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

[_SteelHead]

Has the virtual elimination of ergot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot from our food supply killed the manifestations of the supernatural?

[_brade]

This is no to say that I repudiate atheism. I just hate intolerance for religion.

I'm finding myself more and more intolerant of dogmatic religion precisely because I think it perverts genuinely sacred, mystical experiences and uses them as a springboard to belief, on insufficient evidence, of lots of very specific claims about the world which often have serious implications, if acted upon, for other people.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm finding myself more and more intolerant of dogmatic religion precisely because I think it perverts genuinely sacred, mystical experiences and uses them as a springboard to belief, on insufficient evidence, of lots of very specific claims about the world which often have serious implications, if acted upon, for other people.

I am sympathetic to your perspective.

[_Chap]

This is no to say that I repudiate atheism. I just hate intolerance for religion.

I'm finding myself more and more intolerant of dogmatic religion precisely because I think it perverts genuinely sacred, mystical experiences and uses them as a springboard to belief, on insufficient evidence, of lots of very specific claims about the world which often have serious implications, if acted upon, for other people.

The label 'religion' attached to some belief or practice should do nothing to spare it from criticism if it is deserving of criticism. 'Female genital mutilation is part of our religion'. 'You don't say? Well, stop doing it all the same or you will be sent to jail'.

Likewise, the fact that something is associated with the label 'religion' does not count against it. When the Dalai Lama says 'My religion is kindness', that does nothing to devalue the kindness.

[_sock puppet]

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.

My intolerance for religion stems from what I see as its disrespect for people. While I could make a compelling argument against the abuses of the institutional aspect of religion, here I am referring to the construct of beliefs.

I suspect that by good or reaching higher you likely are referring to conduct that is less selfish, giving more thought and consideration for others, and charity (1 Cor 13 type) for others. Let's take the Book of Mormon for example. Like hundreds of books, the Book of Mormon promotes good, selfless behavior. Like other religious texts, the Book of Mormon purports the existence of a supernatural, powerful, just being. It calls for obedience to this being as the author has drawn it out, including stories that when characters are charitable and obedient, they are rewarded, and things go bad for those that are not obedient.

The Book of Mormon is more suggestive than the Bible that obedience to this god will yield temporal rewards in rather short order, in this life that we know and are sure of, and disobedience in misery here. As compared to the Bible, the Book of Mormon is more inspiring for good, charitable conduct because the reward for it is experience in this life, here and now. In this regard, the Book of Mormon may be viewed more as lessons "for this life" than say the Bible. But this very parameter allows for the mischief that infers that the financially successful here and now is from a life led to this point that is good and charitable; this is a mischief that I have witnessed among affluent LDS circles. When indeed, the opposite is so often true. The financially successful have often been referred to as robber barons, the result of shameless exploitation of others. The Bible was obviously more carefully crafted not to be laden with this drawback.

The Book of Mormon like the Bible revels in the absence of evidence, hoisting faith (hope in the absence of evidence) as a great virtue. Therein lies a great mischief. It is disrespectful of those to whom the Book of Mormon is promoted and by whom it is read. It is a shortcut way of the authors saying we think these good, charitable ideas are valuable to all or to society, but we cannot trust you individually to agree with us--so we'll use 'fear of god' and 'eternal punishment' as sticks to herd you in our way of thinking.

I find in the Ten Commandments some ideas that I think are good rules for civil society to operate successfully. Honor thy father and mother comes to mind mostly because it is the only one for which there was not an antecedent corollary in ancient city codes. Should honoring them, however, include adhering to their superstitions as more knowledge is discovered, information to the contrary? It is one thing to be respectful towards your parents and help them as the become old and cannot do for themselves (for me, I think this is very important virtue). It is quite another to cling to the 'faith of my fathers' simply because they did.

I also think this short-cut that the Bible and the Book of Mormon take, rather than presenting the arguments for and against this societal rule or that one and letting each idea sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas, in addition to the disrespectful deception by the authors/promoters on others, allows for misuse of others. This very 'fear of god' and 'eternal punishment'--glorified because of the very lack of evidence for such--provides a tool for leverage over others (an anathema to charity).

For me, there is more mischief from such texts than good. Fear and deception, and celebrating uninformed beliefs over considered, evidentiary based ones is not, in my opinion, outweighed because they also suggest charity. Suggestions of charity are found in many places, free of the need of such deception.

[_zeezrom]

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.

:)

[_zeezrom]

I also think this short-cut that the Bible and the Book of Mormon take, rather than presenting the arguments for and against this societal rule or that one and letting each idea sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas, in addition to the disrespectful deception by the authors/promoters on others, allows for misuse of others. This very 'fear of god' and 'eternal punishment'--glorified because of the very lack of evidence for such--provides a tool for leverage over others (an anathema to charity).

Maybe the short-cut is more on the head of the reader than the books themselves? What I mean is, maybe we need to ask the reader to not take short-cuts and realize the books are flawed (even dangerously flawed).

[_sock puppet]

I also think this short-cut that the Bible and the Book of Mormon take, rather than presenting the arguments for and against this societal rule or that one and letting each idea sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas, in addition to the disrespectful deception by the authors/promoters on others, allows for misuse of others. This very 'fear of god' and 'eternal punishment'--glorified because of the very lack of evidence for such--provides a tool for leverage over others (an anathema to charity).

Maybe the short-cut is more on the head of the reader than the books themselves? What I mean is, maybe we need to ask the reader to not take short-cuts and realize the books are flawed (even dangerously flawed).

I agree that a reader should be skeptical, but that does not excuse the authors for the deception they've written. And I think many a reader of the Book of Mormon and/or the Bible have been socially cajoled into accepting what is read and not to scrutinize it. When I first read the Book of Mormon at age 14, it was under the intense social pressure to do so of my neighborhood (barely a non Mormon to be found) including bishop, counselors, sunday school teacher, seminary teacher, teacher's quorum adivsor, my parents, grandparents, and 4-year older sibling, and even a few aunts and first cousins sprinkled in there.

While I shoulder some of the blame, because others rejected it at ages younger than I was when I finally did, I am not willing to give the Book of Mormon's authors and those that promoted it onto me a pass, particularly the deceptive authors and the institutional promotion out of the COB.

[_lulu]

This is no to say that I repudiate atheism. I just hate intolerance for religion.

I'm finding myself more and more intolerant of dogmatic religion precisely because I think it perverts genuinely sacred, mystical experiences and uses them as a springboard to belief, on insufficient evidence, of lots of very specific claims about the world which often have serious implications, if acted upon, for other people.

I would say, "perverts genuinely sacred, mystical experiences and uses them" to their own institutional ends, the first of which, is preservation of the institution.

[_zeezrom]

I agree that a reader should be skeptical, but that does not excuse the authors for the deception they've written. And I think many a reader of the Book of Mormon and/or the Bible have been socially cajoled into accepting what is read and not to scrutinize it. When I first read the Book of Mormon at age 14, it was under the intense social pressure to do so of my neighborhood (barely a non Mormon to be found) including bishop, counselors, sunday school teacher, seminary teacher, teacher's quorum adivsor, my parents, grandparents, and 4-year older sibling, and even a few aunts and first cousins sprinkled in there.

While I shoulder some of the blame, because others rejected it at ages younger than I was when I finally did, I am not willing to give the Book of Mormon's authors and those that promoted it onto me a pass, particularly the deceptive authors and the institutional promotion out of the COB.

I feel that the people who pressured you are responsible more than the authors of the book. I certainly don't look at Homer as a deceiver. I look at Homer with a grateful heart for passing to us such an interesting story.