The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_zerinus]

This last paragraph is really the most honest description of your theory of truth. We need to recognize that when you say - If you need empirical "evidence" before you believe anything, then religion is not for you - you are saying you don't accept the definition of truth that is proposed in D&C 93. You don't. You operate under a definition of truth that allows for things hoped for that you not only define as true but argue is a superior category of truth.

You don't seem interested in exploring your theory of truth as we'd need to explore how you determine the truth-value of non-Mormon related subject.

So, let's keep that in mind when we move on back to our opposed camps where you claim the Book of Mormon is untouchable by evidence while someone like myself looks at the evidence and considers it so overwhelmingly against the Book of Mormon being an accurate reflection of history it's baffling that someone could be aware and still make the claims you make.

The definition of truth, and acquisition of truth are two different things. You are confusing the two. Truth is defined as, "knowledge of things as they are ..." That definition is independent of how you acquire that knowledge. Empirical evidence is one way, but not the only way. Testimony of witnesses is another way. A revelation from God is still another way.

[_I have a question]

Would it be correct to interpret your last comment to mean that any or all of the native populations in North, Central and South America are all Lamanites? That the native populations throughout the Americas are all descendants of Israel heritage? Please tell more.

That would appear to be the case.

In what objective way does it "appear" that the Native Americans have Israeli heritage?

Because the Book of Mormon says so. Do pay attention, or zerinus will lose patience with you.

Not only that, he will steadfastedly ignore the question, no matter who asks it.
Because the only answer he has is "the spirit told me".
God-Given because God told me it was.
Sounds a bit like buying a car on the sole basis of what the salesmen tells you.

[_Chap]

Truth is defined as, "knowledge of things as they are ..."

Oh. I see that we are back with definitions?

But ... how do we know that the definition you give is the correct one? Do you have a witness from the Holy Spirit that it is correct?

I bet that you do!

[_I have a question]

Truth is defined as, "knowledge of things as they are ..."

Oh. I see that we are back with definitions?

But ... how do we know that the definition you give is the correct one? Do you have a witness from the Holy Spirit that it is correct?

I bet that you do!

I love The Definition Game. Let's play. "Knowledge"

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment, 'justified' standing in contrast to 'revealed'. There have been attempts to trace it back to Plato and his dialogues.[28] The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent
S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief# ... rue_belief

So is there any other justification for believing The Book of Mormon is God-Given beyond the holy trinity of:
- Joseph said it was.
- 11 others sort of said it was.
- God told me so.

On the other hand, what are the three strongest justifications for holding the belief that the Book of Mormon is Man-Made?
- ?
- ?
- ?

For me:
- there is no objective/empirical corroboration of the books historical claims.
- the books contents contradict known, corroborated objective/empirical evidences e.g. DNA, Anthropology etc.
- the books contents contradict it's own claims of historicity and translation story e.g. anachronisms, KJV content, amendments, changing translation story over time etc.

[_honorentheos]

The definition of truth, and acquisition of truth are two different things. You are confusing the two. Truth is defined as, "knowledge of things as they are ..." That definition is independent of how you acquire that knowledge. Empirical evidence is one way, but not the only way. Testimony of witnesses is another way. A revelation from God is still another way.

I'm not confusing thing, z.

Things as they were includes a lot of evidence that contradicts the claims of the Mormon church regarding the Book of Mormon. The body of archeological and anthropological evidence regarding the varied cultures of the time do not match what the Book of Mormon said was there. Conversely, part of "Things as they were" include the theories about the native americans in the 19th century that the Book of Mormon clearly took ownership of but have proven to be wrong. Their being a branch of the lost tribes of Israel, the ancestors of the present native americans being savages incapable of producing the extensive developed civilizations, etc., etc., etc.

When it comes to things as they were, it's clear the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Things as they are include the complete lack of Israelite DNA present in the native populations from a time period and at a level of dispersion that would corroborate the claims of the LDS church when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Conversely, we've seen the Church modify it's claims regarding the extent, location, and ancestory of the present day Native Americans to reduce their exposure to these issues. We've seen the LDS church today back off from the inherent racism in the Book of Mormon. Most recently we've seen movement in the direction of exhaltation being possible for those who might otherwise be faithful LDS but do not see the Book of Mormon as literal history.

When it comes to things as they are, it's clear the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Things as they are to come reflect a real red flag regarding the Book of Mormon's prophetic value. The specificity and accuracy of so-called prophecies in it that had already happened by the time Joseph Smith took to writing it down is in stark contrast with the lack of specific prophecies after the time period when Smith produced it. It seems to be playing games with its reader, showing how "prophetic" the Nephites were in seeing Columbus, the establishment of the United States, the religious strife of the time around Joseph Smith regarding specific religious issues pertaining to his environment. How could they have known, right? But it's remarkably non-specific or silent regarding the period after it's publication despite our being told the ancient authors were shown "our day" up to the return of Christ in the last days.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that could possibly convince us it is true based on things to come. It lacks specific prophecies capable of doing so.

It doesn't matter how the evidence is obtained. It matters that it can maintain a reasonable coherence with the body of evidence as a whole. Evidence that is an outlier from the bulk of the evidence deserves scrutiny, and in the case of our discussion here that is your so-called spiritual evidence which stands as an outlier from all of the other evidence. When asked how you justify it, you don't. You simply demand it be given not only a place at the table with the other evidence, but a place at the head of the table against which all other evidence should be consider.

It seems you are the one confused about how the process works.

[_zerinus]

I'm not confusing thing, z.

Things as they were includes a lot of evidence that contradicts the claims of the Mormon church regarding the Book of Mormon. The body of archeological and anthropological evidence regarding the varied cultures of the time do not match what the Book of Mormon said was there. Conversely, part of "Things as they were" include the theories about the native americans in the 19th century that the Book of Mormon clearly took ownership of but have proven to be wrong. Their being a branch of the lost tribes of Israel, the ancestors of the present native americans being savages incapable of producing the extensive developed civilizations, etc., etc., etc.

When it comes to things as they were, it's clear the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Things as they are include the complete lack of Israelite DNA present in the native populations from a time period and at a level of dispersion that would corroborate the claims of the LDS church when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Conversely, we've seen the Church modify it's claims regarding the extent, location, and ancestory of the present day Native Americans to reduce their exposure to these issues. We've seen the LDS church today back off from the inherent racism in the Book of Mormon. Most recently we've seen movement in the direction of exhaltation being possible for those who might otherwise be faithful LDS but do not see the Book of Mormon as literal history.

When it comes to things as they are, it's clear the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Things as they are to come reflect a real red flag regarding the Book of Mormon's prophetic value. The specificity and accuracy of so-called prophecies in it that had already happened by the time Joseph Smith took to writing it down is in stark contrast with the lack of specific prophecies after the time period when Smith produced it. It seems to be playing games with its reader, showing how "prophetic" the Nephites were in seeing Columbus, the establishment of the United States, the religious strife of the time around Joseph Smith regarding specific religious issues pertaining to his environment. How could they have known, right? But it's remarkably non-specific or silent regarding the period after it's publication despite our being told the ancient authors were shown "our day" up to the return of Christ in the last days.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that could possibly convince us it is true based on things to come. It lacks specific prophecies capable of doing so.

It doesn't matter how the evidence is obtained. It matters that it can maintain a reasonable coherence with the body of evidence as a whole. Evidence that is an outlier from the bulk of the evidence deserves scrutiny, and in the case of our discussion here that is your so-called spiritual evidence which stands as an outlier from all of the other evidence. When asked how you justify it, you don't. You simply demand it be given not only a place at the table with the other evidence, but a place at the head of the table against which all other evidence should be consider.

It seems you are the one confused about how the process works.

We have been through all of that before. You are confusing lack of evidence for something as evidence against something. Archaeology or DNA may not prove the Book of Mormon to be true, but it does not disprove it either. We believe that the truth of the Book of Mormon can only be known by a personal revelation from God.

As far as prophecies are concerned, the Book of Mormon contains one prophecy that has come to pass, and is continuing to come to pass. It predicts that the restored Church in the last days will continue to expand and progress, and cannot be stopped, and that has come to pass. Given how weak the Church originally was when it started, and all the opposition that was arrayed against it, it is a miracle that it has survived, and continues to expand to this day.

[_I have a question]

We have been through all of that before. You are confusing lack of evidence for something as evidence against something. Archaeology or DNA may not prove the Book of Mormon to be true, but it does not disprove it either. We believe that the truth of the Book of Mormon can only be known by a personal revelation from God.

That is known formally as an Argument From Ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[_Themis]

We have been through all of that before. You are confusing lack of evidence for something as evidence against something. Archaeology or DNA may not prove the Book of Mormon to be true, but it does not disprove it either.

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

We believe that the truth of the Book of Mormon can only be known by a personal revelation from God.

Well to be accurate you believe, not we. The church focus's on personal revelation as the important way, not being the only way, but then it comes from a conman who knew no real evidence existed, and that faith and emotions were the bread and butter of the con.

As far as prophecies are concerned, the Book of Mormon contains one prophecy that has come to pass, and is continuing to come to pass. It predicts that the restored Church in the last days will continue to expand and progress, and cannot be stopped, and that has come to pass. Given how weak the Church originally was when it started, and all the opposition that was arrayed against it, it is a miracle that it has survived, and continues to expand to this day.

I suspect this is not an uncommon claim of most new religions and self proclaimed prophets. No one tends to remember the failures.

[_Lemmie]

MG -

You seem intent on including secret knowledge in this discussion. So I'll share my experience in leaving the church though I believe I've done so before.

My disaffection stemmed from my experience having been activated as a member of the Army Reserve while in college for the 2003 Iraq war. Following what was a disruptive event that over time seemed clearly to have been the product of authoritative abuse, I found the entire enterprise revealing how prone we are, myself included, to avoid asking questions of things that seem wrong or are asserted with greater authority than is warranted. In 2004 it was a non-church related personal commitment to pay closer attention to when my instincts suggested something wasn't completely on the up-and-up. Prior to my activation I had been serving as the 1st counselor in our student ward bishopric, I was the LDS group leader in my military unit, had served in leadership positions most of my short adult life, temple married to my wife a couple of years after having served a mission in which I was, as the handbook used to say, "blessed to be part of <insert names of a dozen individuals and a family> acceptance of the gospel when they entered the waters of baptism" in a mission where wasn't uncommon for elders and sisters to return home bearing testimony of how they had the opportunity to be part of one conversion - their own. Etc., etc., etc. It doesn't matter, obviously, but I don't know how else to convey to you that at the time I was as TBM as they come. I was sure, SURE, of my testimony of the Book of Mormon, that it testified of Christ, and I thought of myself as a temple-oriented, service oriented member who appreciated President Hunter's short term as prophet for the focus it brought on Christ-centered living. I would have had a ready answer to the question, favorite conference talk? withthis one.

So, 2004, teaching the family history class in a new ward I end up coming across something on the internet while looking something up regarding the Book of Abraham papyri. You'd call it the spirit probably, but my instinct was to not read it as it clearly was not favorable to the Church. I stopped myself and thought, I know the Church is true so why be afraid of the information? So I read it. It surprised me, as you can imagine, that it seemed pretty darned difficult to explain away how the translation of the same text by Joseph Smith and Egyptologists could be so completely different. Until then, I had never occurred to me to wonder if anyone had ever translated the hieroglyphs in the Book of Abraham facsimiles. That seems like something to look up. And, yeah, didn't help.

There was a lot of prayer involved. A lot. But I wasn't getting answers nor clear messages from God to steer clear. Actually, being honest felt right. It seemed to both intellectually align with what I believed God wanted us to do and it aligned with my inner sense that my moral compass was pointing the right direction. I read books like Brodie's that led me to Nibley which led me to Compton which became a real sticking point. It was around that time I found myself going to the message boards as an offshoot to trying to learn more about what answers there were from the Church. To borrow a concept from Joseph Smith's '42 version of the first vision, it did not occur to me yet that the Church might not only lack answer but could be misrepresenting the truth. That changed when I ended up reading the FARMS review of Compton's book. It was clearly lying and clearly trying to manipulate me as a reader. I was shocked. I thought there had to be better explanations so I ended up spending more time on the boards. That's when I first encountered Dr. Peterson. He offered to email me and discuss my concerns which I sincerely appreciated. As we discussed my concerns about answers and why things like the first vision were presented as they were when there was clearly much more that I, as an active and faithful member were never told about. Worse, why were they presented in what seemed like a deceptive manner? The answer came in the form of basically an invitation into the club of Type C members who have graduated from white hat/black hat history.

I was appalled. It was exactly the thing I was concerned with before with deception and politics obscuring the fact people were being manipulated and hurt by those who felt they didn't need to know things that, were they known, might lead them to make different choices. We ended our correspondence in complete disagreement about how LDS history should be presented to the membership.

This was over the course of a few months, all while I was still going to Church and increasingly struggling with what seemed like a dichotomy between the clear moral problems with the Church (how it was treating the membership and it's history) and it's founding leadership's character on the one hand and what I felt was my testimony of Christ and the role the Church had played in my gaining it. That included the Book of Mormon. I prayed, tried to consider that maybe I should just live as I thought was right and be, well, I don't know what. Not rock the boat, more or less. But it ate at me. It would physically hurt sometimes knowing that I was not acting with integrity.

So, my answer came some time later while I was straddling the line for a couple of years. And it came following prayer. Our mission was fortunate to have a genuinely good person for a mission president, and among the many things he did was provide all the missionaries with cassettes of talks and other devotional material that he found valuable. Some LDS, some not. One of those items was a recording of President Benson's pride talk from 1988, read by his councilor President Hinckley in conference. As I thought about why it was I was struggling, it hit me that it wasn't because of what I thought about God or Christ. It was because of what I thought about other people's opinions. And the words went thought my mind as clear as if I had the tape playing, "The proud stand in fear of men’s judgment more than of God’s judgment. What will men think of me?, weighs heavier than, What will God think of me?"

How could I claim to be following God, trying to live after the example of Christ when I wasn't following what my heart and instincts about what was right were telling was wrong? I didn't feel like what God thought of me was all that great, actually, because I was hiding.

It came off of me like a burden lifted. That was the right thing to do. Not pretend, not accept that the Church had authority to tell me something was right when it seemed wrong. If God wanted me in the Church and used the Book of Mormon to help me that didn't mean that God wanted me to just blindly follow what anyone claiming to be speaking for him told me.

I had a conversation with my bishop about having questions, and not wanting to live a lie. He asked what I wanted to do. I told him I didn't know exactly because I enjoyed the service opportunities and the Christ-centered messages at Church, I didn't agree with the way history was taught and the issues around Joseph Smith's polygamy. He offered to let me decide when or if I wanted to be released from my calling which at the time was teaching 15 year olds. I told him I trusted his judgement on that, and he could let me know what he wanted.

Things continued to evolve for me. The bishop didn't take too long to asked me if I would prefer teaching in priesthood (I think I made his wife uncomfortable as her kid was in the class, honestly) and also serve as his financial secretary which I accepted. But more and more, Church itself felt less spiritually filling and more spiritually draining. With this change I was now attending adult Sunday School and as we were studying the Old Testament, I decided it would be valuable to read more closely into the actual Hebrew Bible and not just the KJV/LDS manuals. I picked up a copy of the Hebrew Study Bible and found myself completely shocked to learn even more new things. It amazed me how open the book was about the Documentary Hypothesis, something I had never heard of. It discussed the mythologies of the Pentateuch and the issues around multiple Isaiah authors. All from a Jewish perspective without trying to hide from the issues.

Frankly, it was my first experience feeling like I was being talked to like an adult about religious subjects and scripture.

I started bring it to classes and would consider the points discussed between the LDS manual and the HSB. One day a sister asked a question regarding something in Exodus and the room was silent. It happened to be something that the HSB had a great answer for that was easily acceptable to a Mormon believer so I decided to share it. The teacher went, hmmm. The sister nodded and it seemed like it went well enough. But after the class, there were a few people who said something to me along the lines of, "That was interesting, but I'm not sure why you need to read something other than the scriptures or the manual." So it was clear it wasn't completely cool to have shared it.

The strain eventually came to a head over two things. One was a lesson I taught in Elder's quorum where I used the Kirtland anti-bank collapse for an example of what happens when people put their faith in people rather than in Christ. I had many guys come ups and say how awesome the lesson was, how much they had wanted to be able to talk about that and not feel like it was taboo. I knew I was pushing it when I chose to do it, but yeah. I was what I felt was right. The bishop told me he heard about my lesson. He didn't release me right away but I knew it was coming by how he reacted when he told me he'd heard about it. The second was that I had also been exploring deeper into the New Testament and it's origins which lead to reading on various forms of textual criticism. Combined it became clear that whatever path I was on, the LDS faith was no longer going to be part of it. I stopped attending. My daughter was not yet 8 years old and the idea of baptizing her into the same trap that Mormonism felt like to me made me sick as well.

It was probably a three year journey from TBM to someone who doesn't feel comfortable saying I'm an atheist but mainly because there are too many atheists who are not what I am which is not a believer in the Judeo-Christian teachings about God, nor any other religious teachings. But I'm not into the religion of secular science as god that seems just as...well, religious. I've seen the signs from inside and outside to be able to be that comfortable with certitude.

Anyway, MG, that's my long-winded way of saying you are kinda judgy about people's faith journeys because they didn't end up where you are. You want to talk about how much Church improves your life in the context of how much you feel Church improves your life, I'm generally not into bashing people who do so. Baby seals and whatnot. But in conversations where we aren't talking about that but about facts, truth, and how one sorts though things to try and arrive at truth as best they can? That demands we treat that as the subject.

It says something that you are trying to sort people into moral boxes or assign someone who has arrived in a different place to a category where they either never had a testimony or were led out by Satan or what have you. And not good things about you. You should think more about why you are willing to tear down people, if only in your mind, to be able to support whatever it is about the Church you feel deserves that level of loyalty it can buy your integrity.

I don't envy you that.

Not to interrupt the discussion, but thanks for telling your story, honorentheos. That was fascinating to read, especially your interaction with Dr. Peterson and your experiences teaching church history topics. I'm also enjoying the current discussion very much, thanks for those posts as well!

[_Lemmie]

If I have torn you down, personally, I apologize. I don't think that you deserve it. At times if I am a bit frustrated with certain people on the board, some of that frustration may spread to those that really don't deserve it.

Where do you draw the distinction between those that deserve it and those that don't?

Very good point. He caricatures people on this board into a very particular, limited stereotype, and it definitely shows:

...people who I REALLY don't know anything about except that they have a common discontent with either Mormons, Mormonism, God, the LDS Church, or leaders. But that's ALL I know.