It's a mere statement of fact. There are hundreds of thousands of pages written on the Book of Mormon that are clearly and obviously (to those of us who have read them anyways) superior to what is posted here about the Book of Mormon.

[_Trevor]

Nuthin but the truth so help me God. You need not take offense at the obvious. It's a mere statement of fact. There are hundreds of thousands of pages written on the Book of Mormon that are clearly and obviously (to those of us who have read them anyways) superior to what is posted here about the Book of Mormon.

I need not take offense at your assumptions about my education on Book of Mormon scholarship. True. I need not, and I did not. I simply noted that your response to my respectful post was disrespectful. You are, of course, free to assume all you like about my knowledge. I expected a little more from you, but you are certainly free to make empty assumptions.

I don't know why the superiority of this scholarship to what is posted here should necessarily result in me believing that there is so much evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. Could it be that my standard of evidence is different from yours? Would that make me an ignoramus were it so? Am I calling you an apologist drone simply because your standard is different from mine? No.

And, where in that post did I draw comparison between what is posted here and Book of Mormon scholarship?

[_Buckeye]

Ray,

Sorry it took me so long to post. I'm not the most regular visitor, as you may have noticed.

Your last bracketed comment is quite obvious to me in the case of Lindy Chamberlain. The Wiki entry isn't complete either. Crucial eyewitness evidence was not put before the court. I realise that juries don't always get it right. Think O.J.Simpson, too.

Fascinating stuff. I'd never heard of Lindy Chamberlain. Is her story the basis for the SNL skits on "a dingo stole my baby"? I agree that the justice system (Australian in this case) is not perfect. Innocents are sometimes convicted. I'm glad she was exonnerated.

Well, I don't think it's any secret that I've looked at the evidences for Book of Mormon historicity in some depth over the past 8 years online, apart from some prior ten years of reading hardcopy on the subject.

Then you are better versed than I.

But even without going into scholarly depth, would you agree that "first base" claims like there were Christians living in 2,200 BC and 600 AD, and at one time they practised both Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time, would be a difficult if not impossible evidence to accept in light of historical facts? How difficult would it be for a lawyer to shoot that down in court, bringing, say, several expert witnesses to show the very high unlikelihood, if not impossibility of this? In other words, we are being asked to overturn everything we know about pre-Christian history, and which contradicts every historical account of the beginnings of Christianity.

I agree that the Book of Mormon contradicts the traditional view of pre-Christ Christianity. But to be fair, the Book of Mormon's central claim is that that understanding was lost and it is restoring it.

As to legal proof, I don't think testing the historicity of something that occurred thousands of years ago is something the legal system is built for. There is a reason we have statutes of limitations (which in the US generally range from 1 to 10 years): evidence grows stale, and with its demise we loose confidence in determining the truth. Legally, I can't bring a cause of action to prove a murder occurred 5 decades ago. Why would I think I could prove that Nephi killed Laban 2,600 hundred years ago?

I'm looking at this from a purely legal viewpoint, which is why I'm asking you. You're not the only lawyer on the board, by the way.

Nor the best lawyer, I am sure.

Your last sentence reflects what Ezra Taft Benson said. But the fact is that for many who are questioning, the Book of Mormon is on trial (just visit RFM if you doubt me).

I still don't see it this way. Whether the Book of Mormon is true or not doesn't affect the Book of Mormon - it is an inanimate object. What really matters are the people. I think most of the unhappiness on RfM is not with historical claims in the Book of Mormon, but with hurt feelings towards the church and family/friends who still adhere to the church's teachings. RfM doesn't exist to prove the Book of Mormon is false, it exists to prove to me that the Book of Mormon is false.

I have no problem with someone who says they have a "spiritual witness", nor with the millions of members who testify that they've had a "burning in the bosom" confirmation. The problem, as I see it, is when that burning in the bosom translates into "historical veracity". Or, burning in bosom = historical truth, especially when there are so many evidences to the contrary, as in the brief examples I've given above. My personal opinion, as one who has long had an "emotional investment" in the Book of Mormon, is that emotion/spiritual belief, can cloud or even eradicate one's judgments in regard to very real and problematic evidences against Book of Mormon historicity. For one so predisposed, I agree it's not easy. As John Clark said, you have to first believe, then "the evidences become clearer". I have experienced this. But I've also concluded that while "spiritual magnification" may highlight evidences blurred by disbelief, the contrary evidence, and lack of evidence is so compelling, that it should lead a rational person to reject the Book of Mormon as history. And this may, of course, have no bearing on how a person feels about the Book of Mormon.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with me, for I have such a witness. For me, I don't think believing in a scriptural book as merely a good "moral compass" would cut it. Aesop's fables teach good things, but they don't do anything to bring my dead child back to life (speaking hypothetically), heal my scars from the errors I've made, or give me hope the real justice will be done someday. The moment I realize I am a real person and have real desires, only a real and historical gospel will do.

[_Ray A]

Fascinating stuff. I'd never heard of Lindy Chamberlain. Is her story the basis for the SNL skits on "a dingo stole my baby"? I agree that the justice system (Australian in this case) is not perfect. Innocents are sometimes convicted. I'm glad she was exonnerated.

It certainly is, Buck. The Chamberlain case fascinated Australia all through the 1980s. The funny thing is that the first magistrate exonerated her of any wrongdoing, but she later made statements about the death of Azaria that seemed callous to many, but she made those statements in light of her Seventh Day Adventist beliefs, to the effect that her daughter's death was not all that "heartbreaking" considering that she would see her again in the resurrection. in my opinion after that it pretty much turned into a witch hunt. After following and reading about the case very closely, I became convinced she was innocent, and to this day I believe her jailing is a black spot in Australian legal history, and kind of scary.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with me, for I have such a witness. For me, I don't think believing in a scriptural book as merely a good "moral compass" would cut it. Aesop's fables teach good things, but they don't do anything to bring my dead child back to life (speaking hypothetically), heal my scars from the errors I've made, or give me hope the real justice will be done someday. The moment I realize I am a real person and have real desires, only a real and historical gospel will do.

I know the feeling, and I think that departing from the historical approach/belief definitely makes it much harder to maintain one's pristine faith.

[_Jersey Girl]

Kerry,

I have a serious question for you. Do you ever feel conflicted when responding to "anti's/critics" in the sense that you feel a need to reference something you think points to proof for your scriptures when on the other hand, you know that faith is an important piece of your spirituality?

That is to say, if you think faith is important...why search for proof?

Jersey Girl

[_JustMe]

Kerry,

I have a serious question for you. Do you ever feel conflicted when responding to "anti's/critics" in the sense that you feel a need to reference something you think points to proof for your scriptures when on the other hand, you know that faith is an important piece of your spirituality?

That is to say, if you think faith is important...why search for proof?

Jersey Girl

A great question. I am not searching for proof, but for understanding. Rarely do I ever even I use the word proof for much of anything I research in. But evidence is important to look at. So I look at it. If I think someone has overlooked what I find, I share it with them. That's actually about all I have ever been doing.
"But shall we have this dialogue between the Fool and the Soldier?" (Shakespeare's Bertram in All's Well that Ends Well, IV, iii: 90. You of course, being the Soldier...... Thanks fer askin lil lady.

[_JustMe]

Trevor

I need not take offense at your assumptions about my education on Book of Mormon scholarship. True. I need not, and I did not. I simply noted that your response to my respectful post was disrespectful. You are, of course, free to assume all you like about my knowledge. I expected a little more from you, but you are certainly free to make empty assumptions.

Ah, I finaly got it why perhaps you were miffed with my former statement. I was not slighting your personal education on Book of Mormon scholarship. I was slighting what has been posted here on the Book of Mormon compared to the real scholarship which is in print, and it enlarges absolutely each and every month, at a minimum.