Question for the Atheists.

[_Mad Viking]

OK, I admit it. I held back some evidence that could be placed right into your hands. The Book of Mormon-Another Testament of Jesus Christ. It's a book that represents itself to be an ancient artifact from a lost civilization that had prophets who spoke for and communed with Jesus Christ. The creator of the earth according to Mormon thought.

But hear's the rub.

The Book of Mormon can be read through sensory means using eyesight or hearing or touch, but to ascertain whether or not it is an ancient artifact which a creator God caused to be translated in our day to act as a key witness of Jesus Christ and the Father, one is told that they must ultimately rely upon spiritual revelation/inspiration from the Spirit to know of its truthfulness.

So, we've probably reached an impasse. I'm sure that you look at the Book of Mormon as being a 19th century creation produced by a con man.

Joseph Smith was right in at least one thing. The Book of Mormon is indeed the keystone of our religion. All rises or falls on the truthfulness of that book.

Including whether or not there is direct evidence of the existence of a creator/god who is responsible for human beings on this earth.

Regards,
MG

We aren't at an impasse. We aren't even talking about the same subject. To even have a discussion about the nature of the Book of Mormon we must bypass the discussion about whether god exists and assume that he does. AGAIN... god's existence has not been established. Joseph Smith presented the world with a book in 1830. How does that establish god's existence?

[_mentalgymnast]

The deist god of Einstein and Davies is a far, far cry from the LDS God. The fact that we cannot completely explain all the workings of the universe has nothing to do with proving that there exists a God who will reward or punish humankind based on whether or not they obey him.

I can appreciate that POV, but here's the thing. If there's anything to the fine tuning of the universe, and that a god/creator is involved in that process, it then becomes a real stretch...at that point (if we can get there)...to imagine the creator not being directly involved in what appears to be the most intelligent life in the known universe.

Now how that involvement would pan out and what it would look like is the age old question.

The Judeo-Christian tradition has evolved into a system of belief in which man has been created in the image of God. We are of the same species. The Mormon tradition which makes claims to having a direct linkage to that same tradition of thought through a restoration of lost truths/scripture process also maintains that God has created man in his own image.

If we're going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that a god played part in the evolution of the universe and the earth that we are on, then why is it much more of a stretch...at all...to look at human beings as being created in his image?

To me, it just makes sense. But to each his/her own.

You take issue with, "a God who will reward or punish humankind based on whether or not they obey him."

Well, there's a bit more to the plan of salvation than that somewhat negative slant...

Why do you think it's called, nowadays, the plan of happiness? <g>

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

We aren't at an impasse. We aren't even talking about the same subject. To even have a discussion about the nature of the Book of Mormon we must bypass the discussion about whether god exists and assume that he does. AGAIN... god's existence has not been established. Joseph Smith presented the world with a book in 1830. How does that establish god's existence?

Where did the book come from?

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

A believer is just an agnostic with faith.

An atheist is an agnostic without faith.

Granted, nearly all believing LDS are completely unaware that they are agnostic.

Actually, LDS were the ones I had in mind as the general exception to the rule. They actually do have the balls to not only claim the god question is knowable, but also that they do, in fact, know there's a god (who has also mentioned that LDSism is the correct religion, incidentally).

People of other faiths will claim to "know" as well, but usually, if you press them about that knowledge, they'll eventually fall back on faith. They're the agnostics I'm talking about. I was an agnostic believer (in some kind of ill-defined god force) myself for about 20 years before entertaining the idea there wasn't a god. Once I allowed for that very real possibility, the arguments and evidence took over and I became the agnostic atheist I am today.

Contrary to what some may think, I am open to the possibility of a god force. I suppose I, like other naturalists, have a high standard for what constitutes evidence. I do not accept "personal revelation" as even close to persuasive.

[_Sophocles]

The Book of Mormon can be read through sensory means using eyesight or hearing or touch, but to ascertain whether or not it is an ancient artifact which a creator God caused to be translated in our day to act as a key witness of Jesus Christ and the Father, one is told that they must ultimately rely upon spiritual revelation/inspiration from the Spirit to know of its truthfulness.

This is like saying that you can't really evaluate Dianetics properly until you have a thorough understanding of how thetans work. Furthermore, you can't subject Dianetics to scientific scrutiny because it claims that it supplants modern science.

This is an easy game to play, which is why so many have played it for fun and profit. Joseph Smith hasn't done anything that others haven't done, before and since. In fact, right after Smith died James Strang immediately carried on the important work of discovering and translating ancient plates. That's how easy it is.

Withstanding scientific scrutiny, on the other hand, is very difficult. And both Smith's and Strang's claims fail to do so.

[_citizen28]

Actually, LDS were the ones I had in mind as the general exception to the rule. They actually do have the balls to not only claim the god question is knowable, but also that they do, in fact, know there's a god (who has also mentioned that LDSism is the correct religion, incidentally).

People of other faiths will claim to "know" as well, but usually, if you press them about that knowledge, they'll eventually fall back on faith.

My experience is that most thoughtful Mormons also fall back on faith when pressed. As one observer put it: "Mormonism is declared absolutely but defended relatively."

I think the forceful certainty with which Mormons truth claims are declared in church settings and elsewhere makes it difficult for many LDS (and other fundamentalists) to understand the more tempered approach of most atheists, thus yielding misguided questions such as: "How do you KNOW God doesn't exist?"

[_mentalgymnast]

This is an easy game to play, which is why so many have played it for fun and profit. Joseph Smith hasn't done anything that others haven't done, before and since. In fact, right after Smith died James Strang immediately carried on the important work of discovering and translating ancient plates. That's how easy it is.

Withstanding scientific scrutiny, on the other hand, is very difficult. And both Smith's and Strang's claims fail to do so.

DCP said the following in regards to the Voree Plates:

Wrote Daniel C. Peterson in an unpublished manuscript posted to the FAIR message boards:
Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith's successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet. That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three “Voree” or “Rajah Manchou” plates, were dug up by four “witnesses” whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site.
Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and “writing,” the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size—small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket. Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. “With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise,” he wrote, “all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them.”
One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies. (However, the credibility of this source is suspect, since it also asserts that the Book of Mormon witnesses repudiated their testimonies, which is demonstrably false). The eighteen “Plates of Laban,” likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses. Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the “Plates of Laban.” (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.)
The statement of Strang's witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character, nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. One of the witnesses to the “Plates of Laban,” Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere “human invention.” Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the “Plates of Laban.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _parallels

Back when I was looking at the Strangite movement a few years ago, the first thing that stood out to me in connection to the Voree Plates was the lack of any purported divine manifestation or involvement in the whole process.

To compare the Voree Plates with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (the witnesses) and the influence that the Book of Mormon has had on the lives of millions of people is well...kind of silly.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

This is like saying that you can't really evaluate Dianetics properly until you have a thorough understanding of how thetans work. Furthermore, you can't subject Dianetics to scientific scrutiny because it claims that it supplants modern science.

Dianetics doesn't have the track record that Judeo-Christian thought/belief does. Come back with that one in a couple of thousand years and then we can talk.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

They actually do have the balls to not only claim the god question is knowable, but also that they do, in fact, know there's a god (who has also mentioned that LDSism is the correct religion, incidentally).

I think that most LDS folks are living by faith. There may be those that "know", but on the whole, we're living by faith. Now if you dug a little deeper I think that you would find that most active LDS folks would feel pretty strongly that their faith is not misplaced.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think the forceful certainty with which Mormons truth claims are declared in church settings and elsewhere makes it difficult for many LDS (and other fundamentalists) to understand the more tempered approach of most atheists, thus yielding misguided questions such as: "How do you KNOW God doesn't exist?"

I'd be more comfortable with saying, "many mainstream LDS...". Throwing in "and other fundamentalists" seems to put us in the same camp as Mormon fundamentalists.

I don't know that there is a problem in getting a handle on "the more tempered approach" to atheism, it's just a matter of listening and learning like I, for one, have had an opportunity to do on this thread.

Regards,
MG