The Book of Mormon *shouldn't* be proven factual

[_Sethbag]

The hand waving is this. Apologists say a lot about history or the best available history to our present understanding. This sets readers up to expect a plausibility/likelihood conclusion. What ultimately gets delivered is closer to a mere possibility conclusion, which readers mistakenly interpret as plausibility/likelihood because they've been made to labor under a lot of fancy research.

All that's required is to invoke magic. God can do anything he wants. Therefore, if God wants, he can populate the American continent with Nephites and Lamanites, and then hide that evidence from us. That's the possibility, which anyone who believes in such a magical God must admit. Similarly, such a person must concede that it's possible the Earth is really just 30 seconds old, but God created us all with intact memories as if we'd all lived whatever our current age is, with all the experiences he wants us to think we had, etc.

It's possible that the dinosaur fossils really were just placed in the ground 6000 years ago to test our faith.

I agree that it's this kind of trivial possibility that some mopologists latch onto, and then think they've won because the critics can't entirely foreclose these possibilities.

I hereby concede that it's possible that Magic Mormon God could have used run of the mill Egyptian funeral documents as a catalyst to get Joseph Smith to pray to God for their translation, upon which God funnels the Book of Abraham content into his mind and causes him to write it down. I cannot deny that such a Magical Mormon God could do such a thing, if he existed and were so inclined. I just very much doubt that such a being exists, and that even if he did, it seems unlikely to me that this would be the method he'd choose to interact with us.

[_sock puppet]

Similarly, God could have provided the world with clear, historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. He didn't and He *shouldn't*.

This is the world view of a TBM. We are not supposed to find evidence of the stories in the Book. To search for the evidence would be akin to asking Jesus to save himself from death at Golgotha.

How come there's evidence of the Bible, then?

This one is hits high on the BS meter.

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.

The stated purpose is to convince "the Jew and Gentile"--peoples in actual-event history--that Jesus (a person from the Bible) is the Christ. It is a record of people. A record is written evidence of an event. To claim that the Book of Mormon was not intended as evidence begs the question why then does it exist at all?

The Book of Mormon is not introduced as a parable, in the way Jesus is reported to have done in the New Testament, such as with the parable of the prodigal son, "And he said, A certain man had two sons: ... ." Luke 15:11-32. Where are proper names like Nephi, Alma, Moroni, etc. used in the Biblical parables?

Next I suppose it will simply be re-rendered to be 'The Book of Mormon, a State of Mind'.

[_RayAgostini]

Similarly, God could have provided the world with clear, historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. He didn't and He *shouldn't*.

This is the world view of a TBM. We are not supposed to find evidence of the stories in the Book. To search for the evidence would be akin to asking Jesus to save himself from death at Golgotha.

There are two kinds of evidences, and for the purpose of this thread I'll term the first "historical evidence", which is basically an empirical approach to the Book of Mormon.

Many Latter-day Saints use this approach as a supplement to evidences which are far more important to them.

An example of the "empirical approach" might be Evidences of the Book of Mormon.

The evidences which are most important to the believer, though, are actually "spiritual" evidences:

50 And it came to pass that they did go forth, and did minister unto the people, declaring throughout all the regions round about all the things which they had heard and seen, insomuch that the more part of the Lamanites were convinced of them, because of the greatness of the evidences which they had received. (Hel.5:50)

24 And now, seeing ye know these things and cannot deny them except ye shall lie, therefore in this ye have sinned, for ye have rejected all these things, notwithstanding so many evidences which ye have received; yea, even ye have received all things, both things in heaven, and all things which are in the earth, as a witness that they are true. (Hel.8:24)

And from the New Testament:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb.11:1)

Take for example, Joseph Smith's First Vision (let's leave aside the controversies about time, dates and wording for now). IF Joseph Smith did actually encounter God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove, then for him that supersedes all other evidences. He might read atheist after atheist publications, and talk to atheists themselves, but because of the evidence he has, none of them will ever able to put so much as a dent in his faith and belief, or even his sure knowledge.

The problem with what I'll call purely "secular discourse" (or empiricism on its own, if you like), is that ignores, omits, and even ridicules the idea that there could be anything beyond "the observable" (or empiricism as defined in "scientific laboratories").

[_Themis]

The problem with what I'll call purely "secular discourse" (or empiricism on its own, if you like), is that ignores, omits, and even ridicules the idea that there could be anything beyond "the observable" (or empiricism as defined in "scientific laboratories").

Not really. When we look at the spiritual some realize that the spiritual may not be what we thought it was.

[_RayAgostini]

Not really. When we look at the spiritual some realize that the spiritual may not be what we thought it was.

There are "degrees" of "spiritual" knowledge. When some people tell me they've "never read the Book of Mormon" and "never had a witness of it", I wouldn't put them in the same category of those who have. Hypothetically, if an angel appeared in your room, and told you the Book of Mormon is true, while you might temporarily doubt the vision, if the "internal impact" is strong enough, then there will be fewer avenues left to deny it. A "burning in the bosom", particularly if it was a one-off experience, would leave a lot of room for "alternative explanations".

[_Darth J]

Not really. When we look at the spiritual some realize that the spiritual may not be what we thought it was.

There are "degrees" of "spiritual" knowledge. When some people tell me they've "never read the Book of Mormon" and "never had a witness of it", I wouldn't put them in the same category of those who have. Hypothetically, if an angel appeared in your room, and told you the Book of Mormon is true, while you might temporarily doubt the vision, if the "internal impact" is strong enough, then there will be fewer avenues left to deny it. A "burning in the bosom", particularly if it was a one-off experience, would leave a lot of room for "alternative explanations".

Ray, do you believe that we should read and ponder The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and then pray with a sincere heart to know whether the Roman Empire ever existed?

Alternatively, do you believe that we should read and ponder Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and then pray with a sincere heart to know whether Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is a real place?

Why or why not would reading, pondering, and praying be a valid epistemological method in either of these examples?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, do you believe that we should read and ponder The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and then pray with a sincere heart to know whether the Roman Empire ever existed?

Alternatively, do you believe that we should read and ponder Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and then pray with a sincere heart to know whether Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is a real place?

Why or why not would reading, pondering, and praying be a valid epistemological method in either of these examples?

Your comprehension capability seems to have dropped even more. Perhaps you mind is being "darkened"? Take a few minutes to go back and read what I wrote.

[_Themis]

Not really. When we look at the spiritual some realize that the spiritual may not be what we thought it was.

There are "degrees" of "spiritual" knowledge. When some people tell me they've "never read the Book of Mormon" and "never had a witness of it", I wouldn't put them in the same category of those who have. Hypothetically, if an angel appeared in your room, and told you the Book of Mormon is true, while you might temporarily doubt the vision, if the "internal impact" is strong enough, then there will be fewer avenues left to deny it. A "burning in the bosom", particularly if it was a one-off experience, would leave a lot of room for "alternative explanations".

There are different spiritual experiences. How does one know they are not created by the body or even some other explanation then the interpretation they have been taught or want? Because of the many problems with the spiritual, maybe we shouldn't ignore secular evidence that gives us better understanding.

[_RayAgostini]

There are different spiritual experiences. How does one know they are not created by the body or even some other explanation then the interpretation they have been taught or want? Because of the many problems with the spiritual, maybe we shouldn't ignore secular evidence that gives us better understanding.

These thoughts and questions have been in existence as long as humans have existed. My main "guide" in this is to avoid dogma, and even "certainty" (though I have my own beliefs and convictions).

In regard to the "created by the body" question, I'd recommend reading Susan Blackmore's website. She has a Ph.D in (cover your ears if you can't bear it) - Parapsychology.

Wiki.

First Person - Into the Unknown. New Scientist, 4 November 2000, p 55, or "Why I gave up parapsychology".

In view of the variety and complexity of human nature, and the very cosmos itself, I don't believe that an exclusive "secular understanding" comes even near to answering the "Big Questions".

[Guest]

You know the story of Jesus being killed? He could have saved himself but he chose not to. He could have shown the whole world his majesty and might. He could have proven to the world that God is real. He didn't. It just wasn't supposed to be that way.

Similarly, God could have provided the world with clear, historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. He didn't and He *shouldn't*.

This is the world view of a TBM. We are not supposed to find evidence of the stories in the Book. To search for the evidence would be akin to asking Jesus to save himself from death at Golgotha.

Well, lets look at it this way: if it were proven factual...you would still be in the church, believing in everything that the church will tell you...looking forward to a wonderful life in the celestial kingdom with wife and children. Even Dr. Scratch would now be SP somewhere in the world.

But...you are where you are and Scratch is where he is and everyone here is where they are. Faith required. The Bible also takes faith as do all sacred religious books.