The problem with Limited Geography,

[creekster]

As UD, and Arch and tooblue and still others have pointed out, the key here isn't the factual witness but the spiritual witness. Even with the plates in hand it might be like reading a Mayan codex but it will still not be true in a meaningful way to him or anyone (sorry if my deep emotional attachment to SU is showing again).

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by scottie

The same could be said of the current believers -- if presented with proof against the LDS Church, the believers would shift to something else and I suspect their belief wouldn't change one bit. (Cognitive Dissonance)

That's absolutely correct, and in fact, it has happened.

Look at the discussions we have about Blacks and the Preisthood, Joseph Smith's practice of Polygamy, The Lost pages of the Book of Mormon etc...

Every time something comes up where someone might say, "ah ha! now you must conceed that your church isn't true." We shift the focus to matters of spiritual witness which, in the end, is all that matters.

The less focus one's testimony has on factual evidence, the better!

[Solon]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

The less focus one's testimony has on factual evidence, the better!

I hope you're kidding. If not, that's a pretty ridiculous statement. The word "testimony" means witness or evidence - facts - that people have seen or heard.

When's the last time you heard someone say, "I believe the teachings of the LDS church are divinely inspired."? Probably never. You hear people saying "I testify," or "I know the church is true." As if they had facts.

In the Deseret News, on Friday August 6, 2004, on page B-3, an article written by Lynn Arave about "FAIR" cited the example of Alex Boye, a black member of the LDS church. Arave wrote, "Boye said to him the LDS Church has been more about principles that help keep him morally clean, rather than about facts and scriptures." This quote amazed me so much I cut it out and put it in a notebook.

We're a church of feelings - not of fact, rational thought, or inquiry. This is an enormous departure from the organization Joseph Smith set up.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Solon

I hope you're kidding. If not, that's a pretty ridiculous statement. The word "testimony" means witness or evidence - facts - that people have seen or heard.

When's the last time you heard someone say, "I believe the teachings of the LDS church are divinely inspired."? Probably never. You hear people saying "I testify," or "I know the church is true." As if they had facts.

In the Deseret News, on Friday August 6, 2004, on page B-3, an article written by Lynn Arave about "FAIR" cited the example of Alex Boye, a black member of the LDS church. Arave wrote, "Boye said to him the LDS Church has been more about principles that help keep him morally clean, rather than about facts and scriptures." This quote amazed me so much I cut it out and put it in a notebook.

We're a church of feelings - not of fact, rational thought, or inquiry. This is an enormous departure from the organization Joseph Smith set up.

When we say, "I know the church is true" we are, in essence, saying that we believe that everything that Joseph Smith said happened happened. We are saying that the Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion is true. President Hinckley even outlined this in a conference talk by saying (and I'm going off of my memory here) "If what Joseph Smith said happened didn't happen, then everything else is irrelevant." He goes on to testify that it did indeed happen, and that because of that, everything else (the BOM, the Priesthood etc) is relevant.

When I bear testimony of the veracity of the Book of Mormon, it is, in part, due to thoughtful prayer and consideration I gave it some years ago. I know the Joseph Smith story. I've read the testimonies of the three witnessess, I believe them to be true. As such, I have a testimony that they are true...and yet I've never held gold plates, I've never seen God or Jesus Christ, and I've never had any number of the experiences he did...yet I believe.

Modern day testimony is based on the idea that these events were facts in Joseph Smith's life. He experienced them, he showed the plates to other witnesses. As a believer, I have to trust that what he says and what they say are true. But if someone were to ask me for proof or evidence, I could not provide it...and neither could anyone else.

My point was simply that when coming to a testimony, if we base it soley on facts (i.e. proof that these people existed, a tangible item, or even DNA) then we are skipping an essential part of having a testimony in the first place; Faith.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

When we say, "I know the church is true" we are, in essence, saying that we believe that everything that Joseph Smith said happened happened. We are saying that the Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion is true. President Hinckley even outlined this in a conference talk by saying (and I'm going off of my memory here) "If what Joseph Smith said happened didn't happen, then everything else is irrelevant." He goes on to testify that it did indeed happen, and that because of that, everything else (the BOM, the Priesthood etc) is relevant.

When I bear testimony of the veracity of the Book of Mormon, it is, in part, due to thoughtful prayer and consideration I gave it some years ago. I know the Joseph Smith story. I've read the testimonies of the three witnessess, I believe them to be true. As such, I have a testimony that they are true...and yet I've never held gold plates, I've never seen God or Jesus Christ, and I've never had any number of the experiences he did...yet I believe.

Modern day testimony is based on the idea that these events were facts in Joseph Smith's life. He experienced them, he showed the plates to other witnesses. As a believer, I have to trust that what he says and what they say are true. But if someone were to ask me for proof or evidence, I could not provide it...and neither could anyone else.

My point was simply that when coming to a testimony, if we base it soley on facts (i.e. proof that these people existed, a tangible item, or even DNA) then we are skipping an essential part of having a testimony in the first place; Faith.

But "faith" and "testimony" have different meanings; they represent different degrees of knowledge and belief. I know how LDS use the word testimony, but it's engendered a culture of "fact," "knowledge," and "proof" when what religion is really about is "faith," "belief," and "hope."

I've never heard a Catholic say, "I know the Catholic church is true." It doesn't make sense. Other Christian religions don't have to go out on this limb. All they say is "I believe Jesus died for my sins" or similar, and that's good enough. Mormons think they have a monopoly on truth, and they've put their eggs into that basket with the whole "If Joseph Smith is false, the whole shebang is false" mentality. Nobody is all true or all false. It's a precarious position, to claim to "know" things that we just believe very strongly.

So, we end up with fiascos like Ferguson's digs in Mexico, or the pictures of Maya buildings at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. As SIEQ notes above, the church powers-that-be might be shifting away from these bold claims, but it's going to take awhile, and it will never go away as long as we continue to employ the rhetoric of fact in a discussion on faith.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, let's get it on the table--what proof is necessary regarding the historicity of the book of Mormon, for SU to believe it is history, or what it says it is.

We know the Bible has been around at least since King Saul and/or King David. Regardless of its "historicity" the book is a 2,500 year old artifact. You can debate endlessly about the Bible's historicity, and there's a lot to talk about.

I'll give the Book of Mormon this much: It's a roughly 170-year-old artifact. That's all we have. It gave rise to the LDS movement and that deserves a lot of consideration. But there's nothing to talk about before some 170 years ago, and anything more is just a hustle. Prove me wrong.

I also concede this much: Like Sterling McMurrin I don't believe the world works in the way Joseph described, heavenly visitors and gold books, etc.

I will concede this much: I've finally found an honest apologist. Indy: "You asked for a mustard seed and I gave you one. What's your problem?" LOL.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

But "faith" and "testimony" have different meanings; they represent different degrees of knowledge and belief. I know how LDS use the word testimony, but it's engendered a culture of "fact," "knowledge," and "proof" when what religion is really about is "faith," "belief," and "hope."

I've never heard a Catholic say, "I know the Catholic church is true." It doesn't make sense. Other Christian religions don't have to go out on this limb. All they say is "I believe Jesus died for my sins" or similar, and that's good enough. Mormons think they have a monopoly on truth, and they've put their eggs into that basket with the whole "If Joseph Smith is false, the whole shebang is false" mentality. Nobody is all true or all false. It's a precarious position, to claim to "know" things that we just believe very strongly.

So, we end up with fiascos like Ferguson's digs in Mexico, or the pictures of Maya buildings at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. As SIEQ notes above, the church powers-that-be might be shifting away from these bold claims, but it's going to take awhile, and it will never go away as long as we continue to employ the rhetoric of fact in a discussion on faith.

I have no issue with expressions of faith. Who could? What I can't abide is treating the Book of Mormon as if it were some kind of a history book.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

We know the Bible has been around at least since King Saul and/or King David. Regardless of its "historicity" the book is a 2,500 year old artifact. You can debate endlessly about the Bible's historicity, and there's a lot to talk about.

I'll give the Book of Mormon this much: It's a roughly 170-year-old artifact. That's all we have. It gave rise to the LDS movement and that deserves a lot of consideration. But there's nothing to talk about before some 170 years ago, and anything more is just a hustle. Prove me wrong.

I also concede this much: Like Sterling McMurrin I don't believe the world works in the way Joseph described, heavenly visitors and gold books, etc.

I will concede this much: I've finally found an honest apologist. Indy: "You asked for a mustard seed and I gave you one. What's your problem?" LOL.

what would it take for you to accept the Book of Mormon on the same level you accept the bible?

a carving like your avatar with the detail of Lehi's dream?

How about fair skin indigineous people?

Some ancient hebrew inscribed on a wall?

you seeing the golden plates?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have no issue with expressions of faith. Who could? What I can't abide is treating the Book of Mormon as if it were some kind of a history book.

I concur.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I will concede this much: I've finally found an honest apologist. Indy: "You asked for a mustard seed and I gave you one. What's your problem?" LOL.

I merely supplied a handful of examples to show there is strong circumstantial evidence that there were ancient ties between the Middle East and South/Central America. I didn't explicitly try to tie it to anything specific in the Book of Mormon. I'm not sure how much apologism that amounts to.