The Book of Mormon proves the supernatural exists

[Chap]

Mohammed and Joseph Smith invoked angels. Of course, they were the authors of their works, and their works all have been treated as special in their own way. Certain texts become oracular for the communities that adopt them, and as such they communicate more to the community than could possibly be intentionally constructed by the author. In this way they become the source of divine communication for those who put faith in them.

Perhaps rather:

The authors of these texts explicitly presented them not as something they had composed themselves, but in one case as dictated by the angel Gabriel transmitting the words of the Muslim deity, and in the other as containing the words of ancient prophets inspired by the Christian deity and translated from an ancient text by divine inspiration.

Some people came to believe that these claims were justified. In the case of Muslims, the central claim was that Gabriel really did appear to Mohammed and dictate the words of their deity. In the case of Mormons, it was that the Book of Mormon really was an ancient text, and that Smith had translated it with the help of powers given by the Christian deity.

These were beliefs about the real world as seen by the overwhelming mass of people in the ancient Arabian peninsula, and in early 19th century upstate New York. It was a world in which the presence of a deity was a basic given, something that everybody knew about. It was also the kind of world in which I was brought up. The existence of the deity believed in by my parents and myself was pretty well the basic fact about the world, not just some matter of private belief.

Eventually, I ceased to believe that the version of Christianity in which I was brought up did in fact make true statements about the world in which I lived. So, with some considerable regret and a sense of loss, I ceased to practice it and gave up my connection with the religious group in question. I don't think I misunderstood my previous religion in a "two dimensional way".

(And, may I remark, I remain interested in religious writings as fascinating parts of the cultures from which they come, and a vital tool for understanding them. Though Porphyry is not a particular favourite of mine.)

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps rather:

The authors of these texts explicitly presented them not as something they had composed themselves, but in one case as dictated by the angel Gabriel transmitting the words of the Muslim deity, and in the other as containing the words of ancient prophets inspired by the Christian deity and translated from an ancient text by divine inspiration.

Some people came to believe that these claims were justified. In the case of Muslims, the central claim was that Gabriel really did appear to Mohammed and dictate the words of their deity. In the case of Mormons, it was that the Book of Mormon really was an ancient text, and that Smith had translated it with the help of powers given by the Christian deity.

Yeah, and I have no doubt that there were people who believed Homer was inspired by the Muse. Maybe Homer himself or herself thought the same. I am not sure how that is a problem. I don't know that the claims are justified are not, and I don't think that it is a dealbreaker one way or the other. The claims could be generic or sincere. One thing that is certain is that the literary device is pretty standard.

These were beliefs about the real world as seen by the overwhelming mass of people in the ancient Arabian peninsula, and in early 19th century upstate New York. It was a world in which the presence of a deity was a basic given, something that everybody knew about. It was also the kind of world in which I was brought up. The existence of the deity believed in by my parents and myself was pretty well the basic fact about the world, not just some matter of private belief.

Yes. Billions of people still do accept the Deity as a basic fact about the world.

Eventually, I ceased to believe that the version of Christianity in which I was brought up did in fact make true statements about the world in which I lived. So, with some considerable regret and a sense of loss, I ceased to practice it and gave up my connection with the religious group in question. I don't think I misunderstood my previous religion in a "two dimensional way".

I wouldn't know. Only you know you. And I am not here to tell you anything about yourself. I am speaking from what knowledge I have of the past based on my own study.

(And, may I remark, I remain interested in religious writings as fascinating parts of the cultures from which they come, and a vital tool for understanding them. Though Porphyry is not a particular favourite of mine.)

OK. Thanks for sharing that.

[Chap]

Perhaps rather:

The authors of these texts explicitly presented them not as something they had composed themselves, but in one case as dictated by the angel Gabriel transmitting the words of the Muslim deity, and in the other as containing the words of ancient prophets inspired by the Christian deity and translated from an ancient text by divine inspiration.

Some people came to believe that these claims were justified. In the case of Muslims, the central claim was that Gabriel really did appear to Mohammed and dictate the words of their deity. In the case of Mormons, it was that the Book of Mormon really was an ancient text, and that Smith had translated it with the help of powers given by the Christian deity.

Yeah, and I have no doubt that there were people who believed Homer was inspired by the Muse. Maybe Homer himself or herself thought the same. I am not sure how that is a problem. I don't know that the claims are justified are not, and I don't think that it is a dealbreaker one way or the other. The claims could be generic or sincere. One thing that is certain is that the literary device is pretty standard.

[...]

On claims of divine inspiration being a 'literary device':

Saying "Melania Trump made this cake" in a world where Melania Trump exists is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether she did or not. In a world where a deity is accepted as a simple fact, saying "Our deity inspired this text" is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether the deity did or not.

When Milton wrote in 1667 at the start of Paradise Lost:

Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing Heav'nly Muse ...

That was a literary device, because neither Milton nor his readers believed that there was a real Muse who was putting the words of the poem into his head.

[Marcus]

Mohammed and Joseph Smith invoked angels. Of course, they were the authors of their works, and their works all have been treated as special in their own way. Certain texts become oracular for the communities that adopt them, and as such they communicate more to the community than could possibly be intentionally constructed by the author. In this way they become the source of divine communication for those who put faith in them.

Perhaps rather:

The authors of these texts explicitly presented them not as something they had composed themselves, but in one case as dictated by the angel Gabriel transmitting the words of the Muslim deity, and in the other as containing the words of ancient prophets inspired by the Christian deity and translated from an ancient text by divine inspiration.

Some people came to believe that these claims were justified. In the case of Muslims, the central claim was that Gabriel really did appear to Mohammed and dictate the words of their deity. In the case of Mormons, it was that the Book of Mormon really was an ancient text, and that Smith had translated it with the help of powers given by the Christian deity.

These were beliefs about the real world as seen by the overwhelming mass of people in the ancient Arabian peninsula, and in early 19th century upstate New York.

This reads to me as a much more factual presentation. I have a difficult time with the term “divine communication” when it appears to be used without qualifiers, and seems to be presented in a factual way. Describing communication as “divine” represents a belief, not a fact.

[DrStakhanovite]

And this is not really a matter of your aesthetic judgment. If you don’t understand it, perhaps you should study these matters in greater depth.

With the Book of Mormon I think the answer is pretty simple. The text instructs the reader to test it as an oracle. Those who follow that guidance and believe it worked for them join the community that considers the text oracular.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but the shoe fits (so to speak). Sometimes I mistake my aesthetic judgements and use of irony as being something much more substantial than it really is and as a result, obscures the genuine relationship other people have with the Book of Mormon.

I really do appreciate this observation.

[Marcus]

And this is not really a matter of your aesthetic judgment. If you don’t understand it, perhaps you should study these matters in greater depth.

With the Book of Mormon I think the answer is pretty simple. The text instructs the reader to test it as an oracle. Those who follow that guidance and believe it worked for them join the community that considers the text oracular.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but the shoe fits (so to speak). Sometimes I mistake my aesthetic judgements and use of irony as being something much more substantial than it really is and as a result, obscures the genuine relationship other people have with the Book of Mormon.

I really do appreciate this observation.

You make a good point. In general, people here seem to have little issue with a relationship people may have with the book, based on their spiritual beliefs. (When the idea of factual evidence of historicity is introduced, it becomes a different matter.)

There was a fascinating discussion, pre-board change I believe, about whether the lds church would eventually accept the Book of Mormon as fictional while retaining the belief it was divinely inspired, people were divided on the likelihood. As I understand it, the Community of Christ has made this transition.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, and I have no doubt that there were people who believed Homer was inspired by the Muse. Maybe Homer himself or herself thought the same. I am not sure how that is a problem. I don't know that the claims are justified are not, and I don't think that it is a dealbreaker one way or the other. The claims could be generic or sincere. One thing that is certain is that the literary device is pretty standard.

[...]

On claims of divine inspiration being a 'literary device':

Saying "Melania Trump made this cake" in a world where Melania Trump exists is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether she did or not. In a world where a deity is accepted as a simple fact, saying "Our deity inspired this text" is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether the deity did or not.

When Milton wrote in 1667 at the start of Paradise Lost:

Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing Heav'nly Muse ...

That was a literary device, because neither Milton nor his readers believed that there was a real Muse who was putting the words of the poem into his head.

You would like to think it is a clear cut binary, but I don’t think it is at all.

[Chap]

On claims of divine inspiration being a 'literary device':

Saying "Melania Trump made this cake" in a world where Melania Trump exists is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether she did or not. In a world where a deity is accepted as a simple fact, saying "Our deity inspired this text" is not a literary device, but a truth-claim. It may be true or false, depending on whether the deity did or not.

When Milton wrote in 1667 at the start of Paradise Lost:



That was a literary device, because neither Milton nor his readers believed that there was a real Muse who was putting the words of the poem into his head.

You would like to think it is a clear cut binary, but I don’t think it is at all.

And for my part I feel that you are discounting the lived experience of many of those who hold or have held religious beliefs. They believed that the teachings of their religion were true, in the same sense that they believed that you get milk from cows, or eating bread stops you feeling hungry. In some cases they were willing to die agonising and humiliating deaths to maintain the integrity of their beliefs under persecution, or take appalling risks to save others from an eternity of damnation by converting them to the truth. There were no grey areas.

I take those people seriously enough to want to say that they were profoundly and tragically wrong in their beliefs about what was the case. What they believed was just not true. Others may have lived in a subtly shaded non-binary world, but they did not.

[Kishkumen]

And for my part I feel that you are discounting the lived experience of many of those who hold or have held religious beliefs. They believed that the teachings of their religion were true, in the same sense that they believed that you get milk from cows, or eating bread stops you feeling hungry. In some cases they were willing to die agonising and humiliating deaths to maintain the integrity of their beliefs under persecution, or take appalling risks to save others from an eternity of damnation by converting them to the truth. There were no grey areas.

I take those people seriously enough to want to say that they were profoundly and tragically wrong in their beliefs about what was the case. What they believed was just not true. Others may have lived in a subtly shaded non-binary world, but they did not.

I give them the respect of taking them seriously as responding to real experiences that reflect something that does indeed exist. We may not fully understand it, or even much at all, but I don’t presume to say that I am better than they are because I am somehow as a human being so much less tragically wrong than they are. To my mind you sound arrogant as hell.

[dastardly stem]

You would like to think it is a clear cut binary, but I don’t think it is at all.

And for my part I feel that you are discounting the lived experience of many of those who hold or have held religious beliefs. They believed that the teachings of their religion were true, in the same sense that they believed that you get milk from cows, or eating bread stops you feeling hungry. In some cases they were willing to die agonising and humiliating deaths to maintain the integrity of their beliefs under persecution, or take appalling risks to save others from an eternity of damnation by converting them to the truth. There were no grey areas.

I take those people seriously enough to want to say that they were profoundly and tragically wrong in their beliefs about what was the case. What they believed was just not true. Others may have lived in a subtly shaded non-binary world, but they did not.

Kish is so wrong here

You have a point though. Do we respect peoples beliefs simply because they find deep meaning in them? I suppose we should consider how we balance our need to critique each other’s ideas and beliefs and maintain the overarching goal of respecting their right to believe what they want, give room to the notion that they may have plenty to offer, and point out what we see as problems. Kish keeps giving the impression since others find it meaningful there must be more to it. I think that idea is part of our need to be balanced. But too far, kish. We have to still maintain space to observe, analyze, object, explain, etc.