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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

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

Post by _zeezrom »

Sock Puppet wrote:How come there's evidence of the Bible, then?


Hmmmm... good question!

I suppose I should clarify (something typically required in all my posts):

This (as stated in the OP) was *my* view as a TBM. I shouldn't just assume this is the world view of TBMs in general. This is partially why I never felt motivated to find evidence.

I need to keep reminding myself that I did not do Mormonism properly as a TBM (LOL).
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

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

Post by _Darth J »

RayAgostini wrote:
Darth J wrote:
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.


So, Ray, if someone is not sure whether the ancient Romans civilization ever really existed, do you think the best way to resolve that question is to read and ponder The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and then pray with a sincere heart to know the truth?

Or how about Hogwarts? Should I just assume Harry Potter is a real person until proven otherwise?
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

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

Post by _Darth J »

why me wrote:
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.


Yes, indeed, if the Book of Mormon were proven factual, then I would know that the Bickertonites have the true church.

Whoops! I mean the Community of Christ.

Or the FLDS.

Or the Strangites.

But in any event, if I were convinced that the Book of Mormon was factual, I would most definitely remain convinced that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God until his dying day. Just like David Whitmer.

Gosh darn it! It's almost exactly as if it is necessary but not sufficient for the Book of Mormon to be true in order for the LDS branch of Mormonism to be true.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

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

Post by _sock puppet »

RayAgostini wrote:A "burning in the bosom", particularly if it was a one-off experience, would leave a lot of room for "alternative explanations".

Yep.

I have found that drinking 4 beers in a 2 hour period on an empty stomach will pretty much induce the same experience, time and time again. Is that proof the Mormonism is true? Maybe there is an alternative explanation.

Alma 32 neatly dissects faith into hoping for something, without evidence. That doesn't make the something real outside the realm of self-induced emotion. What it means is that the 'faithful' have identified an emotional need. A need for a powerful, benevolent being to watch over them, protect them, and right the wrongs done to them. This is due to basic human insecurity and a varying sense of what is 'unjust' in our world. Hoping there could be some such being comforts (another emotion) the one who hopes for such.

Emotions are real, in that we each experience them many times each day. This emotional need varies between us. Some need this emotional reassurance so deeply, they will allow others who co-op this being for their own advantage to tell us what this 'being' wants us to do, such as hand over part of our hard-earned money to them. To this extent, there is a physical world exhibit of this emotional need and emotional fulfillment.

Does that emotional need and fulfillment evidence the existence of that being in the physical realm? Does that emotional need and fulfillment make the existence of that being in the physical realm any more likely? No. "Spriritual" is merely an imprecise term for the less vague, "emotional".

That there is no evidence, but only wishful interpretations, for god does not alleviate the emotional needs driven by insecurity and injustice. For some, the lack of evidence intensifies the very feelings of insecurity and injustice that in turn drives, to that same intensity, the yearning for such a being. Ironically, it is the very lack of evidence that they call evidence, i.e. faith or 'spiritual' evidence. All the more ironic, this 'spiritual' being will provide physical security and justice in the physical realm, or at least that is their hope, a hope that is only allowed by the very fact that there is an absence of affirmative evidence, i.e. an evidentiary void.

For others, this evidentiary void suggests that god does not or at least might not exist, and makes god irrelevant to living this life, one that is no doubt physical and emotional, until something new is learned or observed that might suggest the existence of such a being.

Religions are constructs of belief and organizations, both formed by mankind, in particular those particularly struck with insecurity and a feeling of injustice and whom have and follow furtive enough imaginations to so construct such a belief system and establish an organization around it. A following develops among those that find the belief system to be satisfying of their emotional need of insecurity, and of their need for a promise of a future righting of the current wrongs.

As these followings grow in size, some like weeds in a garden begin to grow unchecked and seize the opportunity to use the religious organization as a tool of leverage over the others, to gain security and be treated 'justly'. For example, regardless of how meager the net assets on the balance sheet of any of FP/12, do you think they have any real concerns that their physical needs will not be met? Do you think that society has not given them their due, in the way say it has not Darrick?

Some of these 'leaders' seem clueless. They would have likely gotten to the same upper echelon levels in IBM as in LDS Inc. Others seem to be as calculating as Machiavelli recommended.

Some of the faithful feel so emboldened by this hope, freed from feelings of insecurity and injustice, that they believe they can go on with life on their own. Their attitudes towards government are that it is unnecessary, burdensome. For the charitable religions, like Christianity, this is a paradox. The very teachings that make them more self-confident, suggests that they need to be more thoughtful and helpful of others too, that making their way through life (for them, back to live with the protectorate being for which they hope) is a group effort.

Others feed their individualistic tendencies so that they grow, uninhibited by group. For them, the emotional attraction of an after-life is judgment day, where each will be judged separately. For them, charity here is just a rote act undertaken to earn some bonus points for the be judgment day.

Those who stop believing do not by reason of it find comfort (emotional fulfillment). Feelings of insecurity and injustice yet nag, but they no longer indulge them to the point of believing in a protectorate being for which there is no evidence. Without that emotional salve, many turn to community for the security that comes from not being on one's own, and participate in the governmental process, to infuse into it whatever degree of his or her sense of justice is possible, here and now.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

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

Post by _Kishkumen »

zeezrom wrote: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.


In my view life is a balance between different sides of our nature. Faith in unlikely but inspiring things is part of the package. When it overwhelms our good sense, it becomes superstition, but when it moves us to be better people it is probably a good thing. I don't think the evidence for an ancient Book of Mormon is at all persuasive, but I am increasingly impressed with its "richness" as a work. And, it frankly contains a lot of sentiments that I find inspiring.

I repudiate the kind of idolatry that holds up human institutions and creations as an end in themselves. At the same time, I repudiate the kind of idolatry that rejects utterly the value of the human yearning for the divine or ideal whereby we reach higher than we otherwise might have.

This is not to say that I repudiate atheism. I just hate intolerance for religion.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

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

Post by _SteelHead »

Anyone else think it strange how in the past there were angels galore helping out, witnessing, teaching, etc etc. Now as everyone has a video camera none of these celestial messengers have been filmed. Where did they all go?

What happened to all the miracles? We hear about them in ancedotes, but where are the documented cases of the dead rising, the blind seeing and the lame walking directly attributable to the priesthood and not the intervention of modern medicine? Ether 12 tells us they have not stopped, and surely there are believers with faith, so where are the documented miracles?

In 500 years when the second coming still hasn't happened the believers will continue to say it is inevitable and just around the corner.

Have faith...............
Last edited by Guest on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

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

Post by _Drifting »

SteelHead wrote:Anyone else think it strange how in the past there were angels galore helping out, witnessing, teaching, etc etc. Now as everyone has a video camera none of these celestial messengers have been filmed. Where did they all go?

What happened to all the miracles? We hear about them ancedotadly, but where are the documented cases of the dead rising, the blind seeing and the lame walking directly attributable to the priesthood and not the intervention of modern medicine? Ether 12 tells us they have not stopped, and surely there are believers with faith, so where are the documented miracles?

Have faith...............


It's a miracle that all tangible evidence of the Book of Mormon has disappeared...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

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

Post by _Kishkumen »

SteelHead wrote:Anyone else think it strange how in the past there were angels galore helping out, witnessing, teaching, etc etc. Now as everyone has a video camera none of these celestial messengers have been filmed. Where did they all go?

What happened to all the miracles? We hear about them in ancedotes, but where are the documented cases of the dead rising, the blind seeing and the lame walking directly attributable to the priesthood and not the intervention of modern medicine? Ether 12 tells us they have not stopped, and surely there are believers with faith, so where are the documented miracles?

In 500 years when the second coming still hasn't happened the believers will continue to say it is inevitable and just around the corner.

Have faith...............


They quit spiking the sacramental wine with hallucinogens.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

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

Post by _Drifting »

Kishkumen wrote:They quit spiking the sacramental wine with hallucinogens.


They have also quit spiking the sacramental wine with wine...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

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

Post by _SteelHead »

Shouldn't in the thread title is the wrong word. Can't is more correct.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Post Reply