What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[DavyCrocket2003]

What? Are you saying that I have no evidence for my own existence? Do you really want me to start laying out the evidence that I exist? Just for starters, you're welcome to come look.

You want a definition of "evidence?" For starters, it should be accessible to anyone who cares to look. Ineffable, "I can't explain it to you," is not evidence. Do you disagree?

Not really. I can understand your point. But suppose I come and look at you, will it really be evidence that you exist? How can I ever get outside my head and know absolutely for sure that you are real? What is our justification for knowing something? Just because we think we see something, does it necessarily exist in the way that we see it? Doesn't everything pass through the filter of our senses? My question is, what justifies knowing something?

 

[Autodidact]

Of course. As a human, our default beliefs are usually those of our parents.

Appreciate your honesty. You're a refreshing guy.

So, chances are, had you been born in Peshawar, you would now feel about the quran just as you feel about the BoM now. In other words, the same evidence as now supports your belief in the BoM also supports the quran. Your personal faith experience, which is created by the how your parents indocrinated you as a child. To be consistent, you'd have to convert to Islam, no? Doesn't that call the veracity of the BoM into question.

Because, as I was saying, evidence doesn't depend on who's looking at it. If there's a blood spatter on the wall, a Muslim can see it as well as an atheist or a Mormon. If a dial reads 243.7, you can see that in Peshawar and Provo. It doesn't change according to who's looking at it. That's what makes it evidence.

In other words, what you're calling "evidence" isn't evidence at all. It's personal, subjective, experience, based on your default beliefs.

Or, to put it another way, why keep following your default beliefs on automatic? Why not step back and take an objective look and try to figure out what's true (as I have done)? If the BoM is true, wouldn't it survive that?

 

[Autodidact]

Not really. I can understand your point. But suppose I come and look at you, will it really be evidence that you exist?

Yes, it would be very strong evidence.

How can I ever get outside my head and know absolutely for sure that you are real? What is our justification for knowing something? Just because we think we see something, does it necessarily exist in the way that we see it? Doesn't everything pass through the filter of our senses? My question is, what justifies knowing something?

Not "absolutely sure," that's proof, not evidence. It would be extremely strong evidence--the kind you rely on in every area of your life except religion. The same kind of evidence you use for any other decision. It's only in the one area where you were indoctrinated and terrified into conforming your beliefs since you were a small, uncritical child, that you suspend your standards and accept something completely different.

I find that quite soon after I start discussing evidence with religionists, their entire world-view dissolves into post-modernist know-nothingist constructivism. That tells me that for religion to be true, knowledge must be impossible, and reality completely subjective.

Glad I don't live there.

 

[zomg]

Why not step back and take an objective look and try to figure out what's true (as I have done)?

Interesting! How did you end up with being Jewish???

 

[Autodidact]

My question is, what justifies knowing something?

Evidence. The same stuff you use in every area of your life.
"Davy, is it raining out? Should I take an umbrella?"
"Yeah."
"How do you know?"
"I looked out the window."

Sure, it's remotely possible that someone is spraying fake rain on the window just to fool you, but extremely unlikely. We can say, for our usual purposes, that you knew it was raining. You don't have that kind of evidence for your God, or your book. Yet you believe it anyway. There's a fundamental inconsistency there.

And what we atheists and agnostics are saying is, apply the same standard as you yourself use in every area of your life to religion.

 

[Autodidact]

Interesting! How did you end up with being Jewish???

No, I started out Jewish. I'm still ethnically Jewish, but by belief I'm now Atheist. I questioned the religion I was taught as a child, and ended by rejecting it.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Is it the same degree of evidence you would use in some other area of your life, such as medicine or a court of law? Or do you use a completely different, lower standard for religious beliefs?

What if the exact same amount of evidence exists for a completely different set of religious beliefs, would you then believe that?

Mind if I respond? You are getting at the heart of the matter. The evidence used by religious people to support their beliefs is completely different than that used in common, day to day life. It is of a different nature. It is not an observation arrived at through the analysis of sensory input. In a sense you could say that it's all in your head. It is pure knowledge that sinks directly into your mind and heart. It is received into your "soul." There can be no questioning this kind of knowledge because whatever part of us it is that "knows" things, receives light directly from this source. That is why if you ask me, I will say with absolute certainty that I KNOW God exists. You may say I cannot know something I cannot see. I say that there can be nothing surer. I would honestly stake my life on the claim that God lives.

 

[zomg]

No, I started out Jewish. I'm still ethnically Jewish, but by belief I'm now Atheist. I questioned the religion I was taught as a child, and ended by rejecting it.

Right. I read your title and I still brain farted. I'm on a roll today.

 

[Autodidact]

Mind if I respond? You are getting at the heart of the matter. The evidence used by religious people to support their beliefs is completely different than that used in common, day to day life. It is of a different nature. It is not an observation arrived at through the analysis of sensory input. In a sense you could say that it's all in your head. It is pure knowledge that sinks directly into your mind and heart. It is received into your "soul." There can be no questioning this kind of knowledge because whatever part of us it is that "knows" things, receives light directly from this source. That is why if you ask me, I will say with absolute certainty that I KNOW God exists. You may say I cannot know something I cannot see. I say that there can be nothing surer. I would honestly stake my life on the claim that God lives.

And the Muslim who has the exact same experience about Allah and Muhammed?
And the Hindu who has the exact same experience about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?
And the Jew who knows in exactly the same way that God is one, and could not possibly have a son?
Don't they have the exact same "knowledge?"
But their beliefs contradict one another, so they cannot all be true.
To be consistent, you'd have to believe all of them, no?

Unless you think that for some reason your ability to do this magic kind of knowledge is special, and better than people who got indoctrinated in Delhi, Dubai or Denver?

btw, it's enjoyable and refreshing to talk with you. You're more open and honest than many.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Yes, it would be very strong evidence. Not "absolutely sure," that's proof, not evidence. It would be extremely strong evidence--the kind you rely on in every area of your life except religion. The same kind of evidence you use for any other decision. It's only in the one area where you were indoctrinated and terrified into conforming your beliefs since you were a small, uncritical child, that you suspend your standards and accept something completely different.

I find that quite soon after I start discussing evidence with religionists, their entire world-view dissolves into post-modernist know-nothingist constructivism. That tells me that for religion to be true, knowledge must be impossible, and reality completely subjective.

Glad I don't live there.

"[K]nowledge must be impossible, and reality completely subjective." But that isn't what we believe. We believe that true knowledge really can be achieved, that there is absolute truth, and that it is attainable. But that left to our senses, and our senses only, the world is completely subjective. What do you think? Do you believe that we can actually know anything?

 

[Katzpur]

The problem is that Nephi doesn't quote Isaiah.... he quotes the KJV 1611 version of Isaiah. That means that Smith didn't COPY the plates.....he copied the 1611 KJV.

Nobody said Joseph Smith "copied" the plates. He translated them (although the word "transcription" would probably be more accurate). In the case of the 2.5% of the Book of Mormon in which Nephi quotes Isaiah, Joseph was aware of another English translation that was available and decided to use it. It's not a verbatim translation, although much of it is very similar. There are additions and deletions, and in the few instances where the King James translation has been found to contain errors or at least words which may have been translated incorrectly. When these were incorporated into the Book of Mormon, so were the errors. They are definitely too few to warrant ignoring the whole book, or even the roughly 13 pages (of out a total of 531) that are roughly equivalent to parts of Isaiah. If Joseph took some kind of a shortcut, that may not have been the best decision he might have made. It does not, however, indicate that he was out to pass off someone else's words as his own or as the words of another prophet (i.e. Nephi).

SO that means that your BOM is not the golden plates but a rehashed and quoted KJV 1611. The problem with that is that your Mormons have been quoted as saying the Bible in general is so messed up as to not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. IF that is the case and is is stone cold obvious to anyone with a brain that your BOM is also flawed sicne it is copied heavily from the KJv 1611.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Your understanding of the value we place on the Bible is extremely inaccurate. FFH might go along with what you've just said, but I can assure you that the leadership of the Church (either now or in years past) would not. One LDS General Authority described the Bible as "foremost among the Standard Works of the Church," and his statement has been quoted by many others. Not too long ago, Jeffrey R. Holland, one of our Apostles spoke on the Bible at a semi-annual Conference of the Church. Here are a few comments from that talk:

"Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity....

One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? … If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?” We humbly ask those same questions.

Continuing revelation does not demean or discredit existing revelation. The Old Testament does not lose its value in our eyes when we are introduced to the New Testament, and the New Testament is only enhanced when we read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. In considering the additional scripture accepted by Latter-day Saints, we might ask: Were those early Christians who for decades had access only to the primitive Gospel of Mark (generally considered the first of the New Testament Gospels to be written)—were they offended to receive the more detailed accounts set forth later by Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the unprecedented passages and revelatory emphasis offered later yet by John? Surely they must have rejoiced that ever more convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ kept coming. And so do we rejoice....

We love and revere the Bible... The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had.

Thus one of the great purposes of continuing revelation through living prophets is to declare to the world through additional witnesses that the Bible is true. “This is written,” an ancient prophet said, speaking of the Book of Mormon, “for the intent that ye may believe that,” speaking of the Bible. In one of the earliest revelations received by Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “Behold, I do not bring [the Book of Mormon forth] to destroy [the Bible] but to build it up.”

Don't accuse us of believing that the Bible is "so messed up as to not be able to distinguish fact from fiction." We don't believe it is perfect, but we study it as much as we study the uniquely LDS scriptures. We don't sit and pick it apart or try to dismiss huge sections of it as being "wrong" due to errors in translation. We simply recognize two things, which every sincere believer in God would do well to recognize: (1) Where human hands are involved, errors are possible. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Neither book was handwritten, bound and delivered to bookstores by God himself. Neither book is perfect. (2) There is no good reason to assume that everything God has ever said or that all of His interactions with mankind managed to end up between the two covers of one book -- the Holy Bible. The Bible is a valuable source of information about God, but that doesn't mean it's the only valid source of information about God.

Support or retract. name the 12 people and site resources that are not written by J Smith. He is highly suspect when it comes to credentials.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Joseph Smith is not "highly suspect when it comes to credential." You just don't like him or what he taught. There's a difference.

Sometimes in Nephi he quotes Isaiah. But how do you explain the tons of quotes....that have no credit given. He takes stuff from all over the bible and attaches it to a particular book. That's not "quoting" that "creative borrowing" at best.

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Tons of quotes? How about, from those tons of quotes, you provide a half a dozen or so?

I haven't flip flopped a bit. Your boy Smith stole lines from all over the bible and reassembled them into his books. So call it whatever you need to to justify it to yourself that YOUR book is the real deal. The facts scream out that your boy Smith is not honest in his writing abilities. he doesn't quote every line he stole.

You haven't even read the Book of Mormon. You through out statements like "He stole lines from all over the Bible" and provide no evidence to support what you say. The Isaiah portions account for roughly 1/40 of the total Book of Mormon, and is found near the beginning of the book. There are not lines stolen from all over the Bible reassembled in the Book of Mormon. Now it's your turn to come up with some proof.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Unless you think that for some reason your ability to do this magic kind of knowledge is special, and better than people who got indoctrinated in Delhi, Dubai or Denver?

I don't think mine is better, I think it's all the same. I can't provide an in depth response right now because I have class in 5 minutes. For now, I'll just say that I have never found these confirmations to be conflicting. The religious theological contexts in which they were received may disagree to a large extent, but the actual confirmation of truth is always consistent. It always comes from the same source.

btw, it's enjoyable and refreshing to talk with you. You're more open and honest than many.

Thanks.

g2g, be back in a little over an hour. Got to run to CHEM 1210.

 

[zomg]

Not too long ago, Jeffrey R. Holland, one of our Apostles spoke on the Bible at a semi-annual Conference of the Church. Here are a few comments from that talk:

See also- The Miracle of the Holy Bible as given by M. Russell Ballard in April 2007.

How grateful we should be for the Holy Bible. In it we learn not only of the life and teachings and doctrines of Christ, we learn of His Church and of His priesthood and of the organization which He established and named the Church of Jesus Christ in those former days. We believe in that Church, and we believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that same Church, restored to earth, complete, with the same organization and the same priesthood.
Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fulness of His gospel now.
I love the Bible, its teachings, its lessons, and its spirit. I love the Old Testament's compelling, profound stories and its great prophets testifying of the coming of Christ. I love the New Testament's apostolic travels and miracles and the letters of Paul. Most of all, I love its eyewitness accounts of the words and the example and the Atonement of our Savior Jesus Christ. I love the perspective and peace that come from reading the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

"[K]nowledge must be impossible, and reality completely subjective." But that isn't what we believe. We believe that true knowledge really can be achieved, that there is absolute truth, and that it is attainable. But that left to our senses, and our senses only, the world is completely subjective. What do you think? Do you believe that we can actually know anything?

So, once again, you believe two things that contradict each other. On the one hand, you believe that knowledge is impossible, that everything is subjective, and we all construct our own equally valid reality. At the same time you believe that there is absolute truth. When two of your beliefs contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong.

For your beliefs to be correct, two things that contradict each other must both be true. This is impossible. That's how we know your beliefs cannot be correct.

I think we can know lots of things well enough to rely on, as we all do every day. And, as I say, as you do, in every area except religion. Because you have no evidence to support your religion, you suspend your usual standards and accept that "on faith." Again, inconsistent.

I apply the same standard to religion as I do to automotive maintenance, medicine and whether to carry an umbrella. Using that standard, it fails. That's why I'm an atheist.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think mine is better, I think it's all the same. I can't provide an in depth response right now because I have class in 5 minutes. For now, I'll just say that I have never found these confirmations to be conflicting. The religious theological contexts in which they were received may disagree to a large extent, but the actual confirmation of truth is always consistent. It always comes from the same source.
Thanks.

But they contradict each other. There is a difference between Islam and LDS. The muslim believes that Allah is the only prophet. The mormon believes there have been many prophets. Both of these statements cannot be true. Why do you buy yours, not his? In short, why aren't you Muslim? Obviously, because your parents didn't raise you to be one, otherwise you would be. You would believe that Allah is the only prophet, and Joseph Smith delusional or a con-man. The only reason you don't believe this is because of who raised you.

If something is true, it's true in Saudi Arabia and Salt Lake City, and it's true whether your parent's names were Omar and Fatima, or Bob and Flora. Truth doesn't change because of who got to you first.

 

[LittleNipper]

It seems to me the only reason LittleNipper created this thread was to generate antipathy towards Mormonism. Just spreading the hate; first it was homosexuals and now it is Mormons.

I believe one who is searching for truth needs to be aware of what is counterfit and how to judge the difference. Just like "gay" marriage is counterfit to Biblical holy matrimony. I have found that the Book of Mormon is contrary in style and purpose to the Bible. The Bible is about CHRIST. The book of Mormon is about an obscure people of questionable identity without historic purpose. Where holy matrimony is an illustration of CHRIST towards HIS Church, "gay" marriage is all about sexual confusion and personal desire without GOD.

 

[Autodidact]

"gay" marriage is all about sexual confusion and personal desire.

1. Why the quotes? Do you think these people aren't really gay, but just call themselves gay for the many perks?
2. And you know this how? How do you know that same-sex marriage is any more about personal desire than different-sex marriage? Do you know a lot of gay married people? Did you ask them?

 

[LittleNipper]

1. Why the quotes? Do you think these people aren't really gay, but just call themselves gay for the many perks?
2. And you know this how? How do you know that same-sex marriage is any more about personal desire than different-sex marriage? Do you know a lot of gay married people? Did you ask them?

I find that there is little to be "gay" about with concerns to homosexual relationships. There is a desire to have sex. But with hererosexual marriage there can also be a desire to procreate. Homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring...

 

[McBell]

I find that there is little to be "gay" about with concerns to homosexual relationships. There is a desire to have sex. But with hererosexual marriage there can also be a desire to procreate. Homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring...

You still on that old worn out load of bull ****?

 

[McBell]

I believe one who is searching for truth needs to be aware of what is counterfit and how to judge the difference.

Thats just it though.
You have NOT shown anything to be counterfeit.
All you have done is point out differences.

Just like "gay" marriage is counterfit to Biblical holy matrimony.

really?
Seems to me that you take liberties with your bible.
Please present the verse(s) that state that homosexuals are not to get married.

I have found that the Book of Mormon is contrary in style and purpose to the Bible. The Bible is about CHRIST. The book of Mormon is about an obscure people of questionable identity without historic purpose.

It would do you good to actually read the Book of Mormon before you spout of such nonsense and make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Where holy matrimony is an illustration of CHRIST towards HIS Church, "gay" marriage is all about sexual confusion and personal desire without GOD.

too late...

you spouted even more nonsense....