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

[_zerinus]

Let's try and organize this discussion a little bit.

If we take your first ordered item, "The Book of Mormon is true history", IHAQ may consent to us deconstructing his counter-postulate and stating, "The Book of Mormon is not true history."

Since the two postulates can’t both have the truth-value of being true, and we’ve accepted that knowledge requires justification of one’s belief, perhaps we can look at what one relies on to do the heavy lifting?

Your postulate is carried, in your own words, by this:
I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, or by a personal revelation from God to myself that it is true.

Your justification for your belief (in order to determine if it is true and therefore qualifies as actual knowledge) appears to be a feeling that you subjectively experienced. Ok.

Not OK! The witness of the Holy Ghost is not "a feeling subjectively experienced". It is truth communicated by the Spirit of God to the soul. It is the surest way of knowing something. The witness or assurance thus obtained cannot be transferred or communicated to someone else; it can only be obtained firsthand from God. But that does not make it any less objective than any other way of obtaining knowledge.

The counter-proposition that the Book of Mormon is not true history includes:

Claims that the New World peoples had technologies and cultural artifacts not found in the archeological record. This includes weapons, armaments, metallurgy of a type not found in the Americas before the European discoveries. It includes crops, construction practices, population sizes, militaries of a size not seen in the old world outside of China, domesticed animals, a monetary system…all of which are not attested in the historical record.

It also describes Jaredite submarines, the introduction of the honey bee, magic glowing rocks. It proclaims Christianity was a major religion in the Americas before Christ was even born though neither Judaism or Christian beliefs are evidence in the anthropological surveys of past American cultures.

It does, on the other hand, include many cultural beliefs about the native americans popular in the 19th century that have been proven wrong. It includes theological arguments and proposes resolutions for these problems that were common to the time of Joseph Smith. It takes 19th century theories about the archeological record and codifies them into a narrative claimed to be authentitic. But since these theories have been overturned it appears completely justified to see their presence in the Book of Mormon as evidence of 19th century origin.

If justification is required for a belief to also be reasonably considered true, and for a person to be able to claim knowledge, it seems the counter-postulate, “the Book of Mormon is not true history” is the reasonable one with a truth-value of “true”.

Your counter argument, zerinus?

Absence of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against something. Archaeology can only prove that something existed; it cannot prove that something did not exist. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from archaeology.

[_Starbuck]

Can you show how the Book of Mormon is a true history? The world awaits your evidence. It has been asked for several times.

Like I said, I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true. I am not under any obligation to provide "evidence" to anybody that it is. If somebody doesn't want to believe it, they have that choice.

Do you have evidence that the Book of Mormon is NOT true? If you don't, then ridiculing my witness doesn't get you anywhere. You just risk making a fool of yourself in the process.

When reality doesn't match the witness, who is the fool?

[_zerinus]

Like I said, I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true. I am not under any obligation to provide "evidence" to anybody that it is. If somebody doesn't want to believe it, they have that choice.

Do you have evidence that the Book of Mormon is NOT true? If you don't, then ridiculing my witness doesn't get you anywhere. You just risk making a fool of yourself in the process.

I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it isn't true. I am not under any obligation to provide "evidence" to anybody that it isn't. If somebody wants to believe it, they have that choice.

Do you have evidence that the Book of Mormon is true? If you don't, then ridiculing my witness doesn't get you anywhere. You just risk making a fool of yourself in the process.

Now what?
------------

You tell me, what do you think that proves?

I really do wonder what your motivation is in entering into thread discussions, when discussion is clearly not what you want to do.

For reference:
10 Signs of Intellectual Dishonesty:
1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”
2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”.
3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?”
4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .”
5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”.
6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”.
7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda”
8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”.
9. Ignoring the principles of critical thinking.
10. Ignoring [partial] defeat or See Sign #1
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010 ... ishonesty/

You're pretty much ticking every box there Zerinus....

You are talking rubbish, not worth replying to.

[_zerinus]

When reality doesn't match the witness, who is the fool?

That depends on who is making the judgement.

[_I have a question]

Like I said, I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true. I am not under any obligation to provide "evidence" to anybody that it is. If somebody doesn't want to believe it, they have that choice.

Do you have evidence that the Book of Mormon is NOT true? If you don't, then ridiculing my witness doesn't get you anywhere. You just risk making a fool of yourself in the process.

I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it isn't true. I am not under any obligation to provide "evidence" to anybody that it isn't. If somebody wants to believe it, they have that choice.

Do you have evidence that the Book of Mormon is true? If you don't, then ridiculing my witness doesn't get you anywhere. You just risk making a fool of yourself in the process.

Now what?
------------

You tell me, what do you think that proves?

It proves (to the intellectually honest) the Book of Mormons legitimacy cannot be demonstrated by feelings.

I really do wonder what your motivation is in entering into thread discussions, when discussion is clearly not what you want to do.

For reference:
10 Signs of Intellectual Dishonesty:
1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”
2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”.
3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?”
4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .”
5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”.
6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”.
7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda”
8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”.
9. Ignoring the principles of critical thinking.
10. Ignoring [partial] defeat or See Sign #1
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010 ... ishonesty/

You're pretty much ticking every box there Zerinus....

You are talking rubbish, not worth replying to.

#2

[_zerinus]

You tell me, what do you think that proves?

It proves (to the intellectually honest) the Book of Mormons legitimacy cannot be demonstrated by feelings.

To me it doesn't. See my previous reply to honorentheos.

[_I have a question]

You tell me, what do you think that proves?

It proves (to the intellectually honest) the Book of Mormons legitimacy cannot be demonstrated by feelings.

To me it doesn't. See my previous reply to honorentheos.

But we can't both be right. So one of us is wrong.
When two subjective experiences (assume mine was as unmistakeable as yours) contradict each other what should be used to differentiate?

[_Starbuck]

Let's try and organize this discussion a little bit.

If we take your first ordered item, "The Book of Mormon is true history", IHAQ may consent to us deconstructing his counter-postulate and stating, "The Book of Mormon is not true history."

Since the two postulates can’t both have the truth-value of being true, and we’ve accepted that knowledge requires justification of one’s belief, perhaps we can look at what one relies on to do the heavy lifting?

Your postulate is carried, in your own words, by this:
I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, or by a personal revelation from God to myself that it is true.

Your justification for your belief (in order to determine if it is true and therefore qualifies as actual knowledge) appears to be a feeling that you subjectively experienced. Ok.

Not OK! The witness of the Holy Ghost is not "a feeling subjectively experienced". It is truth communicated by the Spirit of God to the soul. It is the surest way of knowing something. The witness or assurance thus obtained cannot be transferred or communicated to someone else; it can only be obtained firsthand from God. But that does not make it any less objective than any other way of obtaining knowledge.

The counter-proposition that the Book of Mormon is not true history includes:

Claims that the New World peoples had technologies and cultural artifacts not found in the archeological record. This includes weapons, armaments, metallurgy of a type not found in the Americas before the European discoveries. It includes crops, construction practices, population sizes, militaries of a size not seen in the old world outside of China, domesticed animals, a monetary system…all of which are not attested in the historical record.

It also describes Jaredite submarines, the introduction of the honey bee, magic glowing rocks. It proclaims Christianity was a major religion in the Americas before Christ was even born though neither Judaism or Christian beliefs are evidence in the anthropological surveys of past American cultures.

It does, on the other hand, include many cultural beliefs about the native americans popular in the 19th century that have been proven wrong. It includes theological arguments and proposes resolutions for these problems that were common to the time of Joseph Smith. It takes 19th century theories about the archeological record and codifies them into a narrative claimed to be authentitic. But since these theories have been overturned it appears completely justified to see their presence in the Book of Mormon as evidence of 19th century origin.

If justification is required for a belief to also be reasonably considered true, and for a person to be able to claim knowledge, it seems the counter-postulate, “the Book of Mormon is not true history” is the reasonable one with a truth-value of “true”.

Your counter argument, zerinus?

Absence of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against something. Archaeology can only prove that something existed; it cannot prove that something did not exist. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from archaeology.

Absence of evidence is exactly what it states. I have no reason to believe the claim of history if you can not provide evidence. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. If you can provide reliable archeological evidence that the history of the Book of Mormon happened as it is written, I am willing to change my mind.

[_honorentheos]

Your postulate is carried, in your own words, by this:
I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, or by a personal revelation from God to myself that it is true.

Your justification for your belief (in order to determine if it is true and therefore qualifies as actual knowledge) appears to be a feeling that you subjectively experienced. Ok.

Not OK! The witness of the Holy Ghost is not "a feeling subjectively experienced". It is truth communicated by the Spirit of God to the soul. It is the surest way of knowing something. The witness or assurance thus obtained cannot be transferred or communicated to someone else; it can only be obtained firsthand from God. But that does not make it any less objective than any other way of obtaining knowledge.

Your justification for your belief comes from "the Spirit of God" communicating truth to your soul.

How do you demonstrate this? You don't. You just tell us that it happened. How does this outweigh the counter evidence that is accessible to everyone?

You aren't overwhelming the justifications for the counter-proposition here, zerinus.

Absence of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against something. Archaeology can only prove that something existed; it cannot prove that something did not exist. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from archaeology.

The thing is, archeological evidence demonstrates something existed at the time claimed and the places claimed for the Book of Mormon and they don't match up. The claims of the Book of Mormon do match up with theories, since falsified, about the native americans present in the 19th century.

You lack evidence for your claims. The Book of Mormon isn't evidence, it's a proposition, remember? The evidence for this proposition is in conflict with the evidence available. Your proposition appears to have a truth-value of being false.

[_I have a question]

deleted