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

[_sock puppet]

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.

Did Homer use his literary work, as JSJr did, to gain a following, with the threat of god's wrath and punishment if they did not do what Homer said god wanted them to, like build him a mansion house and store?

[_zeezrom]

Did Homer use his literary work, as JSJr did, to gain a following, with the threat of god's wrath and punishment if they did not do what Homer said god wanted them to, like build him a mansion house and store?

I'm not sure. I don't know enough (yet) about how the Greeks promoted their ideas. I hope to learn more, though.

I need to back track a little for I have almost forgotten what led us to this point. :)

Here is what started me asking you questions:

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).

It seems odd to take a work of art or craft and personify it with the ability to take action against me, for which it is held liable. It seems the harm is done in mankind's interpretation of such works, no?

I'm sure your intent is to make a judgment against the authors, but it came across to me as a judgment against the work itself. ...and now, I'm thinking too much about this.

[_sock puppet]

Did Homer use his literary work, as JSJr did, to gain a following, with the threat of god's wrath and punishment if they did not do what Homer said god wanted them to, like build him a mansion house and store?

I'm not sure. I don't know enough (yet) about how the Greeks promoted their ideas. I hope to learn more, though.

I need to back track a little for I have almost forgotten what led us to this point. :)

Here is what started me asking you questions:

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).

It seems odd to take a work of art or craft and personify it with the ability to take action against me, for which it is held liable. It seems the harm is done in mankind's interpretation of such works, no?

I'm sure your intent is to make a judgment against the authors, but it came across to me as a judgment against the work itself. ...and now, I'm thinking too much about this.

Yes, by referring to the works only, I was referring to the authors, but also to those who promote them as 'the word of god'. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't know much of the history behind authors of various parts of the Bible having used them or in what ways. I am sure they did. What is known is what JSJr was up to, hoping to make money off of the publication of the Book of Mormon to get his family out of financial straights. It sure started out under dubious auspices. When sales didn't pan out like JSJr had expected, the next best thing was to use it as 'the word of god' to attract a devoted and loyal following that would do most anything for him, including offering up their 14 year old daughters to him in exchange for the promise that their family would be saved.

[_brade]

Zee, sock makes a great point, so I hesitate to add to it. In the pre-mortal world we apparently were in the presence of God and were able to exercise free-will/agency, evidenced the teaching that a full third of the spirit children of God chose to follow Satan.

Solid, indisputable evidence of God's existence is compatible with free-will/agency.

H.

What such evidence isn't compatible with is the freedom to believe against the evidence. This shouldn't bother anyone, but lots of people try to make a big deal out of this.

Every time you open your eyes in a well lit room some number of beliefs are forced on you without you getting any say-so. I challenge anyone to walk into a room with their eyes open and sincerely believe that the table or chair in their visual field is actually an elephant.

God's clear appearance to Zee would take away Zee's freedom to believe God doesn't exist. It wouldn't take away Zee's freedom to, say, shout "Hasa diga eebowai!" at him, or turn around and run away, or murder the next person he saw, or follow all of God's instructions.

Everyday our freedom to believe some things is taken away by our ordinary experience of the world. That doesn't seem to have much of an affect on our ability to act, even in ways that seem to go against our beliefs. I believe, for example, that there's a brick wall 20 feet to my left. That belief of mine doesn't prevent me from sprinting directly to my left as if I were in an open field.

In short, God providing evidence of his existence and his desires would take away our freedom to believe he doesn't exist and that certain injunctions are not his desires. I don't see any compelling reason to think we wound't be able to act against his wishes -- we'd still be free in the more meaningful sense. As Toronto rightly points out, Mormon mythology is littered with stories about people acting against God's wishes despite having about as clear evidence of his existence and wishes as any mortal could hope for.

[Guest]

Sure we would still be free. But after having discovered the "real" God, the entire human race would suddenly be stuck with a singular religious belief (or knowledge??) - or we would all start fighting about what we thought we saw. Or, would God control our minds in order to get us all to interpret her evidence the same way??

I think God's attempt to show us evidence would just make our problems worse. We would probably end up with billions of extremists.

[_RayAgostini]

Hey, Ray.

What is a perfect knowledge in a thing?

Why cannot a perfect knowledge be had of it through empirical observation alone? Why does their need to be evidence-less hoping for it as a prerequisite?

We could discuss/argue/debate this for another six years, but unfortunately my time, patience and energy for such things has run out. Really. I don't spend much less time on message boards these days because of a self-imposed restriction. I'm genuinely tired of the constant back and forth. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. We both have our reasons, and our own personal experiences.

So for a final comment: Did you ever get around to asking Neil Armstrong, before he died, what it's like to walk on the moon? What words might he use to describe that to you, and if you were skeptical, how would he prove to you that he actually walked on the moon?

Stupid question with an "obvious" answer, you say?

Not to the skeptics. The Great Moon Hoax

At first NASA just ignore them, but the hoax meme just kept growing and growing, so they actually had to waste time replying to the skeptics.

If you really want to get a moon-walking astronaut angry - just suggest to him that he never walked on the moon.

Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him

I know many "average Joes" today, many among friends, who believe the moon hoax. Let's say, hypothetically, that all NASA original files were destroyed in an atom bomb attack. In 200 years time, how would anyone prove that "man walked on the moon"?

That's my contribution for the morning. Have a good day.

[_sock puppet]

Hey, Ray.

What is a perfect knowledge in a thing?

Why cannot a perfect knowledge be had of it through empirical observation alone? Why does their need to be evidence-less hoping for it as a prerequisite?

We could discuss/argue/debate this for another six years, but unfortunately my time, patience and energy for such things has run out. Really. I don't spend much less time on message boards these days because of a self-imposed restriction. I'm genuinely tired of the constant back and forth. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. We both have our reasons, and our own personal experiences.

So for a final comment: Did you ever get around to asking Neil Armstrong, before he died, what it's like to walk on the moon? What words might he use to describe that to you, and if you were skeptical, how would he prove to you that he actually walked on the moon?

Stupid question with an "obvious" answer, you say?

Not to the skeptics. The Great Moon Hoax

At first NASA just ignore them, but the hoax meme just kept growing and growing, so they actually had to waste time replying to the skeptics.

If you really want to get a moon-walking astronaut angry - just suggest to him that he never walked on the moon.

Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him

I know many "average Joes" today, many among friends, who believe the moon hoax. Let's say, hypothetically, that all NASA original files were destroyed in an atom bomb attack. In 200 years time, how would anyone prove that "man walked on the moon"?

That's my contribution for the morning. Have a good day.

"Mormons claim new proof for Book of Mormon. Film at 11."

[_Bob Loblaw]

"Mormons claim new proof for Book of Mormon. Film at 11."

You reminded me of this bit:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/byu-sc ... nism,1681/

[_Darth J]

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.

Of course, it would be wonderful to have evidence that there is a god. All the uncertainly of what happens after death would be gone.

What the hell does agnosticism have to do with the Book of Mormon? There are billions of people who believe in a God but do not believe in the Book of Mormon. "Don't believe in the Book of Mormon = Don't believe in God" is another one of those non sequiturs.

There are also many theists who don't believe in life after death, and non-theists (e.g., Buddhists) who do believe in life after death. But given your rambling, non-responsive non sequiturs, I am starting to strongly suspect that you are a General Authority.

All people can come to god just like satan wanted. But such is not the plan. At the end of the day, the mystery is not so bad. We are free to have faith or not. We are free to believe or not. We are free to accept the witnesses or not. And we are free to discount all spiritual evidence of the early church. Such is free agency and such is free will. At the end of the day, we will all be just a little more wiser upon death. Either there is darkness or life.

Right, right. We'll just beg the question by assuming the Church is true, and then frame the issue of whether the Church is true in that context.

[_Cicero]

Just wanted to say that this is a great thread (other than Why Me's creepy contributions).

SP, Zee and Ray in particular are bringing up a number of things I have been thinking about a lot lately.