• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Religious Book Exchange

Personal spiritual events can be very strong experiences. However, there comes a point at which one has to start scratching ones head about things like this. It's important, first to realize that feelings in peoples hearts didn't begin with the Book of Mormon.

As stated above, Smith and his followers have made several claims which are directly contradicted by evidence. DNA analysis proves that Native Americans are not descendants of Hebrew sailors. Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Egyptian facsimiles that became the Book of Abraham are wrong in every respect. There is not one single shred of evidence for a pre-Columbian civilization matching the Nephites, Lamanites, etc.

If this is supposed to be Universal Truth, shouldn't the old law maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply (false in one, false in all)? Yet it's not just one falsehood.

Other red flags exist as well. There's a passage in the BOM about how many won't believe Smith's revelation, the golden plates are not available for scrutiny anymore, etc. There just seems to be an awful lot of explaining away.
 
Thank you Tanstaafl for putting it a bit more elegantly than I did.

rcronk you have to understand that the people here implictly/explicitly mistrust their own limited sense of understanding. We come here to try and figure out how to make our thinking more in line with the way things really are; not how we experience them.
 
While I continue to work my way through the doctrines & covenants, I've been thinking about how to explain why I can't approach this with the type of open mind that you (rcronk) ask for. I think you probably would like me to read this with the idea that the truth or falsity of the BOM and the D&C is somewhere around a 50-50 proposition, that is, the chances of them being true are somewhere near equal to the chances that they are false. This is not the case here, though.

The best I can come up with is to say that as a skeptic, I have to prefer (all else being equal) a simpler explanation over a more complex one, and an explanation that doesn't violate any known physical laws over one that calls upon the supernatural.

So with that in mind, I think the basic question of the veracity of the Book of Mormon comes down to two competing hypotheses. There may be others I can't think of, but I imagine any others would probably just be refined versions of these.

1)
God (a being for which we lack evidence) sent an angel (for which we lack evidence) to lead Joseph Smith to the gold plates (for which we lack evidence). God then gives Smith the magical power to translate an unknown ancient language (fwwle*) on the plates (which few ever see, and which are long since "lost") to English. It tells of a migration of Hebrews to America (fwwle) and tells of the kingdoms they established (fwwle) and the battles they fought (fwwle). Some people, upon reading this translated story, get a warm and fuzzy feeling, which we are told proves that it's true.​

OR

2)
Joseph Smith lied.​

Hopefully you can understand the problem we have being open to the possibility that the story is true.

* I got tired typing "for which we lack evidence"
 
cyborg - fair enough. I mistrust my own limited sense of understanding also. I guess what I'm saying is that the only reason I can trust the experiment is because it came from outside of me - it was different than other emotional or logical experiences. It's as difficult to explain what salt tastes like to someone who's never tasted it I guess.

tanstaafl - I understand what you're saying. There is actual evidence that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon (BofM) and that the many authors in the book were separate individuals. The evidence comes from fingerprinting the various authors' styles of writing along with Joseph Smiths. There are also 11 additional witnesses who have seen the plates, 3 of which saw the angel - all 11 testify at the beginning of the BofM that it is all true. There are a few sections in the BofM copied from the Nephite version of the old testament. In a quote from Isaiah, the Greek (Septuagint) has "ships of the sea." The Hebrew has "ships of Tarshish." The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase. There is also chiasmus in the BofM. The "Joseph Smith lied" hypothesis is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Go poke around www.fairlds.org and see.
 
P.S. Here's a link to an article about some "wordprinting" studies (I called it fingerprinting above) done on the Book of Mormon by both LDS members and non-members.
 
Well, I've been slacking off.

I have been trying to read 10 sections of the D&C each evening, but I got distracted by other things last night. Hopefully I'll get through at least 20 over the course of the weekend.

I'm really looking forward to the part about the garments, I hope that's in there somewhere.
 
Ryokan said:
and the English in the Book of Mormon is quite archaic.
Click to expand...

Technically, not really, because it isn't grammatical. It's sort of a pseudo-Elizabethan version, almost as if a 19th century fellow with no real knowledge of archaic grammar was trying to imitate the language of the King James Bible.

However, I digress. This is actually an interesting thread, and I probably shouldn't derail it with minor quibbles about the likely history of the origin of the Book of Mormon. It seems that the real point is that holy books tend to have common themes. I may even try to find a suitable book and participate in a nearly sincere way on this thread.


If I do, I think I'll choose the Havamal.
 
rcronk said:
cyborg - fair enough. I mistrust my own limited sense of understanding also.
Click to expand...

Hmm....

I guess what I'm saying is that the only reason I can trust the experiment is because it came from outside of me
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're still assuming that your explanation for what you saw 'outside of you' was indeed accurate. You are assuming that when you see other people acting in some way your interpretations of the reasons for why they are doing it are accurate.
 
Well, I'm still pluggin' away.

Through section 40 now. Something like... 98 to go.
 
rcronk, you still around?

I'm back from the hellhole that is Turkey. There was a heat wave on, and the temperature was 58C/136F at it's highest. Not very good for a Norwegian like me. I also had the strangest adventure involving a Turkish pimp named Ahmed, his driver Ali, a dozen Russian prostitutes and, to my great surprise, my now fiancè Fatima.

I brought the BoM, but sadly had no time to even open the book. But I have all of july off, so I'll get to it pretty soon.
 
tanstaafl - I don't believe it talks about garments but if you have questions, I might be able to help you.

meadmaker - Welcome, let us know when you've started reading.

cyborg - Unfortunately you're still assuming that my explanation for what I saw 'outside of me' was indeed inaccurate. That's fine. I'm not here to convince you of anything. You can decide to try the experiment or not and whatever you choose is fine.

Ryokan - I'm still here. Welcome back from 136F. The hottest I've been in is Arizona at 122F. You get used to it after a year or two but it's still really hot. It sounds like you could write an interesting book about your trip experience!
 
Okay, I'm really curious where the whole thing about the garments came from. I've heard bits and pieces about it.

So...

How and where was the exact design for them decided?

What is the rationale for them?

Are they still required today? (I think so.)

Are there situations where they are not required to be worn?

Thanks in advance.
 
rcronk said:
cyborg - Unfortunately you're still assuming that my explanation for what I saw 'outside of me' was indeed inaccurate.
Click to expand...

And I have many good reasons to believe that - number one being that the BoM is, to me, obviously not the work of a supreme being. Certainly not one I could give any respect to anyway.

That's fine. I'm not here to convince you of anything. You can decide to try the experiment or not and whatever you choose is fine.
Click to expand...

rcronk - if the experiment is not designed to convince me via some mechanism that you expect to be implemented in some similar way as it occurred to you then just what is the experiment for?

Since you aren't going to change your mind about anything no matter how many experiments are performed and what their results are I am still perplexed about what it is you think you are going to achieve here.

Frankly I think you are being dishonest - be it intentionally or not.
 
tanstaafl - I could give you my own answers to your questions, but I think I'll search around a bit and give you a more complete answer soon.

cyborg - I'm here to invite people who are willing to think outside of their box - to try another way of acquiring knowledge. That's all. I only invite people to do this because I have found it to be beneficial in my own life. If someone else can benefit from it, great. And, no, I'm not perfect. Don't let my own imperfections get in your way.
 
rcronk said:
cyborg - I'm here to invite people who are willing to think outside of their box - to try another way of acquiring knowledge. That's all.
Click to expand...

Well I already know how to read.

I only invite people to do this because I have found it to be beneficial in my own life.
Click to expand...

This I find a dishonest statement - if I said I read up on Egyptian mythology and found it beneficial in my life you would think I was being stupid.

This isn't solely about some pragmatic system of some notion of benefit. I don't see you promoting Scientology et al.

As far as you are concerned if it ain't Mormonism then there's no real benefit.

The fact that you cannot see that this is how others view you through their respective belief systems and I can is what is different about you and I.
 
cyborg - If you think this is just about reading, you've missed the point of this thread. If you think I think Mormonism is the only place to find truth, you haven't been reading the thread. If you think the changes in my life that have come through this experiment are equivalent to changes that might come through studying Egyptian mythology, you don't know me. Are you going to pick a book or argue?
 
rcronk said:
cyborg - If you think this is just about reading, you've missed the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

So when I read one of your books from your proposed list what new method of knowledge gathering am I supposed to attain?

If you think I think Mormonism is the only place to find truth, you haven't been reading the thread.
Click to expand...

My dear rcronk I don't think Mormonism is such a place at all.

If you think the changes in my life that have come through this experiment are equivalent to changes that might come through studying Egyptian mythology, you don't know me.
Click to expand...

That statement would pretty much confirm what I suspect about you.

Are you going to pick a book or argue?
Click to expand...

If this is an experiment you really are going to have to define what it is you actually expect - what exactly do you expect to happen to me upon reading one of your proposed books? What do you expect it to be different than what has happened upon reading similar books in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom