Helping Wade Englund's Belief

[_Darth J]

I see that Wade continues to avoid this thread. I'm still okay with that. In addition to humility, Wade also needs to learn patience. Transitioning out of a belief system that is incompatible with a "thriving reasoned-based world-view" is difficult for some people. But as my goal is to help Wade in his struggle, I will carry on like......like a tapir dragging a sled with a set of tumbaga plates from Guatemala to New York? I don't know. Similes escape me. In any case, here is another thought for Wade and others who desire to have a "thriving reasoned-based world-view" but need a little help getting there. Plus, as suggested by the time stamp on this post, I'm having a hard time falling asleep. Thus, I turn to a reliable cure for insomnia: the Book of Mormon.

In 2007, the LDS Church approved a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon which is included with every copy of the Book of Mormon that is printed by the Church. The change also appeared in editions of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday.

In the previous introduction to the Book of Mormon authored by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, readers were informed that the Lamanites---the descendants of the original group of exiles from Jerusalem---were "the principal ancestors" of the American Indians. However, since 1981, a growing body of DNA research makes it increasingly clear that the American Indians are not of Semitic ancestry. Mormon apologists have reacted to these data by positing, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Lamanites interbred with a vastly larger native populace, thus diluting the Hebrew DNA that would have been found had the Lamanites in fact existed and had been the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

In a random and completely unrelated coincidence, the current introduction to the Book of Mormon now says:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

An infamous anti-Mormon bastion of yellow journalism, BYU's Daily Universe, reported the following:

"The current Introduction page in the Book of Mormon was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.," said Mark Tuttle, LDS Church spokesperson in the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. "A one-word change was made to the introduction in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday. That change takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography, which are not known. The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the Church."

So to be clear, a spokesperson for the Church is strongly implying that Bruce R. McConkie, a special witness of Jesus Christ and a modern prophet, seer, and revelator, did not understand what the text of the Book of Mormon says. But is this minor---nay, trivial---change in wording really meaningful in terms of the Church being true? Let's review what, according to canonized LDS scripture, the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon (underline by me):

Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith--History 1:34

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

Remember earlier, in one of the many posts to which Wade has not yet responded, we reviewed the Church's own standards for honesty. The Church has now decided that there are "details of Book of Mormon demography, which are not known." But according to Joseph Smith's statement that the Church has canonized as scripture, the angel Moroni knew enough about Book of Mormon demographics to know that the Book of Mormon tells us the source from which the ancient inhabitants of the American continent sprang. Yet the Book of Mormon does not give an account of immigrations tens of thousands of years ago across a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. The Book of Mormon does not give an account of natives who were already in the Americas and already had existing civilizations and cultures. The Book of Mormon does not give an account of Lehi's descendants having babies with the natives who were already here.

The only thing the Book of Mormon gives an account of is the Jaredites, who were completely wiped out, the Nephites and Lamanites, who descended from a group that had migrated from Jerusalem, and the Mulekites, who also came from Jerusalem and eventually joined with the Nephites. After the resurrected Jesus Christ visited America, the Nephites and Lamanites joined together before dividing into warring factions again, but this was still a joinder of Hebrew peoples. In summary, the Book of Mormon only talks about Hebrew immigrants in the American continent.

And according to the angel Moroni, by way of the prophet Joseph Smith, this is the source from which the ancient inhabitants of the American continent sprang. There is no other available candidate for the origin of the American Indians (and, as noted previously in this thread, any pre-Jaredite Asiatic natives in the Americas would have died in the global flood, anyway).

The change in recent years to the introduction to the Book of Mormon to Lamanites being "among" the ancestors of the American Indians means one or more of the following things:

1. The angel Moroni was lying; or
2. The angel Moroni, a resurrected Nephite prophet who finished compiling the Book of Mormon and was sent by God to tell Joseph Smith about the golden plates, was merely giving his opinion and speaking as a man when he said the Book of Mormon gives an account of the source from which sprang the ancient inhabitants of the American continent; or
3. Joseph Smith was lying in his account of what the angel Moroni is claimed to have told him; or
4. The LDS Church has canonized as scripture words attributed to an angel sent by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith, but the scriptures are wrong; or
5. The Church is misrepresenting what its teachings are; or
6. The Church is changing its story to conform to the evidence; or
7. The statement in Joseph Smith--History is accurate (Moroni really told him that), and the current, modern Church does not understand the Book of Mormon.

None of these scenarios is compatible with the modern LDS Church being inspired or being the true church.

Wade, if you have a moment, perhaps you could share which of these possibilities you prefer, and why.

[_Chap]

The change in recent years to the introduction to the Book of Mormon to Lamanites being "among" the ancestors of the American Indians means one or more of the following things:

1. The angel Moroni was lying; or
2. The angel Moroni, a resurrected Nephite prophet who finished compiling the Book of Mormon and was sent by God to tell Joseph Smith about the golden plates, was merely giving his opinion and speaking as a man when he said the Book of Mormon gives an account of the source from which sprang the ancient inhabitants of the American continent; or
3. Joseph Smith was lying in his account of what the angel Moroni is claimed to have told him; or
4. The LDS Church has canonized as scripture words attributed to an angel sent by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith, but the scriptures are wrong; or
5. The Church is misrepresenting what its teachings are; or
6. The Church is changing its story to conform to the evidence; or
7. The statement in Joseph Smith--History is accurate (Moroni really told him that), and the current, modern Church does not understand the Book of Mormon.

None of these scenarios is compatible with the modern LDS Church being inspired or being the true church.

Indeed. Smith said clearly, in the Wentworth letter and elsewhere, that Moroni has given him detailed information on the history of the Americas, a subject which we know was fascinating to the young Smith, and which would have drawn his closest attention. But somehow we are expected to believe that Smith's later expressions of views on this topic can be discounted, or that 'we just don't know' what Moroni talked to him about.

I have seen this and related points raised before, and have raised them myself. No adequate answer has ever been produced.

Wade's answer would, to judge from his long record of posting here and elsewhere, be along the lines of "There is a solution to all this, but first you need to learn to be patient and humble: stay tuned." Now that is really helpful. But at least that is a change from what we get from FAIR/NAMIRS on such topics.

[_Buffalo]

Since Wade has flunked the test of reason, you think he'd be here, humbly soaking up knowledge. I guess he's just too prideful.

[_Darth J]

Indeed. Smith said clearly, in the Wentworth letter and elsewhere, that Moroni has given him detailed information on the history of the Americas, a subject which we know was fascinating to the young Smith, and which would have drawn his closest attention. But somehow we are expected to believe that Smith's later expressions of views on this topic can be discounted, or that 'we just don't know' what Moroni talked to him about.

I have seen this and related points raised before, and have raised them myself. No adequate answer has ever been produced.

And what is wonderful and marvelous is that the Joseph Smith--History has been canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price. This means apologists don't get the out of "not official doctrine," even if one is willing to play that ridiculous, disingenuous game.

Wade's answer would, to judge from his long record of posting here and elsewhere, be along the lines of "There is a solution to all this, but first you need to learn to be patient and humble: stay tuned." Now that is really helpful. But at least that is a change from what we get from FAIR/NAMIRS on such topics.

But Chap, as I'm sure you recognize, such an answer belies any claim to having a "thriving reasoned-based world-view." The non-response of "stay tuned" is merely blind faith. "First you need to learn to be patient and humble: stay tuned" betrays two facets of Wade's reasoning (such as it is).

1. It is a foregone conclusion that the Church is true. That means that a reason-based world view is impossible, because Wade is not evaluating any of the Church's truth claims based on fact or evidence or reason, but because he "knows" the Church is true.

2. Wade does not have an answer. He is trying to get infidels to concede that because he does not know the answer, nobody else does, either (which is a non sequitur), and therefore we are justified in maintaining faith in the Church because we supposedly don't know for sure that it isn't true. This schema isn't compatible with a reason-based world view, either. Assuming for the sake of argument that "we don't know" the answers to difficult problems (which are only difficult if one is a priori committed to accepting the Church's claims as true), the reason-based solution is not to believe in the Church until things are proven otherwise. It is the proponent of a claim that has the burden of proof---that's an essential principle of logical reasoning. So if there is an evidentiary or factual problem related to the Church's truth claims that the Church has not resolved, the reason-based solution is to withhold belief in the Church's truth claims until the Church presents a prima facie case for itself.

Another fatally problematic aspect of "There is a solution to all this, but first you need to learn to be patient and humble: stay tuned" is solipsism. Wade is so thoroughly wrapped up in his sense of identity as a Mormon that he thinks the only choices are belief in the LDS Church or rejecting it because of pride, spiritual blindness, and the other monster-under-the-bed stories he has been told in Sunday school. But there are hundreds and hundreds of different religions, denominations within religions, belief systems, and philosophies in the world. It is unlikely that Wade is equally willing to "be patient and humble" and "stay tuned" with regard to being a Roman Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, a Shintoist, a Wiccan, an atheist, or spiritual-but-not-religious.

And given that my only desire is to help Wade overcome his pride and his fears and finally adopt that "thriving reasoned-based world-view" he so ardently yearns for, we will be discussing Moroni's Promise here shortly. Stay tuned.

[_Chap]

Precisely, sir. Rem acu tetigisti, if I may make so bold.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Thanks, Darth, for putting all this information up here so concisely and well-written.

I'll be looking forward to hearing from Wade on this matter.

[_Drifting]

Apologetics, and Wade for that matter, is all about making the questions fit the answers already held as true. Even if that means discounting a plethora of contrary evidence.

[_Buffalo]

Wade?

Thanks, -Buffalo P. Diddle

[_Darth J]

While we patiently wait for Wade to join this conversation that is meant for his benefit, I feel that it is time we discuss whether anyone really "knows" the Church is true. This is of course an important step in attaining a thriving reason-based world view as Wade says he wants to have. What about Moroni's promise? Isn't that all the proof we need that the Church is true? What greater witness can you have than from God?

Those who are already engaged in a thriving reason-based worldview naturally recognized that last statement as begging the question.

In another thread, I talked about the problem with the epistemology proposed by the LDS Church. Contrary to the initial defensive reaction that true believers tend to have, one does not have to reject belief in God or spiritual experiences in general to recognize the fatal flaws inherent in Moroni's promise.

[T]here's no way to assess the validity of Moroni's Promise. You don't have a way to independently verify that your subjective emotional experience means what the LDS Church tells you it's supposed to mean. I read the Book of Mormon. I pray about it. I feel good. The missionaries tell me this means that the Holy Ghost is telling me that the Book of Mormon is true. In the LDS context, "true" doesn't just mean good principles or that there's a God or something else abstract and/or metaphysical. "True" in this instance means that the Book of Mormon is real history. So how do I know that I'm not being subjected to wishful thinking, to operant conditioning, that I'm delusional, or that I'm misinterpreting an otherwise legitimate spiritual experience? Well, the way to do that is by seeing how what the missionaries told me was an "answer" from the Holy Ghost comports with objective reality. And now we're right back to square one of the evidence problem that Moroni's Promise was supposed to solve.

But why does this matter, if we are just talking about metaphysical claims? The answer is because the metaphysical claims of Mormonism in general and the LDS CHurch in particular are inextricably interwoven with certain propositions of real-world facts being true. If those facts are not true, then perforce the Church is not true. I offer as an example the words of Jeffrey R. Holland, whose full-time paid job is to be a special witness of Jesus Christ, and Ezra Taft Benson, a man so strenuously opposed to big government and welfare that for his entire adult life he made a living working for the Church and the government:

Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, Nov 1986

Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.

Jeffrey R. Holland, "True or False", New Era, June 1995

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

So is Moroni's promise a source of knowledge from God, or is it a marketing ploy? While you consider that question, let's take a look at the website for Bonneville International, a media company that is, coincidentally, owned by the LDS Church:

At Bonneville Communications, our ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences makes us an essential resource for organizations with vital messages.

For more than 30 years, our creative professionals have designed public service and direct response messages for national nonprofit organizations such as the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Boy Scouts of America, National Hospice Foundation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Salvation Army.

Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative "HeartSell"® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response.

Such psychological manipulation is well-known to social science researchers. As the website
MormonThink notes,

"We have proposed a three-processes model for the development of false memories for implausible events through suggestive procedures. The first process is to make an event be perceived as plausible, the second is to help individuals acquire the autobiographical belief that it is likely to have happened to them. The third, not examined in this study, is to help people interpret their thoughts and fantasies about the event happening as memories. Our data shed light on two of the three processes.

We have shown that information about an event from a presumably credible source can alter perceived plausibility of the event. Our results also indicated that this information can produce changes in the perceived likelihood of the event having occurred to the individual. When suggestive personalized information was added, the effects on autobiographical likelihood were substantially greater and a sizable minority of participants came to believe that the event probably happened to them. In addition, we have shown that this happened although the event continued to be seen by participants as relatively implausible. This provides evidence for the fact that even a relatively small increase in plausibility of an initially implausible event can pave the way for additional suggestion, so that some people increase the perceived likelihood of occurrence of the event in their life."

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/A ... zzloft.htm

Moroni's promise is not a legitimate way to evaluate claims of fact for someone who has a thriving reason-based worldview. Even if you followed Moroni's promise and think it worked, you do not have a testimony that the Church is true. At best, you have a testimony that you had an emotional feeling that you are interpreting the way the Church told you to interpret it. But how do you know the way the Church told you to interpret your "answer" is right? Because of the "answer" I got. But how do you know the answer is right? Because the Church told me this is what it means? But how do you know that it means what the Church tells you it means? Because of the answer I got.......

Which means that you are not arriving at beliefs because of a thriving reason-based world view. Instead, you are doing this:

[_Juggler Vain]

Contrary to the initial defensive reaction that true believers tend to have, one does not have to reject belief in God or spiritual experiences in general to recognize the fatal flaws inherent in Moroni's promise.

Good stuff. I especially like the marketing/sales connection. Moroni's Promise is basically a cheap salesman's tool, good for selling cars, snake-oil, or treasure-hunting services. I once wrote a post on Equality's blog breaking down the mechanics of Moroni's Promise as a high-pressure sales technique:

Moroni's Pitch

-JV