DCP Puts Odd Parameters on Evidence for Book of Mormon

[_jon]

Stem,

As more and more fact based evidence comes in about America and it's native origins etc, does it:

a. add weight to the argument that the Book of Mormon is true

or

b. add weight to the argument that the Book of Mormon is false

As time progresses, whatever your faith is in favour of the Book of Mormon, you are being required to have more and more of it to counter act the increasing number of 'problems' with it's validity.

[_jon]

So what do you think my faith is? I don't think you have a clue

You are correct, I have no idea what your faith is nor on what grounds you hold it.

That said, I'm not sure you know quite what it is either, if you did you wouldn't feel the need to explore it here and other discussion forums.

And before you say it, you're right - I don't know mine either and that is exactly why I am here exploring thoughts and views and 'testing' what I believe I know.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

As more and more fact based evidence comes in about America and it's native origins etc, does it:

a. add weight to the argument that the Book of Mormon is true

or

b. add weight to the argument that the Book of Mormon is false

As time progresses, whatever your faith is in favour of the Book of Mormon, you are being required to have more and more of it to counter act the increasing number of 'problems' with it's validity.

I don't know. Every once in a while a big old whack seems to be leveled at the Book of Mormon and every once in a while the old big whack seems to soften to a minor finger tap. every once in a while a big old shield is constructed protecting the Book of Mormon based ont his claim or that, and every once in a while that big old shield gets shattered pr substantially broken. I don't' know how to quantify it all. I do know that overall the evidence weighs much more in the direction of the Book being a fraud, in terms of its ancient claims, than an ancient authentic work.

[_jon]

I don't know. Every once in a while a big old whack seems to be leveled at the Book of Mormon and every once in a while the old big whack seems to soften to a minor finger tap. every once in a while a big old shield is constructed protecting the Book of Mormon based ont his claim or that, and every once in a while that big old shield gets shattered pr substantially broken. I don't' know how to quantify it all. I do know that overall the evidence weighs much more in the direction of the Book being a fraud, in terms of its ancient claims, than an ancient authentic work.

That's an interesting perspective, quite an open minded approach. I didn't expect that, but fair play. I guess then that your faith may be based on less of whether the Book is what it claims to be and more that some of the stuff in it appeals to your natural morals and principles.

[_stemelbow]

That's an interesting perspective, quite an open minded approach. I didn't expect that, but fair play. I guess then that your faith may be based on less of whether the Book is what it claims to be and more that some of the stuff in it appeals to your natural morals and principles.

You're correct.

[_jon]

That's an interesting perspective, quite an open minded approach. I didn't expect that, but fair play. I guess then that your faith may be based on less of whether the Book is what it claims to be and more that some of the stuff in it appeals to your natural morals and principles.

You're correct.

I will try and remember your position for future conversations as it significantly helps how I perceive some of your 'not bothered' kind of approaches to some of the issues with Mormonism. I guess I understand you a bit better when I think of you adopting the doctrine and principles of Mormonism that fit your natural inklings, but can ignore the rest rather than getting worked up about them.
(I hope I haven't mis-characterised you)

I guess that stance is probably the one that is most sustainable and understandable in the long term if a person wants to be a Mormon.
You are not in denial of anything, you are not trying to believe things that you fundamentally don't agree with and you are not heaping guilt on yourself. You don't put issues on your 'shelf', you just put them in the bin and stop worrying about them.

I quite like that.

[_stemelbow]

I will try and remember your position for future conversations as it significantly helps how I perceive some of your 'not bothered' kind of approaches to some of the issues with Mormonism. I guess I understand you a bit better when I think of you adopting the doctrine and principles of Mormonism that fit your natural inklings, but can ignore the rest rather than getting worked up about them.
(I hope I haven't mis-characterised you)

I guess that stance is probably the one that is most sustainable and understandable in the long term if a person wants to be a Mormon.
You are not in denial of anything, you are not trying to believe things that you fundamentally don't agree with and you are not heaping guilt on yourself. You don't put issues on your 'shelf', you just put them in the bin and stop worrying about them.

I quite like that.

Thanks for listening. Sometimes its nice to be heard.

[_Themis]

Let me clarify. When it comes to the terms of what is evidence in the realm of courtrooms and science labs yes. But, I do consider my faith to be evidence--I do claim evidence beyond the common understanding of the secular world. I can't deny that evidence.

I understand you view your faith and spiritual experiences as evdience, and that's fine. I did as well, but due to the physical evidence I eventually questioned my interpretations of my expereinces.

But, that's really just your opinion. If you can't prove my faith wrong, then why critique it as proven wrong? All you can do is give me the evidence for why youconcluded my faith is wrong and that's it. The actual claim is your opinion and while having some support in evidence is not prove true because there remains the possibility of my faith.

I think we are talking about two different things here. You said your faith, and I assume spiritual expereinces, is evidence for you that the church is true. While I may now disagree with your interpretations, I can't show it wrong through the same medium, only to suggest your interpretations may be wrong. When I talk about proof, I am dealing solely on the physical evidence available, although I suspect you may define proof in an absolute way which is why you think any possibility cannot be proven wrong. Now I think you are including your faith as a possibility, but I am not talking about that, but the other physical possibilities that apologists make up to help them to support their beliefs. I don't think we should be coming up with possibilities that are not plausible, but it would be more honest to just say I can't explain it, but I still believe.

I know a relative who does this admitting to some that the evidence available does not support the church's truth claims. They recognize things like missing papyri or catalyst theories are not good and would never try to propose them as possibilities knowing that they are not really plausible.

You are correct about one thing--the scientific method applied to my faith from someone on the outside isn't going to prove much of anything. The claim of "proof" then is only applied to the evidence that is in your favor. You can't factor in what I claim as my faith because you can't quantify it, test it, see it, or do anything about it, it seems. Thus, you can't prove my faith wrong.

For someone outside the church the scientific method would prove to their satisfaction that the church is not true. It also does the same for many members like myself who believed at one time, even with my spiritual experiences. The scientific method here is not really focusing on the spiritual experience or faith, nor was intending it to as I have said above. Their are many new developments in those areas that are interesting though.

I know you will. That's cool. But that doesn't really address my concerns at all. Its merely a game of ego, boasting and scientific pandering, when it comes to applying your personal opinion of Mormonism is wrong to me. Its your opinion. Sure the secular evidence is in your favor. its in your favor when it comes to all of Christianity or any faith. Whoopty.

It's not an ego game, and I think in some ways we were talking about different things. You on faith while I was talking about the physical. Sure it is my opinion, and I think you are better then most apologist in recognizing the physical evidence is not in your favor. My problem here is really just the possibility game that gets played way beyond what the physical evidence suggests. I agree that it applies to all of Christianity, which is why many members re-evaluate it as well.

I noted your personal opinion long ago. Sadly the proof to the claim my faith is wrong has simply not been justified.

Personally I think the physical evidence is more then enough to re-evaluate faith, but that is a personal decision, and I am not going to tell you what you must decide. I have really only been trying to focus on the physical in regards to what I call the possibility game.

[_Themis]

Well then, it appears you don't really have faith at all. You're just playing games. Cute.

I would agree that Jon doesn't really have faith here,but in reality I think their are some serious fans who would.

[_Themis]

I will try and remember your position for future conversations as it significantly helps how I perceive some of your 'not bothered' kind of approaches to some of the issues with Mormonism. I guess I understand you a bit better when I think of you adopting the doctrine and principles of Mormonism that fit your natural inklings, but can ignore the rest rather than getting worked up about them.
(I hope I haven't mis-characterised you)

I guess that stance is probably the one that is most sustainable and understandable in the long term if a person wants to be a Mormon.
You are not in denial of anything, you are not trying to believe things that you fundamentally don't agree with and you are not heaping guilt on yourself. You don't put issues on your 'shelf', you just put them in the bin and stop worrying about them.

I quite like that.

Thanks for listening. Sometimes its nice to be heard.

I think some of your recent posts here have helped me understand a little more of what you are thinking.