True Philosophical Defenses of Mormonism

[_moksha]

Joseph Smith was able to synthesize ideas from many sources. That is to his credit. Makes you wish that Buckminster Fuller and perhaps Hugh Hefner had lived in the 18th Century. Can you imagine how nice a geodesic dome Temple would look?


***Good thing the Marquis de Sade was not spoken of in Upstate New York. Hate to think what would happen when I slip up and take the Sacrament with my left hand.

[_moksha]

For 24 years Utah has held the distinction of contributing the least education money per student of any state in the good old USA. Despite this neglect, Utah school children show remarkable resiliency with fair to middling performance.

This may serve as more evidence that the Church is true, for despite all that we can do, the kids turn out okay.

[_Koda Crest]

If Moksha ran for President I'd be down with that. Better than any of those penguins in Happy Feet.

I completely agree, though I can see the "Mormon running for president" argument of a mix of church and state springing right back up because of it.

[_ludwigm]

If Moksha ran for President I'd be down with that. Better than any of those penguins in Happy Feet.

I completely agree, though I can see the "Mormon running for president" argument of a mix of church and state springing right back up because of it.

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -12-02.gif[/img]

[_Koda Crest]

This picture reminds me of the first time Obama was elected.

[Guest]

"Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

If two roads diverged in the Sacred Grove, one leading back to Palmyra and the other to a rather large rabbit hole, should we not take the path less traveled and lead the life less ordinary?

Exactly!!
But going down that rather large rabbit hole entails an even more impressive true philosophical defense of Momonism:
Several faithful Mormons have commented on just how “preposterous” the story of Joseph Smith obtaining the Book of Mormon is – aside from the preposterous contents of the book.

And yet, it is precisely the preposterous nature of the entire Book of Mormon episode which is the best secular argument for the authenticity of the Mormon Church. Why?
Because there are no gold plates to examine first-hand, no spectacles, no breastplate, no Sword of Laban – no reliquary. Indeed, for these reasons alone, it seems impossible or at least unlikely that the Book of Mormon could be true. At least with the Bible we have some sort of continuity with the ancient world, i.e., plenty of manuscripts, relics, and realia.

And yet, the very point at which the Bible and Book of Mormon are compared and the latter found wanting, the Achilles Heel of the Bible becomes apparent: The Bible cannot by itself affirm the reality of the Exodus, the Resurrection, or any other miraculous event, any more than the Odyssey can affirm the reality of Polyphemous. Matters of faith and reason intervene to raise questions about the likelihood of certain miraculous events.

With no direct connection with the ancient world, the Book of Mormon would seem to be on an even more precarious basis. Yet, it is precisely that lack of likelihood which makes the favorable cumulative evidence from linguistics, philology, archeology, etc., impossible to ignore in our evaluation: If the Book of Mormon is fantasy, it is impossible for such evidence to exist!! At least that is the type of cumulative evidence which, under the canons of Bayesian probability, makes the Book of Mormon story probable, and therefore reasonable on entirely philosophical grounds.

[_oneprfct]

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It is a book about faith and miracles. I believe the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to inspire Christians with faith to experience visions, angels, and miracles. Moroni chapter 10 summarizes the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

[_DrW]

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It is a book about faith and miracles. I believe the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to inspire Christians with faith to experience visions, angels, and miracles. Moroni chapter 10 summarizes the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is certainly not a history book, despite its claims to the contrary:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. - Introduction to the Book of Mormon

In fact, although it claims to be a record of Gods dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas, there is not one scintilla of historical fact or truth in it.

Since what the book claims as to its origins is clearly not true, the book itself cannot be true. The Book of Mormon is a monumental fraud first perpetrated on unsuspecting frontier folks, that has become an embarrassment to millions.

As oneprfct has done, the LDS Church will eventually drop its claim of historicity for the Book of Mormon and it will be recognized as another make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of bogus scripture akin to the Book of Abraham, and the Scientology Space Opera.

[_moksha]

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It is a book about faith and miracles. I believe the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to inspire Christians with faith to experience visions, angels, and miracles.

Great thought Oneprfct. Many of the lessons from the history of Man stink and sacred allegory can have many symbolic truths.

[_Bhodi]

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It is a book about faith and miracles. I believe the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to inspire Christians with faith to experience visions, angels, and miracles. Moroni chapter 10 summarizes the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is certainly not a history book, despite its claims to the contrary:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. - Introduction to the Book of Mormon

A good friend is a Rabbi (Conservative), and believes that the stories in Genesis and Exodus are not to be taken literally, the seas might not have parted, there may not have been literal plagues, but the stories have deeper meaning. The fact that he at least believes they are not literally true (at least not 100%, there may have been embellishment) does not diminish his dedication to his faith or his belief in God. It seems that in many cases the same literal interpretation that is demanded by some Christians is embraced with the same fervor as those who oppose Christianity, or Mormonism as a sub-sect of Christianity. some Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon or other works are 100% true, but on the other side, critics must believe they are 100% untrue. This makes the positions essentially similar.

In fact, although it claims to be a record of Gods dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas, there is not one scintilla of historical fact or truth in it.

Since what the book claims as to its origins is clearly not true, the book itself cannot be true. The Book of Mormon is a monumental fraud first perpetrated on unsuspecting frontier folks, that has become an embarrassment to millions.

As oneprfct has done, the LDS Church will eventually drop its claim of historicity for the Book of Mormon and it will be recognized as another make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of bogus scripture akin to the Book of Abraham, and the Scientology Space Opera.

I do not think so. Just as my Jewish friend reveres and respects the Torah, he also questions it, but his belief allows this. I think mine at least does too.