Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Autodidact]

Why does it make it useless?

I can read it and find much meaning within it's pages. Why does my understanding have to be qualified by the translator?

As an English major, author's intent was the last thing on my mind when analyzing a text for meaning.

The BoM says that certain things happened, and they clearly didn't. Mormon apologists now are tending to take refuge in ambiguity ("horse" doesn't mean "horse"), vagueness (an unknown number of people from an uncertain origin settled an unknown location and eventually met an unknown end) and, of course, the ever-popular faith-based assumption (we know by faith that it is true, therefore the evidence will come in the future.) By the time you get done assuming that the Book doesn't mean what it says, you have to ask what is the point of such a book? Smith clearly thought it meant what it says. If a book is so unclear that you cannot even know whether it is meant to mean what it says, it's so unreliable even in its very intent, that it's useless.

To use Francine's example, we know what Dune is meant for, and it's not history. If we don't even know whether the BoM is meant to be history or myth, what's the point? and btw, as myth, it sucks rocks. I mean, the guy can't write for beans.

 

[Autodidact]

Why does it make it useless?

I can read it and find much meaning within it's pages. Why does my understanding have to be qualified by the translator?

As an English major, author's intent was the last thing on my mind when analyzing a text for meaning.

I submit that a translator's job is quite different from that of a literary critic; the translator's job is to communicate the author's intent in a different language.

 

[Autodidact]

What say you, Mormons? nutshell says the BoM is not meant to be factual. I'm guessing he would say that it contains spiritual truths or is allegory or something of that nature, but is not meant to be an actual history of actual people in an actual place. Do you agree?

I will just say that it doesn't read that way. I mean, if there's any spiritual truths in there, he sure buried them in a few zillion pages of "And so it came to pass that Oddname, the son of Oddername, raised up an exceedingly great army...zzzz" What kind of spiritual truths are those?

 

[Katzpur]

Autodidact, there is one thing that I'm still in the dark about. You seem to be genuinely committed to disproving the Book of Mormon. In thinking about it, it seems to me that there could be several different reasons for this. Maybe there are even reasons that I haven't thought of. Here's what I'm come up with as possibilities for why you are so determined to prove Mormonism false:

1. You just enjoy debating and find this particular topic to be a fun challenge.
2. You have a real concern that intelligent people are actually falling for this nonsense and feel compelled to talk some sense into them.
3. You have had some bad experiences with Mormons and are using this forum as a means of getting even.
4. You really believe that, given enough time and effort, you can convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you spend so much time debating Mormonism in comparison to other religions. Since you're an atheist, it seems counter-productive for you not to spread yourself around a little more.

 

[Sola'lor]

What say you, Mormons? nutshell says the BoM is not meant to be factual. I'm guessing he would say that it contains spiritual truths or is allegory or something of that nature, but is not meant to be an actual history of actual people in an actual place. Do you agree?

I belive it is factual. I've found many pages with evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. What makes this evidence any less true than the evidence you showed. It doesn't agree with your position?

What I am saying is that until we have absolute 100% knowledge about the ancient Americas the Book of Mormon cannot be disproven through 'evidence.' The reason is that until we reach that point there is always a chance to find more evidnece.

If God is all powerful isn't it possible for him to hid evedence if He chooses. I don't particularly agrtee with this point I just though it could be a possibility.

I will never change my beliefs based on archeological evidence. In short scientists don't have a perfect knowledge of the universe. Until they do there is always the chance they are wrong. The basis of science is finding new information and refining theories to gain knowledge.

I would trust God's perfect knowledge over the best scientists imperfect knowledge any day.

I will just say that it doesn't read that way. I mean, if there's any spiritual truths in there, he sure buried them in a few zillion pages of "And so it came to pass that Oddname, the son of Oddername, raised up an exceedingly great army...zzzz" What kind of spiritual truths are those?

:thud:

 

[fantome profane]

Autodidact, there is one thing that I'm still in the dark about. You seem to be genuinely committed to disproving the Book of Mormon. In thinking about it, it seems to me that there could be several different reasons for this. Maybe there are even reasons that I haven't thought of. Here's what I'm come up with as possibilities for why you are so determined to prove Mormonism false:

What she says is either correct or it is incorrect. Her motives are irrelevant.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you spend so much time debating Mormonism in comparison to other religions. Since you're an atheist, it seems counter-productive for you not to spread yourself around a little more.

As a Mormon yourself, what would you prefer non-Mormons to do? (not that it is up to you, but I’m genuinely curious.) Would you prefer that they a) spend a significant amount of time studying and analyzing Mormon beliefs, or b) ignore Mormon beliefs and just leave you alone?

 

[Katzpur]

What she says is either correct or it is incorrect. Her motives are irrelevant.

I never said they were relevant, fantome. My comments were not intended to be part of the debate. It was merely out of curiousity that I asked.

As a Mormon yourself, what would you prefer non-Mormons to do? (not that it is up to you, but I’m genuinely curious.) Would you prefer that they a) spend a significant amount of time studying and analyzing Mormon beliefs, or b) ignore Mormon beliefs and just leave you alone?

If I would prefer that they just leave us alone, I wouldn't be here. I would much prefer that they study Mormon beliefs, and I really like a good debate. I would think that would be obvious by now. But these same issues have been raised so many times before and we have addressed them so many times before, that it looks to me as if it's gotten to where autodidact is simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

There's a point at which it becomes a waste of time to argue, and we reached that point long ago. There was a thread on this topic a month ago that ended up having over 1000 posts and almost 10,000 views. I'm just curious as to why we're doing it all over again. And incidentally, we're not even debating the OP any more.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact, there is one thing that I'm still in the dark about. You seem to be genuinely committed to disproving the Book of Mormon. In thinking about it, it seems to me that there could be several different reasons for this. Maybe there are even reasons that I haven't thought of. Here's what I'm come up with as possibilities for why you are so determined to prove Mormonism false:

1. You just enjoy debating and find this particular topic to be a fun challenge.
2. You have a real concern that intelligent people are actually falling for this nonsense and feel compelled to talk some sense into them.
3. You have had some bad experiences with Mormons and are using this forum as a means of getting even.
4. You really believe that, given enough time and effort, you can convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you spend so much time debating Mormonism in comparison to other religions. Since you're an atheist, it seems counter-productive for you not to spread yourself around a little more.

It's a little bit of 1, 2 and 4, but not 3 at all. In fact my experiences with Mormons have been uniformly positive. In general, I'm very interested in the truth, and in critical thinking. All "revealed" religions are prone to being false, or have no way to check or verify that they're true, but the more obvious and falsifiable ones are particularly interesting, from a purely scientific point of view, and in the same way rather galling. I would include here examples like Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, YEC, the Unification Church, and Mormonism. The fact that millions of people can be persuaded to believe obviously silly and false things is both fascinating and appalling. I enjoy urging these people to compare their beliefs to reality, to see what the result is. Examining a particular case has helped me learn about how religions and the religious mind work.

Debating with Mormons is comparable to debating with YEC's, which I also do a lot. There is a similar ability to defend the faith-based belief system from the findings of science, which eventually results in a rejection of science and empiricism itself. Often too you will uncover an odd, post-modernist constructivism, in which anyone can believe anything with no justification, and true knowledge is not possible. I find this epistemological stance disturbing and dangerous. Well, the anti-science position is equally disturbing, actually.

In general, I have gained myself a free university level education by arguing with people on the internet and researching what I need to support my argument, which is the origin of my name, Autodidact. (self-taught)

You?

 

[Autodidact]

I belive it is factual. I've found many pages with evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. What makes this evidence any less true than the evidence you showed. It doesn't agree with your position?

Well, let's look at them. Are they from credible, unbiased sources, from reputable archeologists? Or from Mormon apologists with an agenda? Do non-Mormon archeologists, whose sole goal is to learn about the people of the Americas, find the same thing? Bring them forth and let's look at them.

What I am saying is that until we have absolute 100% knowledge about the ancient Americas the Book of Mormon cannot be disproven through 'evidence.' The reason is that until we reach that point there is always a chance to find more evidnece.

And what I am saying is that this is fundamentally anti-scientific, because it is intrinsically impossible to ever have absolute 100% knowledge about anything in the natural world. (only math ever achieves this degree of certainty.) So you have constructed an artificial barrier against having to admit the facts, or reality, into your mind-set. I submit that you do not do this anywhere else in your life. That is, we do not have 100% certainty that you can live without food, that the floor will be there when you get out of bed in the morning, that your job will still be there when you drive to work, and so forth. It is just not possible to know 100% or to have 100% certainty about the real world. Everywhere else you accept 90%, 99%, or 99.99%. Why impose this impossible requirment--100%--only in this one area? It is your defense of your faith, which you are not willing to subject to the rigors of inquiry. (although many Mormon leaders have urged you to do just that.)

If God is all powerful isn't it possible for him to hid evedence if He chooses. I don't particularly agrtee with this point I just though it could be a possibility.

Yes, an all powerful but evil and dishonest God could have created the entire universe last Tuesday and made it look as if it had been here all along, just to play with your mind. Is that the kind of God you worship?

I will never change my beliefs based on archeological evidence. In short scientists don't have a perfect knowledge of the universe. Until they do there is always the chance they are wrong. The basis of science is finding new information and refining theories to gain knowledge.

Then why did you ask me to give it to you, if it won't make any difference. This is a classic example of a closed mind.

I would trust God's perfect knowledge over the best scientists imperfect knowledge any day.

But how would you get God's perfect knowledge, and how would you know when you had it? Wouldn't looking honestly and with an open mind at His creation be the best way?

 

[Autodidact]

I never said they were relevant, fantome. My comments were not intended to be part of the debate. It was merely out of curiousity that I asked.

If I would prefer that they just leave us alone, I wouldn't be here. I would much prefer that they study Mormon beliefs, and I really like a good debate. I would think that would be obvious by now. But these same issues have been raised so many times before and we have addressed them so many times before, that it looks to me as if it's gotten to where autodidact is simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

There's a point at which it becomes a waste of time to argue, and we reached that point long ago. There was a thread on this topic a month ago that ended up having over 1000 posts and almost 10,000 views. I'm just curious as to why we're doing it all over again. And incidentally, we're not even debating the OP any more.

Because someone asked me to. Someone, incidentally, who was not here for that thread.

 

[tomspug]

If there was historical and scientific proof that Jesus did not exist, I would certainly question my faith. The truth is, though, that the Bible has shown to be one of the most historically reliable documents. That being said, it's pretty hard to prove that miracles happened and stuff, but all of the facts are there. We KNOW Jesus existed, and we KNOW he was killed by the Roman Government for seemingly no reason. (although there are some MINORITY historians whose sole purpose in life is to find ways for the Bible not to be true)

The Book of Mormon is totally different than the Bible. There has been not one... solitary... historical finding that backs up ANYTHING that Joseph Smith claims to have been revealed to him. His only major revelation was a 'theory' as to where all the native Americans came from, which turned out to be just as wild a theory as any of them were during his day.

Maybe you'd rather have a "faith" that would rather reject intrinsic evidence and science because that makes your "faith" stronger. Most people in reality find stronger faith when history BACKS UP their beliefs much more so than when history proves something not to be true. Imagine that.

Isn't that right? If there were massive archaeological digs that found the ancient Lamaanite civilizations, would that not strengthen your faith? But the Lamaanites NEVER EXISTED! The civilizations described in the Book of Mormon are advanced and cultured, but there is no proof that there has been anything more advanced than the Mayans.

 

[Autodidact]

If there was historical and scientific proof that Jesus did not exist, I would certainly question my faith. The truth is, though, that the Bible has shown to be one of the most historically reliable documents. That being said, it's pretty hard to prove that miracles happened and stuff, but all of the facts are there. We KNOW Jesus existed, and we KNOW he was killed by the Roman Government for seemingly no reason. (although there are some MINORITY historians whose sole purpose in life is to find ways for the Bible not to be true)

The Book of Mormon is totally different than the Bible. There has been not one... solitary... historical finding that backs up ANYTHING that Joseph Smith claims to have been revealed to him. His only major revelation was a 'theory' as to where all the native Americans came from, which turned out to be just as wild a theory as any of them were during his day.

Maybe you'd rather have a "faith" that would rather reject intrinsic evidence and science because that makes your "faith" stronger. Most people in reality find stronger faith when history BACKS UP their beliefs much more so than when history proves something not to be true. Imagine that.

Isn't that right? If there were massive archaeological digs that found the ancient Lamaanite civilizations, would that not strengthen your faith? But the Lamaanites NEVER EXISTED! The civilizations described in the Book of Mormon are advanced and cultured, but there is no proof that there has been anything more advanced than the Mayans.

tomspug: If you want to advocate that the Bible has been archeologically verified, I suggest that you start a thread for this purpose. However, you should probably first either admit you were mistaken when you asserted that science always supports the Bible, or go back and support your assertion, because at this point you have no credibility on this point.

 

[Melissa G]

The bible is reliable history ? that's the almost the funniest thing I've read on here so far. Perhaps you should read: Thompson,Thomas L, 1999, The Bible in History, How writers create a Past, Jonathan Cape, London.

Thompson is a renowed biblical scholar.

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

This again?

To the creator of this thread, this has been hashed over and over and over. There are plenty of threads and then same things keep coming up, over and over again. Instead of making a new one and going through the same thing, read the others.

Do you really think yours is going to be all that different?

 

[Bishka]

I would include here examples like Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, YEC, the Unification Church, and Mormonism. The fact that millions of people can be persuaded to believe obviously silly and false things is both fascinating and appalling. I enjoy urging these people to compare their beliefs to reality, to see what the result is.

Really now?

How is it that you only seem to go against us on this forum?

Would you care to provide any examples of your assertion?

 

[nutshell]

The BoM says that certain things happened, and they clearly didn't. Mormon apologists now are tending to take refuge in ambiguity ("horse" doesn't mean "horse"), vagueness (an unknown number of people from an uncertain origin settled an unknown location and eventually met an unknown end) and, of course, the ever-popular faith-based assumption (we know by faith that it is true, therefore the evidence will come in the future.) By the time you get done assuming that the Book doesn't mean what it says, you have to ask what is the point of such a book? Smith clearly thought it meant what it says. If a book is so unclear that you cannot even know whether it is meant to mean what it says, it's so unreliable even in its very intent, that it's useless.

To use Francine's example, we know what Dune is meant for, and it's not history. If we don't even know whether the BoM is meant to be history or myth, what's the point? and btw, as myth, it sucks rocks. I mean, the guy can't write for beans.

It means different things to different people for different reasons. Who are you to question the validity of the truth they pull from the text?

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for your honesty, Autodidact. I've always kind of wondered why you are so interested in debating the validity of the Book of Mormon. I think I understand you a little bit better now.

It's a little bit of 1, 2 and 4, but not 3 at all. In fact my experiences with Mormons have been uniformly positive.

That's good to know.

In general, I'm very interested in the truth, and in critical thinking. All "revealed" religions are prone to being false, or have no way to check or verify that they're true, but the more obvious and falsifiable ones are particularly interesting, from a purely scientific point of view, and in the same way rather galling. I would include here examples like Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, YEC, the Unification Church, and Mormonism. The fact that millions of people can be persuaded to believe obviously silly and false things is both fascinating and appalling. I enjoy urging these people to compare their beliefs to reality, to see what the result is. Examining a particular case has helped me learn about how religions and the religious mind work.

I'm sure I'm going to feel pretty stupid when I see your answer, but for the life of me I can't figure out what YEC is.

I'd just like to comment on numbers 2 and 4 -- not that you asked.

Re: Number 2 -- I'm not sure what qualifies a person to decide that a belief is "silly," but to an atheist, the beliefs that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God and that this individual eventually rose from the dead have just about got to top the list. I seldom see you debating Christians on those particular topics, even though they are the foundation upon with the faith of 1/3 of the world's inhabitants rests. When I hear someone say that no intelligent person could possible believe such and such, I can't help but think, "But intelligent people do believe that, regardless of whether you think it's utter nonsense or not." St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin weren't stupid. The newest member of the LDS Church's First Presidency has a Ph.D. from Harvard. I can assure you that he's not stupid. A lot of highly intelligent people do believe some of the things you find to be outright silly.

It seems to me that in trying to discover how the religious mind works, you might want to consider that obvious fact. Whenever you are dealing with a religious tradition that has a fairly substantial membership, and particularly if the religion has spanned five or six generations, then there must be something in it that appeals to people who differ vastly from one another in terms of social standing, political persuasion, education and intelligence. Discovering how the religious mind works ought to involve a lot of strategies other than simply telling believers that they're stupid to believe something you don't believe.

Debating with Mormons is comparable to debating with YEC's, which I also do a lot. There is a similar ability to defend the faith-based belief system from the findings of science, which eventually results in a rejection of science and empiricism itself. Often too you will uncover an odd, post-modernist constructivism, in which anyone can believe anything with no justification, and true knowledge is not possible. I find this epistemological stance disturbing and dangerous. Well, the anti-science position is equally disturbing, actually.

And yet, Mormonism has produced a far greater number of world-class scientists than would be expected, given its still relatively small number of adherents. I'm not talking about your average "bachelor's degree scientist." I'm talking biochemists, nuclear engineers, physicists of note -- people who are highly respected among their peers worldwide.

Re: Number 4 -- You're wasting your time. :yes:

In general, I have gained myself a free university level education by arguing with people on the internet and researching what I need to support my argument, which is the origin of my name, Autodidact. (self-taught)

That's great. Seriously. Not many people have your determination.

You?

Uh... Are you asking about my education, my reason for hanging out here on RF, or what?

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

This again?

To the creator of this thread, this has been hashed over and over and over. There are plenty of threads and then same things keep coming up, over and over again. Instead of making a new one and going through the same thing, read the others.

Do you really think yours is going to be all that different?

Sorry, I’m new.

 

[Scott C.]

Ahhh...the joys of being a non-literalist.

I find your non-literalist position to be unorthodox, to put it mildly. But, I'm not trying to be offensive or to insult your position. I'm curious just how non-literal you are. This quote is from JS History:

33 He (Moroni) called me (Joseph Smith) by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;


I consider that quote to be scripture and I accept it literally. Do you?

Do you believe an angel literally came to Joseph Smith and said these words? Did he tell Joseph that the BofM gives "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent and the source from whence they sprang"? If Moroni came and said this, do you believe that he did not literally mean what he said? Do you think the Lord intended for Joseph to misunderstand and to take what Moroni said literally? Do you believe the entire BofM story is like a parable and none of it actually happened? If God wanted to give a new revelation in this manner to Joseph Smith, why would He not make it clear? I'm curious to know if you've thought all of this through and have beliefs on what God revealed, why, and how, and how nearly all members of the church came to see the BofM literally, when that is not what you believe it is. Again, this is not an attack and I am curious. If I'm misrepresenting your views, my apologies, please straighten me out.

 

[nutshell]

I find your non-literalist position to be unorthodox, to put it mildly. But, I'm not trying to be offensive or to insult your position. I'm curious just how non-literal you are. This quote is from JS History:

33 He (Moroni) called me (Joseph Smith) by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;


I consider that quote to be scripture and I accept it literally. Do you?

Do you believe an angel literally came to Joseph Smith and said these words? Did he tell Joseph that the BofM gives "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent and the source from whence they sprang"? If Moroni came and said this, do you believe that he did not literally mean what he said? Do you think the Lord intended for Joseph to misunderstand and to take what Moroni said literally? Do you believe the entire BofM story is like a parable and none of it actually happened? If God wanted to give a new revelation in this manner to Joseph Smith, why would He not make it clear? I'm curious to know if you've thought all of this through and have beliefs on what God revealed, why, and how, and how nearly all members of the church came to see the BofM literally, when that is not what you believe it is. Again, this is not an attack and I am curious. If I'm misrepresenting your views, my apologies, please straighten me out.

I think this discussion will take us away from the OP. Please feel free to cut and paste your post in a new thread and I'll happily answer.