This quote from a web page cited in another thread got me thinking:
Clark summed up LDS view of archaeology: If the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.
Really? Can someone explain to me why, if the Book of Mormon were true (let's say, for example, that an archaeologist unearths the city of Zarahemla--everyone agrees that this is THE Zarahemla described in the Book of Mormon), it necessarily follows that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (i.e., the Monsonite branch headquartered in Slat Lake City, Utah) is the "true" church? I've read the book Scattering the Saints edited by the indomitable John Hamer. There are hundreds of sects that trace their origin to Joseph Smith and hold up the Book of Mormon s scripture. If the Book of Mormon were true, why is it any more proof of that the Monsonite church is true than the Community of Christ? Or the Hedrickites? Or the Strangites? Or maybe one of the Mormon sects was true at one time but has fallen into apostasy? Maybe none of the sects currently tracing back to Joseph Smith is true. Maybe the Book of Mormon is true but all the curent Mormon churches are in apostasy. It seems to me that the Book of Mormon being true might be strong evidence of the existence of God, but I don't see how it proves the Monsonite branch is true.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Beyond that, even if there were archaeological evidence that backed up the Book of Mormon that doesn't mean that there is a God or that such a being really did tell Nephi to slaughter Laban (for example).
So, yeah, none of that follows.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
just me wrote:Beyond that, even if there were archaeological evidence that backed up the Book of Mormon that doesn't mean that there is a God or that such a being really did tell Nephi to slaughter Laban (for example).
So, yeah, none of that follows.
Perhaps. But unlike the Bible, the manner in which the Book of Mormon came forth would create many hurdles for a secular interpretation of how its contents came to be known. In other words, if Joseph Smith got "hits" on Zarahemla and city names and, you know, real history, the idea that he just made it all up or stole it from Spalding or Rigdon or whatnot would go out the window, right?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
just me wrote:Beyond that, even if there were archaeological evidence that backed up the Book of Mormon that doesn't mean that there is a God or that such a being really did tell Nephi to slaughter Laban (for example).
So, yeah, none of that follows.
Perhaps. But unlike the Bible, the manner in which the Book of Mormon came forth would create many hurdles for a secular interpretation of how its contents came to be known. In other words, if Joseph Smith got "hits" on Zarahemla and city names and, you know, real history, the idea that he just made it all up or stole it from Spalding or Rigdon or whatnot would go out the window, right?
I'm saying if there really was a dude named Moroni it doesn't mean what he wrote about God was accurate. I see what you are saying, though, in that it would likely mean that Joseph Smith really did "interpret" an ancient text somehow.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
And what a momumentally, fundamentally improbable "if" it is.
What if a black hole spontaneously opens up in my bedroom tonight? I wonder which I should concern myself with more?
Added- what if any of the competing religions, sects or faith systems are right and Mormonism wrong? What then of Mormonism and its millions of believers?
What if they finally find the king's name in Facismile No. 3? What if modern Egyptology alters the hieroglyphic language to read the name Shulem in the writing? What if Anubis really was a slave?
Yeah, no crap. I totally agree that the Book of Mormon being "true" is about as probable as Winterfell and Kings Landing being real places. But the question is worth pursuing at least insofar as Mormons seem to think Book of Mormon historicity somehow has any relevance to whether or not the Monsonite branch of the Mormon church is "true." It seems to me the justification for BYU sending archaeologists to Mesoamerica, or for members to attend firesides by Meldrum and his ilk, is that they think if they can find evidence that supports the Book of Mormon it will prove the LDS church to be true. But there really is no connection, so why should they bother?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
The Book: It is important to note that suddenly, and against all probability, a sperm whale had been called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet. And since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity. This is what it thought, as it fell: The Whale:Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello, Ground! [Cuts to a distant view as the whale hits the ground and spews up a large mushroom cloud of snow] The Book: Curiously, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias, as it fell, was, "Oh no, not again!" Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly *why* the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
Equality wrote:This quote from a web page cited in another thread got me thinking:
Clark summed up LDS view of archaeology: If the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.
The wording of Clark's "if statement" would seem to imply a corollary: if the claims made by the Book of Mormon are not confirmed by archeology, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the LDS Church is not true.
By this logic, until the Book of Mormon is confirmed as true by archeology (a highly unlikely occurrence) , the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (SLC) must be in (serious) doubt.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."