LDS

[Pup]

I am on record as stating that the BoM contains unique spiritual insights. Earlier I listed two or three, which were immediately derided and dismissed. Here are four more, which, I am confident will receive the same treatment, notwithstanding the fact that they are true:*

1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."

That was an idea kicking around at the time the Book of Mormon was written. (The hyperlinks take one to the full context, if anyone's interested.)

From 1818:

"Mercy is an amiable feeling; but mercy at the expense of justice, is no longer mercy, but sinful connivance."

From 1821:

"Christ came into the world to do his Father's will. This was to make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness;--to accomplish the salvation of sinners, by giving his life a ransom for them. This was not to procure the mercy of God; but to satisfy his justice, without which, mercy could have no place; for mercy, at the expense of justice, would be inconsistent with all that the Bible makes known to us of the divine character. The justice of God is as essential, and as amiable an attribute as his mercy; and the law of God is as holy, and as amiable as his gospel."

Closer to home, here it is from a man who preached in New England in Joseph Smith's day. He mentions preaching at revivals in western Massachusetts in 1816-1817 and speaks of the clash between Methodists and Calvinists:

"And while Calvinists and Universalists deny the conditions of salvation by grace, for the sake of maintaining eternal decrees, respecting unconditional election, I must view them as persons deceived in their opinions. And their pleading for sin, and preaching against good works, as they have done, render them suspicious characters. It is not wisdom to extol mercy at the expense of justice; and it is impious to trifle with the justice either of God or man. Universalists so extol the mercy and power of God, that they exclude all punishment, and all retributive justice."

So when Joseph Smith wrote:

"Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, 'Lo, here!' and others, 'Lo, there!' Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."

the argument about mercy at the expensive of justice would have been part of what he heard.

 

[halleyscomet]

I'd like to add, in case it isn't obvious, that I feel no sense of schadenfreude regarding those experiencing crises of faith. It is, after all, something that I, and many others here, have gone through as well.

I vividly remember how I handled a similar situation. Fortunately for me, instead of engaging in self-recriminating "How could I BELIEVE that?" I got angry at the people who, as far as I could tell, had deliberately lied to me in order to prop up their version of Christianity.

I'd decided to use my interest in and understanding of science to be the next Ken Ham. I started researching ways to support Creationism. Like the Mormon archeologist who revealed "The Pearl of Great Price" to be a fraud while trying to prove its authenticity, I soon found that the entirety of Creation "Science" was based upon misinformation, ignorance and in some cases outright lies.

It's not easy to break from the belief system with which you were raised.

 

[halleyscomet]

What does this have to do with the fraudulent origins of the BoA, skyrider44?

It's essentially the same thing as another commenter who insisted she would accept no evidence from "anti-Mormon" sites or sources, and then proceeded to declare the Brigham Young University site "Anti-Mormon" because it hosted an article contrary to the view she was promoting. It's not dissimilar from the Holocaust deniers who dismiss Holocaust survivors with statements like "Jews lie" or misogynists who dismiss feminism by using insulting phrases to refer to women. I did it a bit myself when I was near the end of accepting Creationism "Science" was a pack of fertilizer. Having run out of actual arguments, it's a natural human instinct to turn to hostility and denial.

It's helpful to look at the loss of one's religion as the classic stages of grief:

1. Denial and Isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

It's important to remember that these stages are not a strict progression. People can move back and fourth between them, skip some, get stuck in one or more, or go through them in a different order.

We can see several examples of this in this very thread. For example, science has demonstrated quite conclusively, that the story of Adam and Eve cannot be literal. We also see the repetition of the claim that the Book of Mormon contains unique spiritual insights, even though the poster has so far failed to produce any examples that do not have numerous examples that predate Smith and his authorship of the Book of Mormon. The LDS may have been the first to fuse Freemason ritual with Christian ritual in the same exact way the LDS did it, but Freemason ritual grew out of Christian and Jewish religion and myth to begin with. All Smith did in that regard was take a club activity based ion religion and make it a religious activity.

Two demonstrably wrong arguments, that the BoM has unique insights and that Adam and Eve might have actually existed, are being used to as bargaining chips. It's difficult to tell if the poster is in denial or engaging in bargaining, but we do see the anger in how the poster is dismissive of one critic, using the accusation of being "settled into an atheistic paradigm" as a way to avoid addressing the very real fact that there's no evidence that Adam and Eve were literal people.

It's fascinating to watch, and I hope the poster in question continues posting here after coming to terms with the fraudulent nature of LDS scripture.

 

[Cleon]

skyrider, in your view, why should the "unique spiritual insights" of the BoM/BoA outweigh all the evidence that paints them as fabricated?

Keep in mind that what's convincing to you as a life-long Mormon is not necessarily convincing to those of us who are not. In my case, I studied American archaeology long before I knew anything about LDS beliefs. "Unique spiritual insights" or not, I can't just skip past the glaring contradictions I found in the Book of Mormon. And it certainly isn't going to help the BoA pass muster.

Suppose you picked up a Biology textbook which includes a thorough, detailed description of centaur anatomy. Would you continue reading this book for unique insights, or would you think that it belongs somewhere closer to the Fiction section?

 

[skyrider44]

I asked a question. Because I was curious as to the answer.

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

In the meantime, perhaps you could address whether you believe that the "Adam" and "Eve" of the Genesis account actually, physically, existed...

 

[Pixel42]

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

There is almost never a single issue under discussion in this (or indeed any other) thread, and an answer would have given the rest of us some insight into where you're coming from in your arguments on several of the issues covered in this thread. You didn't have to answer it if you didn't want to, and you certainly didn't need to respond to it with a thinly veiled personal attack on me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Conscience, not consciousness.

Can't have the former without the latter.

 

[RandFan]

I still think we need to distinguish between an "idea" and an "insight". Does the book by L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics, contain spiritual insights and if so, what is their significance? What about the writings of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science? Charles Taze Russell? Ellen White?

Whether we choose to believe them or not, each of these people have provided ideas that their followers believe to be spiritual insights. Does that make the ideas truly insightful?

Personally, I think a book that was in part the result of god speaking to man would contain profound insights. Concepts about the nature of humanity that was not in the public domain.

Scripture, it seems, is primarily a reflection of culture. Take exorcism. At the time of Christ mental pathology was not well understood, if at all. The brain was not known to be the seat of our intentions, conscience, personality and memories. People who were mentally ill were thought to be possessed by demons rather than suffering from an organic defect. There are still parts of this world were being mentally ill can get you labeled a witch or possessed making it possible for you to be tortured and killed.

Why did god send an angel with a fiery sword to compel Joseph Smith to marry multiple women but he said little if anything to advance our understanding of human psychology?

As a devout Mormon these were serious problems for me. For non-believers they are glaring game breakers. If people come here to be compelling then they will need more than declaring that god gave a 14 year old boy gold plates with writing on them. That the boy did not even use the pates as a source (he stuck his head into a hat and looked at a magic rock). Then telling us that the great insights of all of this was that conscience is "the light of Christ". I'm not trying to be dirisive, I'm trying to tell you that this does not have the ring of truth.

 

[skyrider44]

Exactly. . . . all of the various forms of xianist superstitons are equally a-historical, equally unreasonable, equally based on myth and wishful thinking.

You don't know that; you're conjecturing. LDS believe that their living prophet receives revelations from God; hence, that is how what you prejudicially call "superstitions" came about.

In other words, as I have said in other threads, you feel free to invent anything that fits your particular brand of superstition, from institutionalizing racism to telling lies about history, and say that "Jesus is the authority" for whatever you choose to do.

Having constructed a false premise (above), you proceed to build on it. I am less than impressed.

The only source for that claimed "authority" supposed to be granted by Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Chrst" is contentious texts rejected by other xianists.

"The only source"? And that source is "contentious texts"? Your view of LDS historicity is, to be charitable, distorted.

With or without the approval of other xianist groups, the BoA is demonstrably not Abraham's autographic record of his time in Egypt; pre-Colombian Americans are demonstrably not descended form asiatic hebrews; and (as you yourself admitted) there is no practical, objective, empirical evidence of the anachronisms claimed in the BoM to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas.

I have qualified my statements by emphasizing that future discoveries by scientists could render your charges spurious. You appear to think that science is a static discipline.

 

[RandFan]

You don't know that; you're conjecturing. LDS believe that their living prophet receives revelations from God; hence, that is how what you prejudicially call "superstitions" came about.

It is by definition "superstition". Admittedly a pejorative term. One could be charitable and simply call it "religion" but it is by definition superstition. To believe in a god that violates parsimony and the laws of physics is to believe in superstition.

Having constructed a false premise (above), you proceed to build on it. I am less than impressed.

Could you explain how it is false?

"The only source"? And that source is "contentious texts"? Your view of LDS historicity is, to be charitable, distorted.

Could you correct the record?

I have qualified my statements by emphasizing that future discoveries by scientists could render your charges spurious. You appear to think that science is a static discipline.

You appear to think that science fluctuates back and forth. It doesn't. It proceeds along a gradient. Einstein did not overturn Newton's laws of motion.

Science is not likely to ever discover that Newton's laws of motion are wrong.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

Why would you avoid answering fundamental questions about the BoA by invoking a technicality?

 

[halleyscomet]

You're avoiding questions based on how the BoA came into existence. I see where you are "attempting" to make a point...And it's duly noted. But seriously, at the expense of "I was misinterpreted"?

Why would you avoid answering fundamental questions about the BoA by invoking a technicality?

Evasiveness is often preferable to those who lack both an argument, and the courage to admit it.

 

[joobz]

You appear to think that science fluctuates back and forth. It doesn't. It proceeds along a gradient. Einstein did not overturn Newton's laws of motion.

Science is not likely to ever discover that Newton's laws of motion are wrong.

This is an extremely important point.

When one's ideas are evidenced based, and built upon continual refinement, refinements tend to become less and less dramatic.

In other words, the current models fit the current data. New data doesn't wipe out the old data. It only refines it.

If you subscribe to a belief that doesn't fit the current data, there is really no chance that new data that will suddenly make your belief fit.

 

[RandFan]

Why would you avoid answering fundamental questions about the BoA by invoking a technicality?

Evasiveness is often preferable to those who lack both an argument, and the courage to admit it.

Agreed but it would be easier to simply not come to this forum and respond. It's all about the ego. I include myself in that BTW. We mostly argue to convince ourselves and in the process we slowly (very slowly) drive progress forward by changing each others minds incrementally. However, if a person wants to increase the likelihood of convincing skeptics that person will need to be as straightforward and transparent as possible. Obfuscation is not compelling and is a red flag to anyone who understands the difference between logic and sophistry, reason and fallacy.

 

[tsig]

You don't know that; you're conjecturing. LDS believe that their living prophet receives revelations from God; hence, that is how what you prejudicially call "superstitions" came about.



Having constructed a false premise (above), you proceed to build on it. I am less than impressed.




"The only source"? And that source is "contentious texts"? Your view of LDS historicity is, to be charitable, distorted.



I have qualified my statements by emphasizing that future discoveries by scientists could render your charges spurious. You appear to think that science is a static discipline.

In some areas it is.

Hoping that anyone will discover pre Colombian steel, barley or horse fossils is a real long shot to hang your faith on.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thank you for your thoughtfulness in reviving my position re. the role that faith plays in the scientific method. Note the following:

1. "Faith and hope are indispensable parts of every day life, which cannot be lived on a purely rational basis. This even applies to the world of science, for setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope." (Faith and Science, George Ellis)

Hope is not faith. Hope is a desire for a certain outcome. Faith, in the religious context, is belief in something without evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence. I'm quite sure that every biologist and chemical engineer working to cure cancer has a great deal of hope that they will find a way, or combination of ways, to do so. But any belief in a process as a cure that is not supported, or is contradicted by empirical evidence is faith, and has no place in the scientific method. But I can see why Ellis was awarded the Templeton Prize.

2. "So while there can be no doubt as to the impact science has made on modern society, both beneficial and detrimental, and no denying that the majority of people place great faith in it (despite those who claim it cannot be rationally justified), one must question how distinguishable it is from other branches of knowledge such as philosophy and religion." (Philosophy and Science, "The Scientific Method: The Logic of Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Faith")

Could you provide a link to this citation?

The fact that members of the general public, in their ignorance of the scientific method, may be inclined to have faith in it, does not mean that faith is a component of science, or that this places science and religion in the same category of investigative methodologies. I ask for the citation because it would help to know if the author is using the word "faith" in the context of belief without reason to believe, or as a synonym for the word "trust". It's one thing to have trust in something based on evidence, another to have a belief that is not supported by evidence.

3. ". . .what about things like atoms, electrons, and quarks: things not seen in the normal sense of the word but inferred? They are internal parts of the models science builds and taking them to be definite parts of reality is an act of faith [emphasis added]. . . . Following Poincare, I rather take their existence as a matter of convention and convenience. Are they really there. Who knows? (Quantum Diaries, Byron Jennings, "The Role of Faith in Science")

I've looked up the source of your citation and read it. Perhaps you should have as well? This isn't the first time you've linked to an article that actually contradicts your claim.

Byron Jennings writes:

"The answer to the above question depends on what one means by faith. But if the above are examples of faith it is a rather trite use of the word. Indeed, it is a stretch to claim that any of these are examples of faith at all—certainly not in the same sense that faith is used in religious circles: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). To a large extent, faith, in this latter sense, is absent from science. The rules of engagement are well laid out and there is little need for a conviction of things not seen."

Jennings makes it pretty clear that the faith that he is referring to is synonymous with "trust" established by repeated verification. This is a long way from having faith that Joseph Smith was a messenger of God despite the naked evidence of his fraud.

4. "Science seeks understanding. However, faith seeks 'wonderstanding.' I long for the days when people of faith linger in mysteries finding satisfaction not in understanding, but in the unification of 'wonderstanding.'" (The Blog, Victor Udoewa, "The Different Roles of Science and Faith")

How does that establish a role for faith in science? Please explain.

There are dozens of articles in which the authors agree with what is posted above.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. None of the above establish that science requires one to believe in something without evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, as religion so frequently does.

The point of my original post is nicely summarized in 1. above: "Setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope."

But that's not what you said. Others participating in the discussion made clear the definition of faith that they were using. You had ample opportunity to clarify what you meant by "faith".

 

[RandFan]

This is an extremely important point.

When one's ideas are evidenced based, and built upon continual refinement, refinements tend to become less and less dramatic.

In other words, the current models fit the current data. New data doesn't wipe out the old data. It only refines it.

If you subscribe to a belief that doesn't fit the current data, there is really no chance that new data that will suddenly make your belief fit.

It's become a trite fallacy. Along with "they laughed at Columbus and he was right. They laugh at me therefore I'm right".

The strength of science is that there is no dogma. Newton's laws did not rule out refinement due to gravity and the speed of light. In fact, it was because Newton was empirically correct and Newton's laws were in conflict with Maxwell's equations that were also empirically correct that led to Einstein's discovery. It's fair to say that had there not first been the discovery of the laws of motion at the macro level and Maxwell's discoveries we would have never discovered relativity.

Lawrence Krauss details it beautifully in the following lecture. It begins at 15:30



It's very misleading to state that science is always changing without the context for that change. Science is not akin to shifting sand dunes but is much more like an ever strengthening and growing river delta.

 

[skyrider44]

Yes. He's still refusing to respond to the query as to the exact role that faith plays in the scientific method. It would be simple enough to admit error, and this would earn him more respect than he realizes.

Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either disicipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. . . . We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be. --Claudio Bonito, "The Importance of Faith in Science"

 

[Cleon]

Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either disicipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. . . . We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be. --Claudio Bonito, "The Importance of Faith in Science"

I would argue that the highlighted is exactly what Mormon theology does with regard to archaeology, history, and biology.

(Side note: Who the hell is Claudio Bonito?)