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

[Guest]

That is silly.

Selective, relative...it amounts to observer-dependence. You didn't do anything more than offer up a synonym of sorts to try and make is sound like you are talking about something different.

Nope! We make the selection. The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

So produce the crocodile, zerinus. Prove that your subjective crocodile can be an objectively experienced crocodile.

[_Maksutov]

How is it that you demand demonstrable evidence for honorentheos claims, but when you are pressed for evidence of your claims you declare it a waste if time?

Talking to you is a waste of time.

[_honorentheos]

The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

If you tell someone that they will see a crocodile if they do X, y, and z and they do X, y, and z but some do while others don't see a crocodile then your propositional statement was false. If you then claim they must not have done X, y and or z because they didn't see a crocodile your are engaging a logical fallacy to protect your false proposition. Which is what you are doing.

[_zerinus]

If you tell someone that they will see a crocodile if they do X, y, and z and they do X, y, and z but some do while others don't see a crocodile then your propositional statement was false. If you then claim they must not have done X, y and or z because they didn't see a crocodile your are engaging a logical fallacy to protect your false proposition. Which is what you are doing.

Wrong. You are making hypothetical statements​ based on unwarranted assumptions, not on documented observations. That is not how you go about establishing​ truth.

[_honorentheos]

On that we agree but you seem to have a hard time with documented observations that contradict your beliefs. See previous discussion about evidence.

[_Lemmie]

If you tell someone that they will see a crocodile if they do X, y, and z and they do X, y, and z but some do while others don't see a crocodile then your propositional statement was false. If you then claim they must not have done X, y and or z because they didn't see a crocodile your are engaging a logical fallacy to protect your false proposition. Which is what you are doing.

Wrong. You are making hypothetical statements​ based on unwarranted assumptions, not on documented observations. That is not how you go about establishing​ truth.

And yet the highlighted part of your example below begins with an assumption that is not documented.

The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

Your entire premise here rests on an undocumented assumption, while honorentheos said nothing above that was an assumption.

[_mentalgymnast]

If definitions are in dispute and objective experience through the Spirit is considered to be subjective by disbelievers, and thus unverifiable, the believers and non-believers are at an impasse. It's gonna happen every time.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Rhetorical 'brush flourishes' made by competent 'artists' who paint for style or effect, already knowing the end from the beginning...in their mind(s), are a waste of time for the believer to engage.

Nothing can be proved to the "natural man".

Unless a person desires, through faith in Christ, to put off the "natural man" and come to God, no amount of wordplay will prove or disprove anything.

...not every person will receive a spiritual confirmation in exactly the same way. Whereas some may experience a powerful burst of spiritual feeling, others might perceive a subtle but consistent stream of subtle impressions. At one time, a person might receive an answer while on bended knees in solitary prayer, and at another time, may obtain a witness while acting on faith to keep the commandments. Whatever the timing or method, Moroni declared that God only “worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men” (Moroni 10:7). In all cases, it is faith in Jesus Christ that activates the spiritual witness of truth.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-mormon

Common denominator? The natural man needs be cast off and considered a thing of naught. And THAT is a hard thing to do. To be meek and lowly of heart is the major stumbling block for the intelligentsia.

It is difficult for the rich man to see/obtain the Kingdom of God. But not impossible.

It is difficult for the man who trusts exclusively in the intellect/flesh to see/obtain the Kingdom of God. But not impossible.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

MG -

The trouble for both you and zerinus is you've shared a definition of truth which relies on correspondence with the observable world while relying on so-called evidence that is inscrutable to claim your beliefs are justified. It lacks consistency at very fundamental levels.

When D&C 93:14 equates truth to knowledge of what is, was, and is to come it excludes secret knowledge. Things hoped for but unseen are in an entirely different category from those things one can make postulates about claiming they are true and this be justified in a meaningful way.

That means it's not just a question about subjective experiences v. objective evidence. It's about cluttered thinking that supports the claims being used to prop up the Book of Mormon.

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
Nothing can be proved to the "natural man".

This is entirely false. With evidence probabilistic truth can be known by any kind of man or woman.....

[_honorentheos]

If you tell someone that they will see a crocodile if they do X, y, and z and they do X, y, and z but some do while others don't see a crocodile then your propositional statement was false. If you then claim they must not have done X, y and or z because they didn't see a crocodile your are engaging a logical fallacy to protect your false proposition. Which is what you are doing.

Wrong. You are making hypothetical statements​ based on unwarranted assumptions, not on documented observations. That is not how you go about establishing​ truth.

And yet the highlighted part of your example below begins with an assumption that is not documented.

The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

Your entire premise here rests on an undocumented assumption, while honorentheos said nothing above that was an assumption.

I appreciate you pointing this out, Lemmie. What I found funny when it comes to this particular strand of the thread is that zerinus kept shifting the goal posts, too.

Watch his train of thought descend after each point is challenged as he tries to redefine what he had said before to maneuver around a problem with his earlier statement:

I have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That means that I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, or by a personal revelation from God to myself that it is true. By "true" I mean all of the following:

• It is true history.
• It was revealed by an angel.
• It was translated by the power of God.
• It teaches correct doctrine.
• It is scripture.
• It is the word of God.

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 never claimed to be able to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. I can only bear witness that I know it is true. The proof can only come direct from God.

I can justify it for myself. It doesn't mean that I can prove it to you.

That also depends on the "observer". Some people can observe things that others can't. Moses saw God face to face. So did Abraham and Joseph Smith. That does not happen to everybody. That does not mean that for those who experienced it, it was not real, or that we cannot believe and accept their experiences to have been real. It can be observed, but not always by everyone.

Me: Observer-dependent truths are relative truths. You didn't like those, remember?
They are not relative. They are selective. They are available to everyone who is willing to fulfil the conditions. The promise of the Book of Mormon is not "relative". It is dependent on whether we fulfil the conditions. Some do, and some don't.

Nope! We make the selection. The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

He didn't seem to realize his early contentions that some people can gain special knowledge or have special abilities to "observe" spiritual things that others just can't created a problem. He was just passing on a Sunday School answer that sounds good because it's always safe to answer, "Follow the Prophet!" to any question asked in Sunday School.

Anyway, he and MG probably don't know why using D&C 93 kinda blew up in the face of their testimony bearing but that's ok. There are far more obvious things they seem oblivious to that matter more.