This is just another variant on the 'if you don't believe you can't see" scam. Belief will not produce elephants, horses or steel or any of the other myriad of missing things, though it may produce a delusional belief in the existence of evidence of such items, grounded solely in the premise that you can't prove a negative, which while true, does nothing what-so-ever to actually demonstrate the positive.
Skeptics may see it as a scam, but for many of us it is as obvious as anything else. "Seeing is believing", goes the old adage, but that isn't really true. I have presented photographic evidence, and it doesn't seem to have made a bit of difference. Religious conviction doesn't come from photographs; but from one's efforts to gain a relationship with God. It is only after the trial of one's faith, that faith turns to knowledge.
No. Skeptics can demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that it is a scam ... that is what this thread has been about. Skeptics have repeatedly demonstrated that the Book of Mormon contains anachronisms and falsities that reveal it as the product of a con man at work. That is the elephant standing in the room and it would be generous to say that you have even succeeded in trimming it's nails.
The first step towards receiving revelation is to study the question. There must be a question, and it can't be trivial. When Joseph Smith went into the forest, he wanted to know which church to join. Before he went, he attempted to find the answer for himself by attending various churches, and listening to their views on the Bible. He did his due diligence, but concluded that there was no way for him to find an answer to the problem, as the various churches understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy any hope of an appeal to the Bible.
While you obviously believe that, but give those facts that can be proven, it ppears far more likely that Smith's real question was how to best slake his lust first for other peoples' money and later for other peoples' wives.
The second step towards receiving revelation is to prepare oneself with the proper attitude. One has to be sincere, with real intent. God doesn't respond to people who don't really care about the answer, or who don't intend to do anything with the information. Joseph Smith really wanted to know the truth of the matter, and was willing to join which ever church that God indicated. One must also prepare the mind by remembering the things that God has done to benefit mankind, in order to have a feeling of gratitude.
The third step, is to humble oneself and pray. Joseph Smith selected a private spot in the woods, where he wouldn't be interrupted, and when he had no other chores to do. He chose a peaceful spot where nothing would distract him. Then he knelt down, and prayed outloud, pettitioning God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. In his case, he was immediately attacked by a dark presence that had such power as to stop him from talking outloud. He continued to pray with all of his heart silently, until he was released from the being who had him bound. At that moment, he saw two beings standing above him in the air.
These steps are the basic steps to receive revelation from God, and I believe they will work with almost anyone. I know that they work for me. I haven't seen any visions, but visions are only one form of revelation. There are others. Perhaps the most common is the burning in the bosom, when the Holy Ghost testifies to our heart that something is true. If something is not true, a feeling of emptiness ensues. Less common, is hearing a voice in one's mind. Even less common, is hearing an audible voice. Another type of revelation, requires one to learn the language of the Holy Ghost. This takes a great deal of time and practice.
You are confusing heartburn for revelation, when you get to hearing voices that no one else hears ... that's a problem that can be solved by adjusting the serotonin levels in your brain, though that does take some trial and error to get the dose right.
To answer your second question, the evidence of a relationship between any two people, whether one is God or not, is the exchange of something. We can exchange pleasantries, for example, without much of a relationship at all. We carry groceries to the checkout, at which point the clerk asks for money, and then we exchange the money for the groceries. It isn't very personal, but it is a relationship. Couples exchange intimacies, and talents, and positive energy. My relationship with God is evidenced by my service and devotion to him, and the service and devotion that he has given me. We call it charity, the pure love of Christ. You may ask me what service and devotion God has given me, but it is an intensely personal question, and I am reticent to give a detailed answer. On a daily basis, he encourages me and comforts me. He helps me face life, particularly when I really don't want to. I talk to him, and he talks to me; there is often an exchange of ideas. He has taught me things that I never would have thought of on my own. I bring questions to him, which he usually answers, and I sometimes ask for special favors, which he also grants. I was afraid that my life was over, when I was diagnosed with an incurable and fatal disease. I still had so much more that I wanted to do in life. So I asked for, and received, a special blessing. The disease was taken away entirely. That was 15 years ago. Today, I continue to feel fine. I am deeply grateful, but I am not astonished. I have seen many people with serious ailments healed by the power of a blessing. When the heavens are open, miracles become common place. I have experienced greater things than these, but I can't - won't - share them over a public forum such as this. Go into any LDS meetinghouse, when services are held, and ask the members for their stories; you will find out that my stories are not unusual. You may have trouble believing their stories, but if you look into their eyes, you will know that they believe them.
I too was afflicted, in my youth, with a disease that is almost universally fatal. In spite of the complete absence of prayer, with no available medical treatment, and to the great surprise of everyone concerned, I made a full and complete recovery. It was the luck of the draw, not unheard of, but so passing rare that had I been a believer going in, I'm sure that I'd have seen my complete recovery as you did your's, as a belief reinforcing miracle. That would have been a delusion that would have been hard to escape.
Outhouse is right when he suggests that:
You cannot make excuses for peddling pseudoscience and pseudohistory because of what most call religious mythology.
I would add to that, from personal experience, that you cannot make excuses for peddling pseudoscience and pseudohistory because of some good luck. Your low probability recovery does not produce elephants, horses, steel, etc. In fact, it is just a red herring with no relation to the questions at hand.[/QUOTE]
Harsh. I'm not making excuses. Excuses imply that I have done something wrong. I make no apologies for sharing the things that I know. If one wants to be difficult, they can call any science pseudoscience and any history pseudohistory. Clearly, you want to be difficult. Nothing that I say is going to persuade you that the Book of Mormon is a true history, and nothing that you say is going to persuade me that it isn't.
You are making excuses ... that's what apologetics is at the root ... excuse making. You even recognize that you have done something wrong when you disparage empirical rationality with statements like:
"... nothing that you say is going to persuade me that it isn't."
or:
"... if the Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites had iron swords and that there were horses and elephants, then I believe it."
In other words, you are like Earl Landgrebe, the congressman who famously showed his support of Richard Nixon at the Watergate Hearings by stating, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've got a closed mind."
I've seen too much to be taken in by ill-mannered skeptics. If one tries to scrub LDS history of all revelation, miracles, etc., they will end up with a history that doesn't make any sense, and doesn't relay anything of importance. History is a continual stream of cause and effect. A deer jumps out into the road, the driver swerves, the car hits a tree. Take out the deer, and the remaining events don't add up.
You hit the nail on the head, yet fail to grasp that fact. Mormonism is self scrubbing, it contains, within its own scripture, the "removal of the deer," and thus, taken as a whole, as you say, "the remaining events don't add up." With the falsification of the elephants, the horses, the steel, etc., the remaining events are not to be believed.
