zerinus wrote: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.honorentheos wrote: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.
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.
It is a delusion, not a miracle. The Seventh Day Adventists started not long after the LDS and continue to outgrow them and to rack up accomplishments valued by the rest of society, mostly related to health care. The Mormons? We brought magic rocks, polygamy, the MoTabs and the Osmonds and an obsession with porn and a horror of coffee. The SDAs are also quite irrational--they're behind a lot of the creationist dreck--but they don't seem to huddle in little solipsist knots like the Zboys, they seem to be out in the wicked world doing some good things that don't relate to the fables of Mormonia.
What is fatal to the Zboys and the MGs is the field of religious studies. Both Z and MG rely almost exclusively on special pleading and circular reasoning. Neither has shown themselves interested in or even capable of understanding another subculture's worldview and values. Neither is willing to compare their preferred faith to that of another or to grant any meaningful measure of equality to those who believe differently. Both have demonstrated a willingness to disregard history and express conclusions which would require vast conspiracies of demonic historians and scientists throughout the planet and over many centuries to be plausible. The very sad and quite pedestrian truth is that humans have fooled humans once again. It's an old story, right up there with "Blue eyes left me and I'm cryin' in my beer." Z and MG are dupes. Not the first or last. And not because they're bad or stupid. I don't blame them for not wanting to face it. I didn't, either. But I'd rather stand up and break the chain of exploitation and lies than twist reality to hide my shame, use a testimony mantra as both shield and jamming signal but not to convey truth.
The study of religions is the study of seeking, innovation, error. The birth of new cultures requires such. But just as we laugh at the idea of the stork bringing new babies, we should laugh at the idea of extraterrestrials or supernatural beings bringing us new ideas. Our cults are made by humans for humans, one of our inventions that sometimes helps and sometimes hurts, but an invention nonetheless.
