quote:Without evidence, is it reasonable to believe in the IPU?
Without evidence, it is just as reasonable to believe the IPU exists as it is to believe the IPU doesn't exist.
For any proposition P, if there is no evidence at all concerning P, then it is just as reasonable to believe P as it is to believe NOT P.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it isn't. If you don't understand basic epistemology, could you at least read the posts I've made?
There is not a 50% chance that Jupiter is populated with 30 foot high talking purple dogs who are all named Steve.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:bev, I figured that if I carried it out more that the background I was coming from would become clear, but if you still want an explicit explanation, I can give it to you.
Nah, it's cool. I still think that what I said is important, but it may not be important to the point that you are making. I have never at any point claimed that it can be proved that there is, indeed, a God. At least, not at this point. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but the difference between Tres' post and Squick's post lies in the question of what constitutes admissible evidence. Tres says, I think, that his knowledge of accepted scientific theories suggests that Jupiter is not populated by 30' talking purple dogs, and that these theories constitute evidence.
quote:For any proposition P, if there is no evidence at all concerning P, then it is just as reasonable to believe P as it is to believe NOT P.
I think this statement is useless as an axiom, and in any case I wouldn't extend the question of existence to apply this broadly. I've restricted my statements to existence or non-existence precisely because I don't think they apply for any proposition P. And why should they? We don't need an axiom this universal, we're talking about a fairly specific set of questions here.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres says, I think, that his knowledge of accepted scientific theories suggests that Jupiter is not populated by 30' talking purple dogs, and that these theories constitute evidence.
That's exactly what I was going to say to Mr. Squicky. But why would this not be considered evidence? If it's something that I believe which makes it unlikely that P is true, then it should be considered evidence. If you don't want to term it "evidence" I guess that is okay, but whatever you do want to call it, it is that which distinguishes that which it is logical to believe in and that which it is logical to not believe in.
Either way, the deciding factor is not a principle that we should always believe nonexistence until evidence is given. It is these other beliefs of ours, whether you call them "evidence" or something else, that determine whether we should or should not believe in the existence of something.
quote:I think this statement is useless as an axiom, and in any case I wouldn't extend the question of existence to apply this broadly. I've restricted my statements to existence or non-existence precisely because I don't think they apply for any proposition P. And why should they? We don't need an axiom this universal, we're talking about a fairly specific set of questions here.
It's useful as an axiom because it is something that I would say is true for all cases... And if it is true for all cases, it must also be true for our fairly specific set of cases. Besides, sometimes when it comes to logic stuff it's easier to see how it follows (or doesn't follow!) if you write it in a more symbolic form.
posted
That's not evidence. That's prior probability. They are very different things. Evidence speaks directly to whether or not something exists. We have no evidence one way or the other about what the names of those giant purple Jovian dogs are. However, we can assess roughly how likely it is that they would all be called Steve. Taken that prior probability, it would take a really huge amount of evidence to convince us that said dogs exist, even to the point of doubting our senses if we observed them.
posted
In that case, I will ammend my claim to the following:
If there is no evidence for or against the existence of something, and the prior probability of existence and nonexistence are equal based on your prior beliefs, then you have no more reason to believe something exists than that it doesn't exist.
And thus it would be false to say that without any evidence of something, you should not believe in it - because if the prior probability of that thing makes it seem more likely to exist than not exist, you should still believe in it, evidence or not.
If people don't believe in God, it is not JUST because they lack evidence of Him. It must be because they also either (1) have evidence to the contrary, (2) believe the prior probability of His nonexistence is more likely than the prior probability of His existence, or (3) both.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're looking at it backwards. I can't prove, in any mathematically meaningful sense, that God exists. Nor can I prove that an Invisible Unicorn exists.
(I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
On the other hand, I can look at the opposite premises, and something different happens. When I posit that no Invisible Unicorn exists, not a single problem is created. It doesn't place me in a situation where certain observable things are inexplicable. Nor even difficult to explain.
The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist. Let's take the concept of God and split it into two different things. One is "some anonymous force or intelligence which created the world non-randomly" and one is "the Creator of the world and the Giver of the Torah at Sinai".
See, personally, I think both of those are the same. But I can't prove it. All I can fairly say in this context is that the latter is a special case of the former.
So. If you posit that the universe happened completely randomly, without any planned design whatsoever, you wind up with the problem that's being acknowledged by non-fundamentalist advocates of intelligent design. To wit: we have discovered no natural processes that can account for life as we currently observe it to have come into being without intent.
Does this prove that there was intelligent design? No. But it certainly does indicate it strongly. It gives support to the hypothesis without proving it. And since nothing disproves it, it's at least reasonable to accept it as a valid theory.
Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Okay, at this point, you can still resort to the Gnostic stuff, and I can see the attraction. There's a book called The Devil's Apocrypha: There Are Two Sides to Every Story which does more or less the same thing the Gnostics did. There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it. I can't prove that it isn't so, but if it is, I think we're fairly well screwed. So we might as well procede on the assumption that life isn't utterly pointless.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I consider this hypothesis to be the equivalent of what a statistician would call the "null hypothesis" in a statistical significance test.
...actually, now that I think of it, I think statistical significance testing makes a decent analogy in this instance.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I consider this hypothesis to be the equivalent of what a statistician would call the "null hypothesis" in a statistical significance test.
...actually, now that I think of it, I think statistical significance testing makes a decent analogy in this instance.
How so? I'm asking regarding both of your statements. How do you see "God does not exist" as a null hypothesis? And why do you think that statistical significance testing works as an analogy here?
It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
Saying that the watch "just growed" actually gives more information. If you feel constrained to say that it wasn't made by anyone, you need to come up with an involved theory that would explain how the watch came to be. A theory of that sort could be applied to other things, and is therefore very satisfying. Scientific, too.
On the other hand, saying that the watch was made only tells us that there's a maker out there. It tells us very little about that maker. Nothing about the maker's motives. Nothing about where the maker came from. It's not very scientific, because it's not falsifiable, and because it requires postulating a maker that you haven't seen, or indeed perceived in any way. All you have to go on is the watch, and you have a nifty theory (for all that no watch has ever been seen spontaneously coming into being; nor any part of a watch) that doesn't require postulating some mythical "maker".
But no one sane, in that situation, would actually contend that the watch "just growed". And that's because we recognize a level of complexity that can't reasonably be considered to be random.
The only real difference between the watch and life on our little planet is that the idea of a "maker" isn't emotionally charged. The idea of God, on the other hand, represents thousands of years of wars and atrocities being committed ostensibly in the name of God. It represents people who think they have a right to force their beliefs on us.
In the case of life on Earth, it's almost impossible, sociologically, to separate the idea of a Creator from the God who is so often used as an excuse for groups to force their morality on others. It's almost enough to make me want to argue against intelligent design, even though it seems obviously true. When I look around and see people trying to legislate their morality on others, it's almost exclusively for God-based reasons, and that scares the heck out of me.
But all that is sociology. Scientifically, I don't think labeling "there is no God" as a null hypothesis is reasonable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you see "God does not exist" as a null hypothesis?
Because, as I've been saying, I consider that to be the default position in the absence of evidence that god exists. I'm not surprised that you think this is invalid, since as a theist you clearly think there is plenty of evidence that god exists. The distinction lies in what each of us is willing to admit as evidence -- or in our working definitions of the word.
Cast in a certain light, you could say that I was agnostic while I was considering whether the evidence presented to me by theists through discussions and readings of various scriptures constituted valid evidence. From this perspective, when I decided that it did not, I became an atheist.
That isn't an accurate description of my life, though, because I was raised as a theist.
quote:And why do you think that statistical significance testing works as an analogy here?
I view the alternative hypothesis, "god exists," as the active claim. Since I don't think the claim "there is no god" can be evidenced, it reminds me of the statistical concept of the null hypothesis -- in a significance test, all evidence supports or does not support the alternative hypothesis. There is no evidence for the null hypothesis, it's simply what you revert to if the alternative hypothesis is rejected. The alternative hypothesis is the one that requires supporting evidence -- sufficient evidence to make the null hypothesis, "there is no god," unlikely to be true.
This is one sense in which I think Tresopax's sister analogy actually works. If Tresopax does not claim to have a sister, I'm not going to suddenly start thinking that he has one. "Tresopax does not have a sister" is the unstated null hypothesis here that I stick with in the absence of his claim to have one. However, knowing that human beings sometimes have sisters, I might ask him if he has any siblings. I don't have a reason to believe he has a sister, but I do have a reason to ask the question.
Now, I don't think his analogy is valid for the question of god's existence, since -- and this is key -- I don't admit the claims of others that god exists as valid evidence. I consider them a valid reason to ask the question, but to my mind they don't lend any weight to the "god exists" hypothesis. I don't expect others to share this view; what constitutes acceptable evidence varies wildly from one person to the next. I'm not surprised that the theists in this thread don't seem to share my view, because I think that which one you think is more "likely" depends in a large part on your beliefs and way of thinking.
For instance, the "watch in the sands" -- and all other variants/descendants of Aristotle's "first cause" argument -- doesn't do anything at all for me. I don't think that "the universe contains localized pockets of extreme complexity" implies "the universe was created by an intelligent creator."
The watch in the sands analogy in particular isn't valid because, while the watch may be analogous to life on Earth from a complexity standpont, the universe is not equivalent to the sands. There are innumerable other pockets of localized complexity in the universe. Regardless of whether they are as complex as our pocket, they are vastly more so than the analogy's grains of sand.
I wouldn't say that the hypothesis test is a great analogy, but for the purposes of explaining what I think in a slightly different way I think it works well enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
This, however, proves nothing about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may Her hooves never be shod. Possibly you are thinking of the schismatic cult of the Very Stealthy Maroon Pegasus. In any case, being simultaneously Invisible and Pink is merely one of the many miraculous feats of the IPU, and certainly no more difficult than being, for example, simultaneously Three and One.
quote:So. If you posit that the universe happened completely randomly, without any planned design whatsoever, you wind up with the problem that's being acknowledged by non-fundamentalist advocates of intelligent design. To wit: we have discovered no natural processes that can account for life as we currently observe it to have come into being without intent.
Ah, well, that's where you go wrong. Dozens of plausible methods for abiogenesis have been proposed. We don't yet know which one is correct, or it might be something we haven't thought of yet. But I really don't think you want to insert your god into a place where science hasn't quite penetrated yet. It has always ended in tears before - so often, in fact, that there's a name for it. God of the Gaps, anyone?
quote:Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Excuse me? How do you explain the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jesus, and all the other more or less successful religious leaders, and what makes Moses different?
quote:Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Except for all the other people who have claimed direct contact with God, of course. Come on, this is really, really weak.
quote:There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it.
Well, now we're on a more-or-less literary disagreement, but I don't think "To Reign in Hell" shows any such thing. Both Yahweh and Satan are shown acting honourably and reasonably on the information they possess. It's Asmodeus (IIRC, maybe it was Azrael?) who lies to both of them and poisons their relationship.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
But the watch is clearly much more complex than the sands around it - that's why you think it out of place. What is the Universe as a whole more complex than? There's no basis for comparison. basically, you are saying that the sand is too complicated to have 'just growed' - which is not reasonable.
In any case, that just begs the question of who designed the designer. An entity complex enough to have designed the Universe is plainly to complex to have 'just growed'. Hence Øverland's famous rebuttal, speaking to a man who had just said "When I see a car in the street, I know that someone made it" : "Indeed you are correct, sir. When I see a god on the street, I know that someone made it up."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
This, however, proves nothing about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may Her hooves never be shod. Possibly you are thinking of the schismatic cult of the Very Stealthy Maroon Pegasus. In any case, being simultaneously Invisible and Pink is merely one of the many miraculous feats of the IPU, and certainly no more difficult than being, for example, simultaneously Three and One.
Quite. But then, you know what I think about that, so perhaps it wasn't the best example to use.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Excuse me? How do you explain the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jesus, and all the other more or less successful religious leaders, and what makes Moses different?
One guy finds some plates. One guy hears a voice in a cave. A dozen people see a guy who had been executed. A few million people hear the voice of God and see miracles. Hmm... which of these things is different?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Except for all the other people who have claimed direct contact with God, of course. Come on, this is really, really weak.
This isn't a matter of a single person or handful of people making claims and then other people jumping on the bandwagon. You need to look at the concretes, KoM. God is in the details. So to speak. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it.
Well, now we're on a more-or-less literary disagreement, but I don't think "To Reign in Hell" shows any such thing. Both Yahweh and Satan are shown acting honourably and reasonably on the information they possess. It's Asmodeus (IIRC, maybe it was Azrael?) who lies to both of them and poisons their relationship.
Please. Unilaterally creating "Yeshua" and forcing him on everyone else in Heaven that way? Even those who fought against the rebellion weren't all happy about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
But the watch is clearly much more complex than the sands around it - that's why you think it out of place.
Life is that much more complex than the watch, let alone the sand. The issue of whether life as we know it was created by design is not logically bound up with questions of how existence came about. You're inventing strawmen.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What is the Universe as a whole more complex than? There's no basis for comparison. basically, you are saying that the sand is too complicated to have 'just growed' - which is not reasonable.
True, it's not reasonable. Which is why I'm not saying it. Never have; never will. Rocks get worn down into sand. It's observable. One species does not become two species. Of course, speciation isn't necessarily impossible. But it's unfalsifiable. It's never been observed, and there's no way to prove that it never happened. By definition, that puts it outside the realm of science. Or so I've been told here.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In any case, that just begs the question of who designed the designer.
Indeed. So? Going back to the watch, postulating a maker begs the question of where the maker came from. But I can say, "I don't know" and go on to learn everything I can about the watch and how it works. I can create new watches. I can invent things that are an extension of technology I've gleaned from studying the watch. If I find a wall clock, I can use some of the knowledge I've gained from studying the watch to inform me about the wall clock, being as how it's got so many similarities.
And even if there was such a thing as speciation, even if evolution really worked, extrapolating it back to a point is an act of faith. It's not falsifiable and it has no basis other than a desire that it be so.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: An entity complex enough to have designed the Universe is plainly to complex to have 'just growed'.
Why? Never mind the fact that this is a side issue that's of no import here. Never mind the fact that the sciences of genetics and biology and such can go on just as well without positing random mutations and speciation. Why would an entity of that sort have to be complex at all?
In fact, in Judaism, we say the exact opposite. That "God is One" is a statement denoting a complete lack of complexity in God. Utter Oneness, to the extent that it doesn't even mean anything to talk about this or that "part" of God. That even metaphors such as God's mercy or God's anger are things God created, rather than "part of God".
Obviously, you couldn't care less about what Judaism says on the matter, but I wanted to point out that you tossed on an assumption about God needing to be complex without bothering to substantiate it.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hence Øverland's famous rebuttal, speaking to a man who had just said "When I see a car in the street, I know that someone made it" : "Indeed you are correct, sir. When I see a god on the street, I know that someone made it up."
Pithy. But pithy doesn't speak to its truth.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finally, it's here! Here is my list of data points which I will use as evidence for the existence of God.
I'll begin with the existence of the earth, and the universe, and all of us. The skeptic will say we all could be here without the existence of God. I acknowledge that, but I will not give up the point that if there is a God who created the universe, the universe itself stands as a witness of what God has done. I will not take that away from him, even though by itself it is inconclusive. (And don't get hung up on the Big Bang and the billions of years that have transpired. That may simply be the way that God did it. The "seven days" may be more accurately translated seven time periods that could be of any length, even unequal lengths. And as for evolution, I am not convinced that the word of God precludes evolution as the mechanism by which he created our bodies.) I brought this up to counter the idea that we don’t have any physical evidence of his existence. So, it is not that we have no physical evidence of his existence; it is simply that we might be able to explain his work without acknowledging him.
I'd like to pause a moment on that point. Don't think that we can ever achieve an ultimate explanation of anything (photosynthesis, gravity, the creation of the universe, etc.) All we ever do is move back one step in the process. Example: Why did the apple fall to the ground? Illusory explanation: Because the gravity of the apple and the earth caused the two to collide, and due to fact that the earth is more massive, the apple did almost all of the moving. Some may be content with this answer, but we have really only moved the question of “why did it fall” back one step. The next question would be: “Well, why do these objects have gravity?” And so, on. So, the fact that we think we understand the formation of the universe back to a singularity, which is a point where the laws of physics break down so that we can no longer extrapolate before that time, does not explain where the singularity came from and the laws of physics that came after the universe cooled off. Most physicists will say, well, there is no need to suspect that a God created it. Well, yes. But, there is always room for him. This paragraph was a throw back to the God’s existence is possible argument. But, I knew someone would bring it up later.
The next point that I would like to counter is the argument that nobody has ever seen or heard God. The scriptures are full of examples of people who have seen God, see: link for a list of some of the references. Now, the skeptic will say, “How do we not know that these people were delusional or deceived?” or “How do we know that the supernatural events spoken of in the Bible, such as Moses talking with God in the burning bush, are true?” Well, we don’t know, but let’s give some reasons why we might accept them at their word. Let’s take these questions one at a time.
I am a graduate student nearing the end of my PhD program in Clinical Psychology. I say that to indicate that I have a fair amount of experience with psychological disorders including psychosis. People who are psychotic typically have other symptoms in addition to hallucinations (I should be inserting all sorts of caveats, but I won’t for clarity’s sake). From what little textual evidence is available, it seems that the prophets were not psychotic. And unlike other oracles in ancient times, they weren’t drunk or on opium at the time they spoke with God or prophesied in his name. Their writings are very sane, not like the writings of people with psychosis. Now, could they have been deceived or be purposely deceiving us? It is possible, but I don’t think so. I’ll dedicate more to that later.
It is very difficult to demonstrate the reality of these things in the Bible. Here are some common attempts and why they are troublesome. Christian apologists point to archaeological evidence, but all that shows is that the Israelites were a people in the Middle East, had synagogues and a temple, etc. It offers no evidence that the supernatural events happened. Others point to the writings of contemporary historians which add credence to the major wars and leaders, but again they don’t show that the beliefs of the Israelites were true. (If any one knows of any non-Biblical ancient text that collaborate the story of a healing, etc. that is recorded in the Bible, please let me know.)
Apologists also point to fulfilled prophecy. I must confess this is one area that I don’t know a lot about. The prophecies can be grouped into five types: 1) ones that were both given and fulfilled within the same testament, 2) ones that were given in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament 3) ones that were given in the text and are yet to be fulfilled, 4) ones that are being fulfilled now or since the writing of the Bible, but are so typical of the earth’s history that it could have been reasonably assumed that they would happen again, such as earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars, and 5) ones that are being fulfilled now or since the writing of the Bible, and are specific.
Now, I don’t want to take away these prophecies from evidence for the Lord. If they are genuine, they are a witness that God does exist and talk to his children. The problem is most of these Biblical prophecies are relatively easy to explain without resorting to a supernatural explanation. Skeptics of prophecies of category one could claim that the versions of the scriptures we have were written after the fulfillment of the prophecy, and so the prophecy could have been written in as if it were given before the fulfillment. Skeptics of category 2 prophecies could claim that the New Testament writers wrote into their books things that did not happen to make it look like Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled. (There is another way that these prophecies could be fulfilled – the people who were to fulfill the prophecy, learned of the prophecy and then went out and did what it took to fulfill it. Some consider that cheating. I don’t; hey, the prophets said that they would do it and they were enabled to bring it to pass.) Skeptics of category 3 prophecies would say that these prophecies are no evidence of God, at least yet, because who can say whether they will be fulfilled or not. Category 4 prophecies are only stating the very probable for which one doesn’t need supernatural help to predict. I suppose that within this category also should go what I call “Nostradamus-type” prophecies that are so cryptic they can be made to prophesy nearly any event in recent world history.
Category 5 prophecies are the interesting ones. I could only find one that was fulfilled in such a way that it was public to all. Just as the scattering of the people of Israel was prophesied, the Bible also prophesied that the people of Israel would be regathered to the land of Israel.
"... the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee" (Deuteronomy 30:3).
"... Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel" (Ezekiel 17:11).
In 1948, Israel became an independent nation for the first time since the Babylonian takeover in 606 BC (more than 2500 years). In the 1990's around half a million Jews have returned to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament has been revived. By 300 BC the language of the Jews had changed from Hebrew to Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew had remained an unspoken and dead language until recently. Dead for about 2200 years, in 1948, it was proclaimed the national language of Israel.
Today there are around 5 million Jews in the land of Israel, about one third of the estimated total number in the world. There are still about 5 million in the United States and about another 5 million scattered around the rest of the world, but mostly in the former Soviet Union, where there is still of steady stream of Russian Jews returning to Israel.
The Book of Mormon prophecies about the Jews returning to Israel are even more specific than those in the Bible and also were given well before the 1940’s.
There are other ways to know whether the Bible is true. These methods revolve around testing the word itself and the effect it can have on you. But, I will save that discussion for later in this post.
New Data Points
Now, up until this point, I have not presented much, if any, evidence that cannot be just as easily explained as if there were no God. That is the circumstance most of the world is in and what atheists have been explaining away for a long time. But, thankfully for us, God has provided more tangible evidences of his existence in our day. He again called prophets and restored ancient scripture that we can examine for evidence that God does exist. By having modern prophets we can avoid the ambiguities of not knowing whether a prophecy was written before or after its fulfillment, and we can examine more closely the men behind the mantle.
To set the stage for the data points I am about to give you which I shall use as evidence not only that God exists, but He is the God of Abraham, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all the world and the witness of the Bible is true, I will need to provide a brief synopsis of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith – A Witness of God’s Existence
In the spring of 1820, in Palmyra, New York, Joseph Smith was a fourteen-year-old, farm boy, with a minimal frontier education. Owing to the religious revivals that were taking place near where he lived, his community was stirred up to join with the various Christian churches who were preaching at the time. Young Joseph was trying to decide which denomination he should unite with by going to their various meetings and testing their teachings against the Bible. His mother and a few of his siblings joined the Presbyterian Church; his father did not unite with any of the churches. Joseph came across a scripture in his study, James 1:5, which says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him”. Joseph decided that he should ask God in prayer which church he should join. He wrote about his experience in the mid-1830’s, and this is what he said happened:
I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me...When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven.”
When Joseph left the grove, he possessed the knowledge that God and his Son were actual personages, that the Godhead was composed of separate individuals, and that God hears and answers prayers. You can read the full account here: web page. You’ll notice that he is quite sane in his language. Further evidence of his sanity will be forthcoming. You’ll also notice that this event is too complex to be attributed to his mind playing tricks on him. It would either be a psychotic episode, an unusually coherent combined auditory and visual hallucination from some mind altering substance, a deception by others, or a deception by him. It is not likely he was psychotic, because even his most bitter enemies never accused him of showing signs of a mental illness. I have never heard of anyone having a coherent auditory and visual hallucination from drug use. And in any case, no one has ever accused him of drug use, and that is not due to a lack of things being written about him by his contemporaries. It is very difficult to imagine how a human being could have deceived Joseph this way in the 1820’s. Furthermore, this was not a one time event, he saw many more heavenly messengers in different locations throughout his life. My fellow Christians may believe he was deceived by the devil, which acknowledges the supernatural. But, they are not my main audience, but I could address that at a later time. Suffice it to say for now that in everything, Joseph invited and persuaded men to believe in and worship Jesus Christ as their Savior, and the devil would never do that. I’ll add to the list that his vision might be a dream or sweet imaginings. Well, I will demonstrate that is not likely either, due to all that followed, which I will highlight episodes from later. Now, this still leaves open the possibility that he was deceiving us. Well, if that were the case, he brought in a lot of other people into that deception, for I will tell you of others who were visited by heavenly messengers at the same time as Joseph and even though they eventually became his enemy, they never denied the reality of their heavenly visitations. If you bear with me, I believe I can make the case very strongly that God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, did in fact visit the prophet, just as he said.
The Book of Mormon – An Evidence of God’s Existence
But, first, let’s introduce the Book of Mormon. That same link I gave in the last paragraph gives Joseph’s account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. When Joseph was 17, an angel by the name of Moroni, showed Joseph where an ancient record was deposited in a nearby hill. This is what Joseph said about the visitation:
“While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.
He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.
He called me 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.
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;
Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.
After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:
For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when "they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people," but soon would come.
He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.
Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.
After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance.
I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger.” Joseph went to the hill and found all as the messenger had said. He was met by Moroni there and instructed to return each year for further instruction. From 1824 to 1827, Joseph returned to the hill each year as specified. On September 22, 1827, he met the angel and received final instructions regarding the record. Moroni gave the record to the Prophet to translate. Joseph said, "The same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected" (JS—H 1:59). The messenger did not limit his instruction solely to these annual meetings, but made contact with Joseph on numerous occasions (Peterson, pp. 119–20). In all, the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith at least twenty times. Joseph informed associates that other Book of Mormon prophets also visited him, including Nephi, son of Lehi (Cheesman, pp. 38–60). Lucy Mack Smith recalled that her son Joseph was enabled from this tutoring to describe "with much ease" the ancient inhabitants of America, "their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship" (p. 83). I invite you to read the full account. At the end of the four years, Joseph obtained the plates and translated them in I believe a little more than 60 working days. The way the translation process worked was he sat across the table from a scribe with the golden plates in front of him and would read aloud the translation which the scribe would write down and repeat to Joseph what they wrote down to make sure the scribe got it right and then they would move on to the next passage. The scribes found it remarkable how at the beginning of a translation session, Joseph would just pick up where he had left off the day before without needing the last passage read back to him. For more on the translation process: web page
The translation was published as the Book of Mormon. Mormon was an ancient American prophet who compiled the writings of prophets who came before him. When you hold a copy of the Book of Mormon in your hand, you are holding the result of a modern day miracle. Well, you may not think so, but the fact of the matter is it is here and you have to explain its existence some how. And as marvelous and miraculous as this story is, I think you will find that Joseph’s explanation is more reasonable than any other. I believe you will soon see that it is not very plausible to believe this 21-year-old farm boy from rural New York state was capable of writing it, nor that anyone else living in the early 19th century could have written it either. You can view the Book of Mormon here: [URL=http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents ]web page[/URL]
Everything hinges on the veracity of that book. If it can be demonstrated that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, then it testifies that Joseph was a true prophet of God giving the ability from God to discover and translate this ancient book. And if these things are true, then we know that God and Jesus Christ exist, and the Bible is true, for the Book of Mormon testifies of it and teaches the same doctrines.
I quote from the introduction to the Book of Mormon (the introduction was of course written in modern times).
“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.
After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved.
Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
In addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be special witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” and “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.”
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10: 3-5.)
Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.”
The term “principal ancestors of the American Indians” may mean principal in the sense that it is through them that the promises were made to the inhabitants of these continents. OK, now that you know what the Book of Mormon purports to be, let’s get into the evidences of its veracity.
Witnesses of the Gold Plates
After Joseph finished translating the Golden Plates, the angel Moroni took them away, but not without first providing witnesses to their existence, thus following the ancient pattern, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1; Matthew 18:16; Deut. 19:15). God follows this pattern so that we may have more confidence in his prophets. Go here for an answer to, “Why were the Book of Mormon gold plates not placed in a museum so that people might know Joseph Smith had them?”: web page
Here is a copy of the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses:
THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris
THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it. CHRISTIAN WHITMER JACOB WHITMER PETER WHITMER, JUN. JOHN WHITMER HIRAM PAGE JOSEPH SMITH, SEN. HYRUM SMITH SAMUEL H. SMITH
It is significant to note that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimonies, even after they left the church and had nothing to gain from maintaining their witness. David Whitmer later signed an affidavit reaffirming his testimony when some paper spread a false report that he recanted his story. I include the following links to help you rule out any alternate theory you may have about these men’s testimonies.
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 1: Motives," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Critics often dismiss the first-hand testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses by questioning their motives. web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 2: Oliver Cowdery," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Because Oliver Cowdery had a falling out with Joseph Smith and left the Church for a time, should his testimony of the Book of Mormon be suspect? web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 3: Martin Harris," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Martin Harris, a witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, has been maligned and dismissed by critics. What is the real story? web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 4: David Whitmer," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. David Whitmer left the Church and never rejoined. Did he recant his testimony of the Book of Mormon? web page
Textual Evidences in the Book of Mormon
One of the strongest evidences that neither Joseph Smith, nor anyone else in 1829 could have written the Book of Mormon is the presence of chaiastic structures found in the Book of Mormon, which is an ancient Hebrew literary form that was not well understood by anyone in the world until much later. See: web page. Please read those articles. Before you can understand the significance of this data point, you need to know what a chiasm is and how nearly impossible it is that a fraudulent work written in 1829, that purports to be written by descendants of the Hebrews, would have this Hebrew poetic form in it. Once we research this, I think you’ll admit that although it is in the realm of possibility, the odds are very slim. The die hard skeptic will so, so he got lucky and won the lottery. OK, let’s take a look at what other highly unlikely things that Joseph just happened to get right. How many times does a guy have to win the lottery before you conclude something greater than chance is happening here? And if you conclude it is not chance, think how could he possibly know how to get these things right through fraud when almost no one in the early 1800’s knew about them?
There are other evidences that the writers of the Book of Mormon were very familiar and fluent with the culture and writing style of the ancient Hebrews. Links follow.
Spackman examines the Book of Mormon's use of a Hebraism where a negative rhetorical question is used to indicate a positive meaning. Spackman illustrates this form from both the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament. web page
The following is a discussion of the Hebrew root of some names used in the Book of Mormon. web page It is important to note that Joseph did not study Hebrew until years after he translated the Book of Mormon. I am not sure that anyone would have known enough to incorporate all of these rich Hebrew influences if they were going to try to create a fraudulent text much less had the skill to pull it off.
You can find links to articles on Hebrew idioms and language structures found in the Book of Mormon here: web page. I use these linked articles because it would take me a long time to prepare a similar document myself and I don’t want to plagiarize their work.
The Book of Mormon purports to have been written by several prophet-authors. There is strong evidence that each of these prophet-authors had a different writing style, adding credence to its origins: web page . Granted, clever authors would know to do this and might have the ability to pull it off, but Joseph Smith certainly couldn’t. And when you rule out him, what early 19th century author would you suspect? Joseph didn’t even know anyone important at that point in his life.
Criticisms of the Book of Mormon text
What do the critics of the Book of Mormon point to as far as the text goes? “If the Book of Mormon was translated by God, why has the Church seen the need to make changes to the text in subsequent publications?” There have been minor changes and are explained here: web page
“How do we account for the King James "Sermon on the Mount" in the Book of Mormon?” [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai286.html ]web page[/URL]
“Why does the Book of Mormon sound like the King James Version of the Bible?” [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai285.html ]web page[/URL]
Archaeological Evidence
This essay demonstrates several of the ways in which the Book of Mormon fits an ancient Mesoamerican context. web page
Another powerful witness is that the Book of Mormon describes in great detail an ancient trade route in the Arabian peninsula and the location of a bountiful area where Nephi would be able to find wood suitable to build a ship and ore with which to make tools. This confirmed ancient location and place name matches the Book of Mormon text remarkably well. The burden is on the critics to explain how Joseph Smith could possibly have fabricated the account about Nahom and the journey in the Arabian peninsula described in First Nephi. web page and web page
Once labeled by critics as anachronistic, references to cement in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7, 9, 11) can now be seen as further evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact. web page
My goodness, there is so much, I am having a hard time choosing what to share. I found this website that lists a lot of archaeological evidence: web page
On that page you will find the following topics: • The Valley of Lemuel: Another "Blunder" Becomes Evidence FOR the Book of Mormon • Writing on Metal Plates • The Buried Plates: Evidence of Authenticity • Genes Linking Eurasians and Native Americans • Writing in Reformed Egyptian? • Mulek, Son of King Zedekiah? • The Use of Cement in Ancient America • Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon • Olive Culture • Wars in Winter? • Mesoamerican Fortifications • Numerous Hebraic Language Structures • Names in the Book of Mormon • "The Land of Jerusalem"--a fatal blunder?? • The Great Catastrophe: Volcanism in Book of Mormon Lands • Gardens, Towers, and Multiple Markets • Mesoamerican Temples • Laban's Treasury • The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Writings • More from Mesoamerica... • Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon • Book of Mormon Nuggets - index to a group of separate pages
More on DNA and the Book of Mormon [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html ]web page[/URL]
Critics of the Book of Mormon cite supposed anachronisms. Here are several articles that refute their arguments: web page
Authorship Claims of the Book of Mormon
Some critics claim that the book “View of the Hebrews” served as a template for the Book of Mormon. You’ll know that claim is utterly ridiculous if you ever look at “View of the Hebrews”. It is a book that claims that Native Americans are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, but the similarities stop there. I think the only reason this argument has stayed alive is that most people never bother to actually go find a copy of the book.
I’ll conclude my treatment of the Book of Mormon with a few articles that refute various possible origins of the Book of Mormon.
Daniel C. Peterson, "The Protean Joseph Smith," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2002) Dan Peterson looks at the history of the theories of how the Book of Mormon came to be. In this 2002 FAIR Conference presentation, Peterson concludes that nothing the critics have offered is as believable as Joseph Smith's own explanation. web page
Matthew Roper, "Right On Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2001) A great presentation that focuses on evidences first thought to disprove the Book of Mormon, but later serve to prove its truth. web page
Let’s look at some of the data points on Joseph Smith. One of the evidences of a true prophet is fulfilled prophecies. This page lists several: web page Those prophecies are listed below: • Accurate Prophecies of the Civil War • The Saints to Flourish in the Rocky Mountains • The Liberty Jail Prophecies • The Saints to Escape Enemies Within 5 Years • The Stephen A. Douglas Prophecy • A Prediction of Destruction in Jackson County, Missouri • Condemned to Execution, Joseph Prophesies of Deliverance • Prediction of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon • The Prophetic Book of Mormon • The Prophetic "Word of Wisdom" • Prophetic Miracles Involving Newel K. Whitney • The Hearts of the Children to Turn to Their Fathers • Prediction of Stakes in Boston and New York • Joseph Predicts His Death • Dan Jones to Serve a Mission in Wales • Sidney Rigdon to Be a Spokesman • Healing and Prophecy with the Johnsons in Kirtland • Escape of Stephen Markham • Apostles to Depart from Far West on 26 April 1839 • Isaiah 11 about to be fulfilled?
Did the prophet Joseph ever give any prophecies that did not come true? See the articles listed here: [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai065.html ]web page[/URL]
Visions of Joseph Smith
The following is from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Ancient prophets were typically called through a revelatory process—visions and/or revelations: "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream" (Num. 12:6). The prophet Joel anticipated that visions would increase in the last days, saying, "Old men shall dream dreams, [and] young men shall see visions" (Joel 2:28–32). Blessed like John on the isle of Patmos and Paul who spoke of the third heavens, the Prophet Joseph Smith affirmed, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject" (TPJS, p. 324; cf. HC 6:50). He also declared that "the best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching" (TPJS, p. 191). President John Taylor said that Joseph Smith had contact with prophets from every dispensation: "Because he [Joseph] stood at the head of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which comprehends all the various dispensations that have existed upon the earth, and that as the Gods in the eternal worlds and the Priesthood that officiated in time and eternity had declared that it was time for the issuing forth of all these things, they all combined together to impart to him the keys of their several missions" (JD 18:326).
A new dispensation requires the conferral of priesthood and keys, in accordance with the law of witnesses: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1). During the restoration sequence when priesthood and keys were conferred by angelic ministrants, the Prophet was accompanied by one or more witnesses. Oliver Cowdery was a principal figure in the fulfillment of this law of witnesses (see Witnesses, Law of); others were David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Sidney Rigdon. Distinguishing dreams from visions and associating visions and visitations, Joseph said, "An open vision will manifest that which is more important" (TPJS, p. 161). Crucial visions received by the Prophet Joseph Smith are the source of many cardinal doctrines and teachings of the Latter-day Saints.
[You already know of the first vision and the visits by the angel Moroni, so I won’t repeat them here.]
JOHN THE BAPTIST. While translating the Book of Mormon at Harmony, Pennsylvania, on May 15, 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery became concerned about baptism for the remission of sins as described in 3 Nephi 11. They went into the woods to pray for enlightenment. Both record that a messenger from heaven, identifying himself as John the Baptist, laid hands on them and ordained them to the Aaronic Priesthood, saying, "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness" (JS—H 1:69; D&C 13; cf. TPJS, pp. 172–73).
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. John the Baptist also informed Joseph and Oliver that "this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter." John stated "that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us" (JS–H 1:70, 72). This restoration occurred during the latter part of may or early June 1829, someplace between Harmony and Colesville on the Susquehanna River (see Melchizedek Priesthood: Restoration of). Of this visitation, Joseph Smith later testified, "The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, & Elias—gave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him…. How have we come at the priesthood in the last days? It came down, down in regular succession. Peter, James & John had it given to them & they gave it up [to us]" (WJS, p. 9).
THREE WITNESSES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. By revelation Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were selected to be witnesses of the plates and the authentic translation of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 11:3; 27:12; Ether 5:2–4; D&C 5:11–18; D&C 17). During the latter part of June 1829, in company with Joseph Smith, these three men went into the woods adjacent to the Whitmer home in Fayette, New York, and knelt in prayer. When the promised revelation was not immediately received, Martin Harris stated that he felt he might be the cause of their failure. After Martin Harris withdrew, the others knelt in prayer again. David Whitmer described the visitation of Moroni: "The angel stood before us. He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me by name and said ´Blessed is he that keepeth His commandments….´ A table was set before us and on it the Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, the breast plates [and also the Urim and Thummim], the Ball of Directors [Liahona], the Sword of Laban and other plates. While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct" (quoted in "Letter from Elder W. H. Kelley," Saints´ Herald 29 [Mar. 1, 1882]:68).
Afterward, Joseph found Martin Harris, and together they experienced a similar manifestation. The Three Witnesses later endorsed a statement describing their experience that has been appended to all copies of the Book of Mormon. They swore that they had seen the angel and the plates and that "we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us" (see Book of Mormon Witnesses). Subsequently, eight others were privileged to see and handle the plates, but without the presence of the angel or having heard the voice of God.
VISION OF GLORIES. While preparing the text of his translation of the Bible, Joseph Smith, with Sidney Rigdon, moved to the John Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio, on September 12, 1831. As the two men worked on the Gospel of John, it became apparent to them that many important points concerning the salvation of individuals had been lost from the Bible. Joseph wrote, "It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term "Heaven,´ as intended for the Saints´ eternal home must include more kingdoms than one" (HC 1:245). On February 16, 1832, in an upper room of the Johnson home, while he and Sidney Rigdon were examining the passage from John 5:29, they saw a multifaceted vision (D&C 76), commencing with a vision of the Father and the Son in the highest glory. This scene was followed by a series of visions, including Perdition and the sons of Perdition and then the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms of glory. One witness, Philo Dibble, present in the room recalled that the two men sat motionless for about an hour. One would say, "What do I see," and describe it, and the other would say, "I see the same" (Juvenile Instructor 27 [May 15, 1892]:303–304). It is apparent that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not impart all that he saw in vision, for he later said, "I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them" (TPJS, p. 305).
KIRTLAND TEMPLE VISIONS. From January 21 to May 1, 1836, many of the Saints in Kirtland experienced an outpouring of the Spirit, a "Pentecostal season." On January 21, the Prophet assembled with others in the west schoolroom on the third story of the Kirtland Temple. Here Joseph beheld a vision of the Celestial Kingdom of God (D&C 137). He beheld the Father and the Son and several ancient worthies, including Adam, Abraham, and his own mother and father (both still living), and his brother Alvin, who had died in 1823 (verse 5). As Joseph marveled over Alvin´s station in the Celestial Kingdom, the voice of the Lord declared, "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the Celestial Kingdom of God" (verse 7). He was also instructed concerning the destiny of little children. The Prophet recorded, "I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of heaven" (verse 10). During the dedication of the Kirtland Temple on March 27, 1836, many testified of the presence of angels. The Prophet specifically identified the ancient apostles Peter and John as present among them (Backman, The Heavens Resound, 1983, pp. 299–300; cf. JD 9:376).
One week later, on April 3, 1836, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had retired to the Melchizedek Priesthood pulpits on the west side of the first floor of the temple. The curtains were dropped around the pulpit area as the men prayed. "The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened" (D&C 110:1). The Lord stood before them on the breastwork of the pulpit. "His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah" (D&C 110:3). The Savior accepted the newly completed structure and promised that his name and glory would be present and that thousands of persons would receive an outpouring of blessings because of the temple and the Endowment received by his servants in that house (D&C 110:6–9).
Following the Savior´s appearance, three other messengers presented themselves. Each bestowed specific priesthood keys on the two leaders. Moses came and "committed [to them] the keys of the gathering of Israel" (verse 11). As Moses departed, Elias, possessing the keys of "the gospel of Abraham," appeared and administered the keys of this dispensation, saying "that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" (verse 12). Further priesthood keys were restored by Elijah, who declared, "Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent…to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers" (verses 14–15; see also Abrahamic Covenant; Gospel of Abraham).
OTHER HEAVENLY MANIFESTATIONS. A variety of accounts affirm that other persons also witnessed such appearances not only in association with the Kirtland Temple but in an earlier period during meetings in the log schoolhouse on the Isaac Morley farm and in the School of the Prophets, held in the Newel K. whitney store (K. Anderson, pp. 107–113, 169–77; Backman, The Heavens Resound, 1983, pp. 240, 264–68, 284–309). The visions discussed herein are but a few of the myriad manifestations that gave the Prophet direction. Joseph mentions having seen others in vision, including Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, but does not detail their association (D&C 128:20–21). President John Taylor identified yet others who ministered to the Prophet, notably Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (JD 17:374; 18:325–26; 21:65, 94, 161; 23:48).
One writer has commented, "He had visions of the past as well as of the future. As a seer, he knew things about the past that are not part of our own scripture, but which he spoke of in discourse" (Madsen, p. 44). "I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman" (TPJS, p. 158). To Joseph Knight, Sr., the Prophet commented on the vistas opened to him through the Urim and Thummim, which he found deposited with the gold plates. Knight explained, "He seemed to think more of the glasses or Urim and Thummim…says he, "I can see anything; they are marvelous"´ (Jessee, 1976, p. 33). Accordingly, after reading Foxe´s Book of the Martyrs, Joseph remarked that he had "seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved" (Stevenson, p. 6). He saw in vision marchers in Zion´s Camp who had perished from cholera in Clay County, Missouri. He related their condition, observing to the survivors, "Brethren, I have seen those men who died of the cholera in our camp; and the Lord knows, if I get a mansion as bright as theirs, I ask no more" (HC 2:181n). The organizations of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Quorum of the Seventy were made known to him "by vision and by the Holy Spirit," and he established those priesthood offices in February 1835 (HC 2:182). In an earlier vision, he "saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth, who hold the keys of this last ministry, in foreign lands, standing together in a circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with their eyes cast downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did not behold Him. The Savior looked upon them and wept" (HC 2:381). He saw a vision enabling him to designate the "central place" in Independence, Missouri (TPJS, p. 79). Of a vision of the resurrection of the dead, he explained, "So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly" (TPJS, pp. 295–96).
He also saw the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples in vision before their construction and gave detailed instructions to the architects, describing the windows and their illumination (JD 13:357; 14:273; HC 6:196–97). He foresaw the struggles of the Saints in crossing the plains, their establishment in the Rocky Mountains, and the future condition of the Saints (HC 5:85n–86n).
He remarked late in his life, "It is my meditation all the day & more than my meat & drink to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before my mind" (WJS, p. 196).
The skeptics have quite a task to explain away all these visions, especially those with other mortal participants. Furthermore, the experience of having a vision is replicable. The Prophet taught that the Lord has revealed nothing to him that he will not also reveal to any of us as soon as we are able to bear it. A later prophet at the turn of the previous century testified that the Lord Jesus Christ visited him in the Salt Lake temple. There are countless other examples, but recipients of such visits are instructed to hold such experiences sacred and not to share them with others unless prompted by the Spirit. Don’t scoff at that; I have given you sufficient examples to assure you that heavenly visitations do occur. If you doubt the visions I’ve told you about, you’d doubt those as well.
The nice thing about Joseph’s visions is that something was always restored through them and we can test those things. In some of the visions doctrines were restored that were believed by the earliest Christians but had long since been forgotten by the early 1800’s. Restored doctrine that had been hidden from the world lends credence to Joseph’s visions. These are discussed in the next section. The priesthood, which is the power and authority given by God to act in His name, was restored through heavenly visitation as well. The miracles Joseph and others have performed through the power of the priesthood are evidence that he really had those visions as well. Unfortunately, I can’t find a good article that summarizes Joseph’s miracles for you to review right now. So, if anyone is interested, I’ll keep looking.
Restoring Doctrines Believed in the Early Christian Church
Yet, another evidence for Joseph being led by God was in his restoring doctrines that were held by the earliest Christians, but were lost or corrupted by descendants of the ancient church. For example, the uniquely Mormon doctrines of a life with God as his spirit children before we came to earth, the spirits of the dead being taught the gospel and baptized by living proxy, the three degrees of glory, how we can become like God, and our concept of the Godhead as consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three separate personages, are all found in newly discovered ancient texts written before 4th century AD when Constantinople made the bishops throughout his empire codify the beliefs of the now state religion. It is interesting to note that churches that were not within the Roman Empire (Coptic church of Alexandria, Armenian Church, etc.) held on to some of those early Christian doctrines that were purged out of Constantinople’s church. For a discussion of these topics see the articles listed on this page: web page . There is no way Joseph could have known about these ancient doctrines except by God. The texts weren’t even discovered until the 20th century and not all of the doctrines survived in the contemporary non-Catholic tradition churches of Joseph’s day.
Joseph’s Character
I thought I’d throw in a link to articles about Joseph Smith’s character, just in case that might help you rule out other alternatives to explain these remarkable events: web page
Implications
If the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet, what does that imply? Both testify that God exists, that Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of the truthfulness of the Bible as far as it was handed down to us correctly. Both reveal things as they really are (i.e., the true nature of God and how to appropriately worship him). Furthermore, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord says of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that it is, “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (D&C 1:30).
What we can know about God
What can we know about God, if we acknowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet? The following comes from Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage.
We do believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, but we believe that they are separate and distinct beings, united in purpose, and together they form the Godhead. Therefore, we do not believe in the Trinity, at least as I understand it. To me it is the most incomprehensible doctrine, that they are three different manifestations of one entity. Here is what we believe:
The Godhead: Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the Eternal Father; (2) His Son, Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man. On the occasion of the Savior's baptism, John recognized the sign of the Holy Ghost; he saw before him in a tabernacle of flesh the Christ, unto whom he had administered the holy ordinance; and he heard the voice of the Father. The three personages of the Godhead were present, manifesting themselves each in a different way, and each distinct from the others. Later the Savior promised His disciples that the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, should be sent unto them by His Father; here again are the three members of the Godhead separately defined. Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, was blessed with the power of heavenly vision, and he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Joseph Smith, while calling upon the Lord in fervent prayer, saw the Father and the Son, standing in the midst of light that shamed the brightness of the sun; and one of these declared of the other, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" Each of the members of the Trinity is called God, together they constitute the Godhead.
Unity of the Godhead—The Godhead is a type of unity in the attributes, powers, and purposes of its members. Jesus, while on earth and in manifesting Himself to His Nephite servants, repeatedly testified of the unity existing between Himself and the Father, and between them both and the Holy Ghost. This cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and in person, nor that the names represent the same individual under different aspects. A single reference to prove the error of any such view may suffice: Immediately before His betrayal, Christ prayed for His disciples, the Twelve, and other converts, that they should be preserved in unity," that they all may be one" as the Father and the Son are one. We cannot assume that Christ prayed that His followers lose their individuality and become one person, even if a change so directly opposed to nature were possible. Christ desired that all should be united in heart, spirit, and purpose; for such is the unity between His Father and Himself, and between them and the Holy Ghost.
This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity. The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God. Even in bodily appearance the Father and the Son are alike; therefore said Christ when importuned by Philip to show to him and others the Father: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me."
Personality of Each Member of the Godhead—From the evidence already presented, it is clear that the Father is a personal being, possessing a definite form, with bodily parts and spiritual passions. Jesus Christ, who was with the Father in spirit before coming to dwell in the flesh, and through whom the worlds were made, lived among men as a man, with all the physical characteristics of a human being; after His resurrection He appeared in the same form; in that form He ascended into heaven; and in that form He has manifested Himself to the Nephites, and to modern prophets. We are assured that Christ was in the express image of His Father, after which image man also has been created. Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body, infinitely pure and perfect and attended by transcendent glory, nevertheless a body of flesh and bones.
The Holy Ghost, called also Spirit, and Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth, is not tabernacled in a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit; yet we know that the Spirit has manifested Himself in the form of a man. Through the ministrations of the Spirit the Father and the Son may operate in their dealings with mankind; through Him knowledge is communicated, and by Him the purposes of the Godhead are achieved. The Holy Ghost is the witness of the Father and the Son, declaring to man their attributes, bearing record of the other personages of the Godhead.
Some of the Divine Attributes—God is Omnipresent—There is no part of creation, however remote, into which God cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. The senses of each of the Trinity are of infinite power; His mind is of unlimited capacity; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an "immaterial being," under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits; and it is not surprising, therefore, to learn from the scriptures that He moves from place to place. Thus we read in connection with the account of the Tower of Babel, "And the Lord [i. e., Jehovah, the Son] came down to see the city and the tower." Again, God appeared to Abraham, and having declared Himself to be "the Almighty God," He talked with the patriarch, and established a covenant with him; then we read "And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham."
God is Omniscient—By Him matter has been organized and energy directed. He is therefore the Creator of all things that are created; and "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." His power and His wisdom are alike incomprehensible to man, for they are infinite. Being Himself eternal and perfect, His knowledge cannot be otherwise than infinite. To comprehend Himself, an infinite Being, He must possess an infinite mind. Through the agency of angels and ministering servants He is in continuous communication with all parts of creation, and may personally visit as He may determine.
God is Omnipotent—He is properly called the Almighty. Man can discern proofs of the divine omnipotence on every side, in the forces that control the elements of earth and guide the orbs of heaven in their prescribed courses. Whatever His wisdom indicates as necessary to be done God can and will do. The means through which He operates may not be of infinite capacity in themselves, but they are directed by an infinite power. A rational conception of His omnipotence is power to do all that He may will to do.
God is kind, benevolent, and loving—tender, considerate, and long-suffering, bearing patiently with the frailties of His children. He is just and merciful in judgment, yet combining with these gentler qualities firmness in avenging wrongs. He is jealous of His own power and the reverence paid to Him; that is to say, He is zealous for the principles of truth and purity, which are nowhere exemplified in a higher degree than in His personal attributes. This Being is the author of our existence, Him we are permitted to approach as Father. Our faith will increase in Him as we learn of Him.
Mind, Heart, and Results of Living it
There is another category of data points that I must add to my list, even though they will be easier to explain away for the skeptic. However, if you come to believe that God exists through my other data points, then you might be willing to admit these as permissible evidence as well. It turns out that God has provided an “experiment” of sorts that one can do to learn whether he exists. I’ll mostly be using a text from the Book of Mormon (Alma 32:16-43), but the Bible outlines the same pattern.
16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. Humility is a prerequisite. For without humility, one is not teachable. Pride is the opposite of humility, and the person who is full of pride is focused on himself, showing off how much better he is than everyone else and is contentious and defensive, having to win the argument. So, acknowledging our lack of knowledge and possessing a willingness to entertain the thoughts of another shows humility and prepares us to receive further light and knowledge.
17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.
I am convinced that it is an act of mercy that God requires the development of faith to learn of him. For, as the Lord taught Joseph, “Unto whom much is given, much is required”. If we know the will of God with a perfect knowledge and disobey it, we are under greater condemnation than if we were only acting according to faith. But, as we demonstrate that we are capable of living a higher law, we are blessed with knowledge which is “delicious to the taste and very desirable”. Furthermore, as we grow in faith we also grow in gratitude, empathy, and charity – all Godlike characteristics that God wants us to develop. For He is our Father and is training us to become like him. This is something we asked him to do for us before we were born.
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
Faith begins as a willingness to entertain the possibility that what is being shared with you is true. It is taught in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. As you entertain the thought, you begin to use your intellect and your memory to actively look for supporting evidence. The implications of what it would mean if it were true are examined, and you begin to desire to believe and hope that it is true because of the ways it would bless you life.
22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.
23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.
24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—
25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
Alma is saying that as your desire to believe grows, it will make room in your mind to consider the words and ponder their meaning.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
In this context, the word is any doctrine taught by the prophets of the Lord. It might be that there is a God, or that the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. Now, if the doctrine is true, and you don’t refuse to consider it because of unbelief, then the idea will “grow” within you. This means that you’ll start to make connections in your mind in which this doctrine helps to shed light on other thoughts you’ve had or experiences you’ve gone through. You’ll start experiencing epiphanies, or “Ah-hah!” and “Eureka!” moments where things suddenly make sense. And these experiences will cause you to feel joy, enthusiasm, peace, and confidence in your heart and delight in the doctrine. These are the fruits of the Spirit. So, we have two categories of witnesses here: our mind (i.e., the doctrine makes sense to us) and our heart (i.e., feelings of joy, enthusiasm, peace, and confidence).
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
These results will cause you to want to believe more and put more confidence in what is being taught. Nevertheless, you still don’t have a perfect knowledge of the doctrine, you only know that it is good.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
True doctrine will cause your mind to become active and make lots of connections that make sense as previously described. False doctrine doesn’t go anywhere or lead you to any further discoveries. You are unable to relate it to anything you already know to be true.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
You have a perfect knowledge that the doctrine is true, but you still don’t have a perfect knowledge of the doctrine. You don’t gain that until you have acted on the doctrine and have seen the results.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
Nourishing the word means to keep studying it and act upon it. Christ taught in John 7:17, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. In other words live the gospel and see if you don’t get the promised rewards. To know if God really is there, pray unto him and see if he does not hear and answer your prayers. There is a great promise in Malachi about tithing. The Lord says in Malachi 3:10, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it”. This approaches the scientific method in that we are looking at cause and effect. Now, there is a difference between faith in general and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For, it is only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that can save us from the demands of justice for our sins. But, those of us who have exercised faith in Christ, accepted his payment for our sins and have repented, have felt the marvelous effects which are too numerous to mention here. We have confidence that the Bible is true because of our answered prayers. This brings us to our next category of evidence – the results the trying out the word on multiple occasions.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.
If you don’t act on the word, you’ll never gain the confidence you need in that doctrine to withstand the challenges to its validity that you’ll face. And it is not because it wasn’t true, it is because you did not do what you needed to do to get your sure witness that it was true.
41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.
42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.
43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.
The rewards for going through the process are too wonderful to express in words. In is like trying to explain what salt tastes like to someone who has never tasted it. In fact, I don’t think people even believe there is such joy so great until they experience it for themselves.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught so many doctrines like this one that shows such a depth of understanding of the human condition and a wisdom so great and messages from the Lord so powerful and intimate, that I must conclude that he was taught from on high.
There are other data points I have which are too sacred to mention in such a forum. But, I feel that what I have shared should be sufficient.
Summary There is one simple hypothesis that explains all the data points presented thus far: that God lives, calls prophets to reveal his commandments, the solemnities of the eternities, and the proper way in which to worship him, namely, through his Son, Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible, so all the evidence of the Bible can be entered in, and it becomes clear that it is the God of Israel that exists and none else.
Now, I am sure this posting will generate a lot of discussion and I will be overwhelmed with trying to respond to everyone. So, I ask a few simple requests, please read all that I have gone through the trouble of preparing for you (on the links that list several articles on a topic, one or two articles should suffice). I think many questions or responses will be addressed by the accompanying articles. I linked to those articles because: 1) I don’t want to plagiarize their work, 2) they say the same things I would say in a very reasoned and concise way, and 3) it would take me a very long time to dig up all of their references myself. Most alternate explanations you could come up with for the data, or other challenges to the veracity of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon are addressed somewhere on these pages: web page which is a Mormon apologetic site, or web page which is a Mormon apologist. Please consult these first. Also, I would prefer to handle only atheist or agnostic type questions on this thread. Perhaps we could start another thread for the objections believers might have. I want to do it this way because otherwise, a Christian will ask me a question to which I’ll respond with the shared assumption in God and the authority of the Bible, etc., and then some atheist will critique my response with challenges to those basic assumptions. This is the thread in which to challenge those assumptions, let’s have another thread where we discuss things within the shared belief in God.
[This post has been edited to increase readability.]
posted
enoch, If you could fix the length of some of your links, your posts would be a lot easier to read. I'd recommend wrapping it in a url tag (you do this using the Instant UBB Code buttons on the Full Reply/Edit form. Alternatively, you could use Tiny URL.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, that's a bit ... um ... lengthy. Here's a considerably shorter rebuttal of the points you've made, as I understand them:
quote:I'll begin with the existence of the earth, and the universe, and all of us. The skeptic will say we all could be here without the existence of God. I acknowledge that, but I will not give up the point that if there is a God who created the universe, the universe itself stands as a witness of what God has done.
Out of respect for any God which may exist, I'll let this one stand. As you observe, however, it's not actually proof of God's existence, but rather merely proof that we exist and, if God created us, "evidence" that we were created. In other words, it's a tautology.
quote:Don't think that we can ever achieve an ultimate explanation of anything (photosynthesis, gravity, the creation of the universe, etc.) All we ever do is move back one step in the process....So, the fact that we think we understand the formation of the universe back to a singularity, which is a point where the laws of physics break down so that we can no longer extrapolate before that time, does not explain where the singularity came from...
This ultimately boils down to what's called a "Prime Mover" argument -- the rationale that if all effects have a cause, something must be that cause. And something must have been the first cause. The problem with this argument, which has been pretty soundly refuted, is that it contains the seeds of its own destruction: to wit, that the First Cause itself, by the terms established in the argument for its existence, must have been caused by something. And if not, then indeed something must have existed a priori, even if it was just that First Cause -- thus "proving" that not everything needs a cause, and eliminating the need for a First Cause.
quote:The next point that I would like to counter is the argument that nobody has ever seen or heard God. The scriptures are full of examples of people who have seen God....Now, the skeptic will say, “How do we not know that these people were delusional or deceived?” or “How do we know that the supernatural events spoken of in the Bible, such as Moses talking with God in the burning bush, are true?” Well, we don’t know, but let’s give some reasons why we might accept them at their word.
quote:People who are psychotic typically have other symptoms in addition to hallucinations (I should be inserting all sorts of caveats, but I won’t for clarity’s sake). From what little textual evidence is available, it seems that the prophets were not psychotic.
You make some assumptions here: a) that the prophets wrote the scriptures; b) that the authors believed what they wrote down; c) that the prophets, as described, do not exhibit psychotic behavior. I'm not sure that you have satisfactorily addressed any of these three assumptions, although -- like C.S. Lewis -- you attempt to apologize for 'em.
quote: Category 5 prophecies are the interesting ones. I could only find one that was fulfilled in such a way that it was public to all. Just as the scattering of the people of Israel was prophesied, the Bible also prophesied that the people of Israel would be regathered to the land of Israel.
I wouldn't count this one, since it falls pretty strongly into the "self-fulfilling prophecy" camp. One of the reasons the nation of Israel is currently located where it's located was specifically because of awareness of this prophecy.
quote: I believe you will soon see that it is not very plausible to believe this 21-year-old farm boy from rural New York state was capable of writing it, nor that anyone else living in the early 19th century could have written it either.
Orson Scott Card himself has made this argument. Here's the problem I have with it: you are attempting to claim that it is MORE likely that God would choose to send messengers to a young "farmboy" after thousands of years of silence during which the world was allowed to fall away from His plan, reveal to that farmboy golden plates containing messages of import to all mankind, etc. than it is that a young farmboy could have done a really good job writing a book.
For example, you cite the use of chiasm in the BoM as "evidence" of its scriptural inspiration; the simple fact is that the chiasmus is a fairly obvious literary device used throughout even the KJV translation, and anyone attempting to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device -- even if they weren't conscious of its name.
More relevantly, there are lots of religions out there whose followers claim that the perfection and beauty and accuracy of their scriptures are evidence of their truth. Leaving aside whether they're right, the simple fact is that clearly it is easier to write a book that some people consider to be evidence of the existence of God than it is for a New Jersey farmboy to be visited by God; the former can be said to have happened at least seven or eight times, while the latter has only happened once.
Obviously, this isn't exactly "proof" of anything -- except, of course, proof that it's nearly impossible to say which of two incredibly unlikely events is more unlikely, especially if you're going to try to hang an argument on that baseless opinion.
You go on to cite a number of apologetic sources as "refutations" of common objections to LDS claims. The problem is, these sources are in general not open to peer review and are not exactly "scholarly;" it would be difficult, for example, to find a non-LDS mesoamerican archaeologist who finds the details in the BoM credible.
Addressing all these claims would be excessively long -- and would be likely to offend a number of the devout LDS on this board -- so I won't do it. I'll say that I, personally, am skeptical of almost all of them, and have reasons for that skepticism; if you're curious about any one or more of those reasons, drop me an email and I'll try to address them.
----------
As it stands, in other words, I think your argument -- which largely boils down to "God may or may not exist, but the LDS church seems pretty possible to me, and it says God exists" -- winds up preaching to the choir. I don't think that was your intent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but this discussion is just not sufficiently important to me that I can be bothered to read all that. Do you think perhaps you could give just one data point at a time?
quote:One guy finds some plates. One guy hears a voice in a cave. A dozen people see a guy who had been executed. A few million people hear the voice of God and see miracles. Hmm... which of these things is different?
None of them, because we only have the word of one guy, the writer of the Pentateuch, for the 'millions'. Which, incidentally, are absurd on the face of it. That's rather more than the entire population of Egypt at the time. All marching through the Sinai desert? Sure.
In other words, this is circular reasoning : You are trying to use features of the Torah to prove that the Torah is trustworthy. But we can only trust the features if the Torah is trustworthy.
quote:This isn't a matter of a single person or handful of people making claims and then other people jumping on the bandwagon. You need to look at the concretes, KoM. God is in the details. So to speak.
Well, actually, I think it is.
quote:Please. Unilaterally creating "Yeshua" and forcing him on everyone else in Heaven that way? Even those who fought against the rebellion weren't all happy about it.
Well, it doesn't seem that different from what happened in the creation waves anyway. Anyway, why shouldn't he delegate a bit of authority? He'd done that already with the creation of the Lords of the North and the other cardinal points; the only difference is that Yeshua didn't arise from pure chaos in an early generation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson: I am familiar with the Prime Mover argument, which you should notice I did not make. I did not say that a Prime Mover must exist because something must have started the universe. I said that there is room for a Creator, even if you accept the Big Bang. Which as I noted, doesn't argue for his existence, it just doesn't rule it out. I only brought it up because I new someone would try to use the scientific explanation of the origin of the cosmos as evidence that there is no god.
You said, "You make some assumptions here: a) that the prophets wrote the scriptures; b) that the authors believed what they wrote down". I acknowledged that we can't know that the scriptural accounts in the Bible are true. The fact that the prophets may not have written the scriptures or believed what they wrote are but different hypotheses that were globally acknowledged in my admission that we could not know that the Biblical accounts are true.
Again, I don't discount self-fulfilling prophecies. But, that is just a point we differ on.
You said, "Orson Scott Card himself has made this argument. Here's the problem I have with it: you are attempting to claim that it is MORE likely that God would choose to send messengers to a young "farmboy" after thousands of years of silence during which the world was allowed to fall away from His plan, reveal to that farmboy golden plates containing messages of import to all mankind, etc. than it is that a young farmboy could have done a really good job writing a book."
Your phrase "really good job writing a book" demonstrates that you don't comprehend what was accomplished with this book. I'll grant you that mere mortals have written great collections of wisdom, instructions, and stories and claimed that they were divine in origin. But, this ignores the things I listed that no early 19th century farmboy could have done.
You said, "For example, you cite the use of chiasm in the BoM as "evidence" of its scriptural inspiration; the simple fact is that the chiasmus is a fairly obvious literary device used throughout even the KJV translation, and anyone attempting to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device -- even if they weren't conscious of its name."
Although chiasms are found in the Bible, they are far from common in the Bible, are not fairly obvious, and I definately disagree that someone trying to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device. It is extremely easy, after an event has taken place to say, "of course it happened, it was obvious that it was going to happen" and then find some reason why it was almost certain to happen. I think you are really ignoring the real odds of a real farmboy, with a real minimal education, could have written the Book of Mormon.
OK, so chiasms are in the Bible and he could have used them as a pattern. That still leaves you with having to explain how Joseph was able to describe an ancient Arabian trade route, accurately name an ancient burial ground in Arabia, and accurately give the location of a very unique place in Arabia that has sufficent trees to build a ship and nearby ore to make tools. No one in 19th century America knew these things.
I'll go along with your criticisms of MesoAmerican culture. With the other textual and archaeological data points, I am aware that there are alternative explanations and we would just differ on the probabilities.
I said in an earlier post, "What I am getting at is that if your hypothesis is that God exists, the data points I present can be used to support it, but, if your hypothesis is that God does not exist, you will be able to find an alternative explanation for the data. The key in determining which hypothesis is more plausible or reasonable is in asking yourself which hypothesis fits the data best. In other words, how hard is it to explain away the data (how many unlikely scenarios have to combine to be able to fit the data to the hypothesis)."
I never set out to prove that God exists, because there is no conclusive evidence that cannot be interpreted in another way. So, all we have to work with is probabilities and likelihoods, which are "baseless opinions" as you say. I have no way to move your opinion on the likelihood of something, so there we are.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"I'm sorry, but this discussion is just not sufficiently important to me that I can be bothered to read all that. Do you think perhaps you could give just one data point at a time?"
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I mean, I'm as ready for a good intellectual discussion on the existence of gods as the next man, but Jesus H Christ! I didn't intend to read a doctoral dissertation! Especially not one that seems to consist mainly of Bible quotes. Friend starLisa is at least concise!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, so chiasms are in the Bible and he could have used them as a pattern. That still leaves you with having to explain how Joseph was able to describe an ancient Arabian trade route, accurately name an ancient burial ground in Arabia, and accurately give the location of a very unique place in Arabia that has sufficent trees to build a ship and nearby ore to make tools. No one in 19th century America knew these things.
Did you, anywhere in that mass of text, show that anyone but Mormon scholars believe that such a place indeed existed? Anyway, what about all those trees and ships mentioned in the Bible? I don't see why comrade Smith shouldn't have believed the Bible - what did he know about modern Arabia, after all? For all he knew, the Fertile Crescent was still Fertile.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fixed the links. In regards to the length: Unlike many posts, I am not simply stating some philosophical argument. I am entering "evidence", and in order to do that it takes a while (that is one reason why trials take so long). It is not enough in this case to present a laundry list of data points, because you would have no sense of the context, significance, or likelihood that the data could be explained in some other way.
I write out of the context of my experience and you hear out of the context of yours, and since most of the readers aren't familiar with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I had to provide enough information for you to get at least a basic understanding. I do not feel that I gave you much if any frivolous stuff to read. In fact, due to length, I did give you two laundry lists of archaeological data and fulfilled prophecies. You will need to read the info on the links to get the context and significance.
I am sorry, but it takes work on your part as it does any juror to sift through what has been presented. In fact, I really feel that I would need to give you more evidence of young Joseph's writing samples fom his journal and letters to his wife to build the case more strongly that Joseph could not have authored the Book of Mormon. The more you study these "evidences" the more convinced you become that this could not be a fraud. But, people balk at the work involved.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are "Joseph Smith wrote it" and "God wrote it and it is entirely true" the only two choices, though?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes. I mean, I'm as ready for a good intellectual discussion on the existence of gods as the next man, but Jesus H Christ! I didn't intend to read a doctoral dissertation! Especially not one that seems to consist mainly of Bible quotes. Friend starLisa is at least concise!
And my posts tend to be among the longest. So for me to be considered concise by comparison is really saying something.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky: They aren't. I spelled out the possibility that some other early 19th century person could have written it in the larger post. I suppose that I can reiterate that possibility every time I mention it. Now, I discount the possibility that anyone else in the 1800's could have written it, not only Joseph Smith, because among other things (all listed in my post) no one living knew about the places of Nahom and Bountiful in southern Arabia, which the Book of Mormon, spells out their locations by saying start at Jerusalem, travel this many days in this direction, then this many days in this direction, etc. Please read my posts.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember my sophomore year in college, flyers went up for a talk to be given in one of the dorm lounges called "Proof of the Resurrection".
A friend of mine who saw the flyer came to me, hysterical. She was Jewish, but utterly ignorant of Judaism. She knew I wasn't. She told me that I simply had to go and show them they were wrong. ::eyes rolling::
(Incidentally, if I'm less than cogent or make a lot of typos, it's because I'm stoned to the gills on vicodin right now. Vitamin V, I call it. Took one last night and one again this morning. It's helping with my back, but my shin is still hurting. They should put a "not effective on shins" warning on the bottle.)
Anyway, Ellen was insistent, and getting on my nerves, so I told her I'd go. So I went. And what was their "proof"? They read from one of the gospels (Luke, maybe?) the passage where they find the cave empty. Wow. I remember them reading a line like, "There was an angel sitting on the rock and his garb was white as snow." I remember that because my reflexive reaction was to murmur "and everywhere that Mary went, that angel was sure to go".
But anyway, that was their proof. I mention it because it's an awful lot like enochville's "proofs". Though... shouldn't the plural be "prooves"? Like the plural of hoof is hooves? But I digress.
Anyway, Christianity itself still hasn't fulfilled its burden of proof, so Mormonism, which derives from it, certainly has a ways to go. I mean, if Christianity didn't claim to derive from Judaism, it wouldn't carry that kind of burden, but since it does, it does, and it hasn't. If you get my drift.
And I should probably wait to post until later today. I just know I'm going to look at this and be completely appalled.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, Your sanity/psychosis argument doesn't hold up. Feelings of transcendental experiences such as "seeing God" can be created through some relatively minor stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain. This is a non-controversial fact in psychology. Here's an article talking about this experience being induced in laboratory conditions.
That is not to say that there can't be authentically caused transcendental experiences or that Joseph Smith's were due only to brain misfirings, but you've set up a false dichotomy where either they are authentic or the person is psychotic. Hallucinations in general and these specific types of hallucinations have been consistently shown to occur outside of the schizophrenic population.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men said,"Did you, anywhere in that mass of text, show that anyone but Mormon scholars believe that such a place indeed existed? Anyway, what about all those trees and ships mentioned in the Bible? I don't see why comrade Smith shouldn't have believed the Bible - what did he know about modern Arabia, after all? For all he knew, the Fertile Crescent was still Fertile."
I did not provide evidence that non-Mormon scholars have written anything about Nahom and Bountiful. I don't think they have cared enough to research these places, but the articles that I did cite (which you have obviously not read) speak of physical places and properties of those places that could be easily verified. Just because evidence comes from the prosecution doesn't mean you can't trust it. Evaluate the quality of it for yourself.
By the way, this argument has nothing to do the the ability to build ships in the Middle East in general. Please read the articles.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back and read your posts more carefully than last night's cursory skim, enochville. Among other things, I don't see how the believability of Joseph Smith's personal revelations is significantly greater than the believability of Mohammed's personal revelations. This leads me to a question: are most new converts to Mormonism already Christians (even if lapsed)? This seems pretty likely to me -- if a religion is going to grow in the United States as fast as Mormonism has, it pretty much has to get most of its converts from other Christian denominations.
That should tell you something, if it is in fact the case: Mormons are for the most part only convincing people who already accept the Bible. The requirements in terms of supporting evidence for converting Christians of other denominations are presumably significantly different from the requirements for converting someone who does not believe in god, or who believes that god does not exist.
I do have some fairly significant issues with the factual content of your posts, but I'm more interested in the above question than I am in discussing those.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it. First, as you mentioned, just because an electrode activating a neuron can cause you to perceive a light, doesn't mean that everytime you see a light, it is a mental creation. Second, I believe there is a qualitative difference between the experiences that this researcher was able to produce and experience Joseph had with his visitations. Moving from laboratory induced experiences to influences from the natural world, the scientist posits,
"Might it surprise anyone to learn, in view of Persinger's theories, that when Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni before founding Mormonism, and when Charles Taze Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses, powerful Leonid meteor showers were occurring?"
Joseph did not see some hovering light in the distant night sky, he saw an angel in the form of a glorified man standing in the air beside his bed. And this wasn't just a quick impression from his peripheral vision. The visitation lasted all night long and Moroni was there so long that Joseph had the opportunity to study his robe and his hands and feet. Furthermore, a message was conveyed just as one man talks with another that was very coherent, complex, and long. You don't get all that from looking at a meteor in the distant sky with potentially a very non-focused electrical field passing through you.
Furthermore, these visions came to him in different states, not in some special place where electrical disturbances are common. And, some of his visions involved other human observers.
In regards to the last point, the scientist says, "One classic example was the apparition of Mary over the Coptic Church in Zeitoun, Egypt, in the 1960s," he continues. "This phenomenon lasted off and on for several years. It was seen by thousands of people, and the appearance seemed to precede the disturbances that occurred during the building of the Aswan High Dam.
Persinger says there were balls of light that moved around the cross atop the church. "They were influenced by the cross, of course. It looked like a circle with a triangle on the bottom. If you had an imagination, it looked like a person. Upside down, by the way, it was the classical UFO pattern."
Again, Joseph's visions are crystal clear and very close, like normal life except the Heavenly Beings have a white glow about them. They were not some amorphous, distant light that people can, through the power of suggestion, interpret to be something.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are other ways to know whether the Bible is true. These methods revolve around testing the word itself and the effect it can have on you. But, I will save that discussion for later in this post.
I do think this is the mainstay of your argument. However, the Koran is likewise claimed, by Moslems, to have similarly addictive properties. How do you account for this? If the reply is going to be on the order of "They are playing foolie-foolie games with their own heads," well, consider yourself answered.
Or, to put it another way, if I managed to utterly and completely convince myself that Jennifer Lopez had fallen totally in love with me and was about to arrive at mu door, wearing nothing but her famous smile, why, I think I'd be quite happy for a while too. That would not prove the truth of the proposition. The only difference is that with your hypothesis of "God exists", there is no obvious test, so you won't be quickly disappointed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joseph did not see some hovering light in the distant night sky, he saw an angel in the form of a glorified man standing in the air beside his bed. And this wasn't just a quick impression from his peripheral vision. The visitation lasted all night long and Moroni was there so long that Joseph had the opportunity to study his robe and his hands and feet. Furthermore, a message was conveyed just as one man talks with another that was very coherent, complex, and long. You don't get all that from looking at a meteor in the distant sky with potentially a very non-focused electrical field passing through you.
Two problems. The first one is, "Sez Joseph Smith." The second one is, many "alien abductess" have reported extremely similar experiences, including the pretty little moral messages.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa: In no place did I cite the authority of the Bible as evidence of anything. I understand that when arguing a point you have to have a common ground with the person you are debating. Since the validity of the Bible is in question, it would make no sense to use the Bible as proof to someone who doesn't accept the Bible. That is why I never said, God exists because the Bible says so. I used verses to explain things, not to prove things.
A data point for us to consider was did the Biblical prophets see God. I used the Bible to show that there are stories of people seeing God. Then, I went about trying to show why we can believe the Bible using events outside the Bible.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, this is my last response for now because I have got to get some work done.
Twinky: You said, "That should tell you something, if it is in fact the case: Mormons are for the most part only convincing people who already accept the Bible. The requirements in terms of supporting evidence for converting Christians of other denominations are presumably significantly different from the requirements for converting someone who does not believe in god, or who believes that god does not exist."
I suspect that most of our converts were already Christians. This is not surprizing since a third of the world are Christian and we are not allowed by the governments of China, nor any Middle-Eastern country, to proselyte there.
I will agree with you that the way a Mormon missionary approaches a conversation with a Christian is different than the way he approaches a non-Christian. If I had prepared my posts for Christians, I would be quoting from the Bible all the time and citing it as an authority.
One side note, there are more Mormons outside the United States than inside.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, I suggest that if you read the literature on this phenomenom, especially when taking into account the reconstructive nature of memory, you will likely find that how Joseph Smith described his experiences is susceptible to this explanation. Subject's recounting of their experiences undergoing this manipulation have displayed detail and specificity as well as time distortion effects. Smith could possibly have had a temporal lobe abnormality that made him highly susceptible to this experience. If memory serves, he had some pretty strange ideas, obsessions, and visions prior to receiving the LDS revelation (I'm thinking of the treasure hunting thing specifically).
All of which, as I said, is not to say that his experiences are necessarily not authentic, but rather that I think you're not justified in dismissing these possibilities on the grounds that you're using.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Engrossing as this has been to read (or at least skim), I would like to point out that I think we are missing the point. If we could "prove" God, either by evidence or logic (and I thank God that we can't), we lose the gift of being free to choose to believe in God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as entertaining as it is to watch people see who can pee farther than anyone else...I'm going to go do something more constructive with my time.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that most of our converts were already Christians. This is not surprizing since a third of the world are Christian and we are not allowed by the governments of China, nor any Middle-Eastern country, to proselyte there.
Absolutely (apart from quibbles about Middle Eastern countries; there are plenty of Arab Christians). But are Mormons converting, for example, many American Muslims? My suspicion is that you are not, but I'm not sure that there's any way to check.
quote:One side note, there are more Mormons outside the United States than inside.
Sure, but the ratio of non-Americans to Americans is much higher than the ratio of non-American Mormons to American Mormons.
Finally, to lend a bit of support to Squicky's point, your description of Joseph Smith's account of his first revelation states that he wrote the account more than a decade after the fact. I'm 24. I hope that if I wrote a detailed description of how I was, say, abducted by aliens when I was 14, you would not take me at my word. I realize that is far from your only "data point," but I don't think that the detail of his account(s) lends much -- if any -- credence. For me, the detail of the descriptions actually detracts from them somewhat -- for instance, I'm skeptical that he could remember exactly and with such detail the precise verses of the Bible that Moroni quoted, let alone how they were altered from their "KJV" form... unless he was frantically taking notes the whole time the angel was there. I think it's just as reasonable to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's revelations as it is to be skeptical of Mohammed's, or skeptical of the large number of very similar alien abduction stories. Indeed, I'm highly skeptical of all three.
quote:If we could "prove" God, either by evidence or logic (and I thank God that we can't), we lose the gift of being free to choose to believe in God.
In that case I'd say that you (the royal "you") should be willing to accept criticism when you tell those who believe god does not exist that you do in fact know the Truth with a capital T. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm saying that you (again, the royal "you") can't have it both ways.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky: Even if, as you have hypothesized, Joseph had temporal lobe damage, your model cannot account for the fact that on several occasions, there were other witnesses to the same visitation. That goes for King of Men's alien abduction stories as well. Any account that is as specific as Joseph's doesn't have a collaborator. I am not talking about people seeing a distant UFO.
kmbboots: I don't think we are missing the point. I have said time and time again in this thread that we can not prove God exists because it is impossible to prove anything, except a very few things. I think it is good for us to be free to choose to believe in God. The point of this discussion is to show that it is plausible and can be reasonable to believe in God. I am doing this in the hopes of getting King of Men to stop calling people who believe in God idiots. I don't mind being called an idiot myself, but it makes me upset when he ridicules people who have a fledgling faith in God. I feel that they are on the right track. I don't even mind him challenging people to think. I just don't like him calling them idiots.
King of Men: I do not believe that Mormons have a monopoly on God. Muslims pray to the same God I do and receive answers to their prayers which confirms their faith in God. The difference is we have asked God if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. We invite all people to bring with them the truths they have and see if we can add to them. We do not believe that the Koran is the word of God, and I would contend that no Muslim has ever asked Allah whether the Koran is his word and received a witness from Him that it is true. They just assume that it is and as far as I know, they don't believe in asking God questions like these.
They would need to prepare their minds to be receptive to whatever answer God would give them as well. They don't have to already believe it is not his word before they can receive the answer that it is not true, but they need to be open to finding out from God that it might not be true. Anyway, the process is, they must read and learn all they can about the issue (i.e., find out why people believe it is the word of God and why others do not believe it is the word of God), then they must study it out in their own mind and come to their own conclusion, then they must ask God if their conclusion is right. If it is right, they will feel a peace in their heart, a comfort with the idea, and a surety that it is true. If their conclusion is not true, they will have no such feeling, but will be either unsettled or will feel that it is not right. If they don't feel anything, they should study it out some more and be sure that they are willing to act on whatever answer they receive. I have experienced both types of answers as I've prayed about decisions in my life.
I know someone is going to ask the hypothetical, "and what if they feel that Joseph Smith is not a prophet or that Muhammed was?" People need to follow the answers they believe they received. But, I believe that God will lead them to the same answers he has led everybody else who has ever asked him these direct questions.
Now, as you noticed, answers to prayers are not the crux of my argument. I recognize that they are easily attributed to other sources than God. I will not contest this point, but for me this is one of my evidences for God.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Any account that is as specific as Joseph's doesn't have a collaborator.
That's just not true. Plenty of the Catholic visions have been both specific and to multiple people. Cult members have reported experiencing group visions that are very specific.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, I believe that God will lead them to the same answers he has led everybody else who has ever asked him these direct questions.
Your confidence in this statement only works if you assume that everyone who has gotten a different answer than you never "really" asked or wasn't really open to the answer.
And your assertion that members of other religions never ask God for confirmation of their truth is just plain ignorant.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am doing this in the hopes of getting King of Men to stop calling people who believe in God idiots.
enochville, I have yet to see anything in this thread that would persuade KoM that we are not idiots.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your confidence in this statement only works if you assume that everyone who has gotten a different answer than you never "really" asked or wasn't really open to the answer.
Or no answer at all:
quote:If they don't feel anything, they should study it out some more and be sure that they are willing to act on whatever answer they receive.
This is egregiously insulting. Do you have any idea how condescending this statement is? As long as you're accusing KoM of being insulting -- which he is, intentionally, and quite openly so -- you should strive to be a little more cognizant of statements you make which are, to be perfectly frank, just as bad.
"If you look for god and don't find god, you didn't look hard enough. Keep looking."
I'm not sure I can continue this discussion civilly, because I find that position utterly abhorrent and totally indefensible.
Added: Well, "abhorrent" is too strong a word. But that statement is very upsetting.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Come on, this is really, really weak. 
