There are many reasons why there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. I will look at my view on why we will never find archaeological evidence. The reason I have concluded is that it is a spiritual guide first and a physical guide second. The Book of Mormon is a spiritual book, not a historical book. I take the position that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual story and not a literal story.
The reason we have not found any physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon is because we will never find any. The only evidence we have and will ever have for the Book of Mormon is mountains of spiritual evidence. Although this doesn't make the Book historically accurate, we can still draw spiritual strength from the Book of Mormon.
I believe that Joseph Smith told the story of the Book of Mormon in a format that people of his time could understand. That explains the golden plates, and the angel Moroni. Folklore in upstate, NY was filled with stories of buried treasures guarded by spirits.
This doesn't make Joseph Smith a false prophet. I still believe that God revealed to us a message through Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith simply took it upon himself to select the format at which he would present it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If the BoM, as you state, is not based upon physical evidence, and based purely upon spiritual experiences, how do you account for the Buddhist? Or the Ba'hai-ist? The Muslim?
Does that then mean that if I proclaim myself to be a prophet of Xemu (or whatever) and cannot or even refuse to show evidence for my special-ness, how can anyone refute me?
Please excuse my crass-ness, but the way you think and present Mormonism is absurd. It's lazy thinking at best and ignorant at worst.
If based upon spiritual experiences alone? Who is to say that the Buddhist's existential enlightement to their truth is any less (or more) than yours? Remember, Buddhism is strictly pantheistic, that is that there is no Creator...life just is. And if your experience is within the paradigm that is mono-theistic...what then? Who holds the key to the true experience without it being based upon things that can be substantiated?
It would be absurd for a high-court judge to sentence someone to death without at least some evidence...otherwise, death sentences (or whatever) are issued because of opinion/feeling/subjective truth?!
Crazy-talk.
Where is the proof that Christ lived and walked the earth? who is to say that he didn't make some really bad choices in the 20 missing years of his life (according to the Bible)? Who is to say that Buddah was not a great and admirable person? Must be that personal revelation (according to what you are saying) is a bunch of crap too... since there is not physical proof to follow... right?
The best part about this is that there are proofs, there are evidences... the problem is, too many overlook the proofs and focus on unsubstantiated information to solidify their claims.
So, Anonymous, where do you suppose dinosaurs came from?
"So, Anonymous, where do you suppose dinosaurs came from?
I don't understand your question. Are you talking about fossils which lead to the fact that dinosaurs existed? Or are you just talking about dinosaurs in general? To answer: dinosaurs came from dinosaurs; until I get further clarification as to what your question is, I'll be a little more specific.
Frankly, I find your questions and assertions at best, absurd and in the least, ignorant. Please be more precise. My question to you is, in the face of NO EVIDENCE (which, by your post, you admit) to support the BoM, how can one know truth? And secondly, if we relied only upon subjective burning in the bosom experiences, opinions and feelings to determine truth, how can one differentiate which is the REAL truth when so many other religions claim to also undergo the same experiences that you describe?
Believe me, there are millions upon millions who have this same feeling that you described when you were 16. There are millions upon millions of people in the world who also claim to see God, the devil etc. But which god do they see? And in this western-society, such people who see 'special' things are unfortunately diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Please take this matter VERY seriously. I wonder whether you fully understand what you have written about. Sure, you may be feeling like you are on cloud nine - with associations of invincibility about your Mormon religion, but there may be thousands of other mormons who might stumble upon this site, read what you have written and in their feeling of despair, might just be enough to push their already rickety faith to oblivion.
If I were you, I would remove this post...because it really is VERY ABSURD. This post, and by your own volition have just managed to prove to MANY people that Mormonism (if, as you say, is a religion, based only upon feelings and experiences) is a fraud, made up by a con-man and it might as well be stacked along side Scientology.
If you haven't already, and if you are serious about pursuing this 'feeling/subjective experience to determine truth' thing, then I suggest you read around the subjects regarding existentialism and phenomenology particularly the works byJean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche and Edmund Husserl.
Heed to the advice and delete the post...it truly is absurd.
Anonymous-
Thank you for your concern, I would like to address that first. Yes, I do believe that God reveals things to other religious figures like Buddha or Mahammad.
I would like to say that it is not lazy thinking at all, on the contrary. I have studied and learned many aspects of the church that make people leave, particularly the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
I KNOW that I am no alone in my 19th century view of the Book of Mormon. It is also not an idea that is shocking or new. Have you heard of Grant Palmer? Yes, he got disfellowshipped, but not ex-communicated for his publication an insider's view of Mormon origins. Now, I don't agree entirely with Grant Palmer, but I do know that certain bishops and stake presidents that share the 19th century view of the Book of Mormon.
Remember, I have stated that this isn't official church doctrine and just my opinion.
stance for truth,
Number 1:
"I KNOW that I am no alone in my 19th century view of the Book of Mormon. It is also not an idea that is shocking or new.
You are right: this way of thinking is called romanticism. Romanticism was very popular during the late 18th to the early 19th centuries. Read more here. It was a popular way of thought (just as the scientific principle in 21st century is the current fad) where people accepted that issues of 'truth' exists from within. It was a movement away from the uprising enlightenment thought of scientific rationalization...
The trouble with this type of thinking is: what if your romantic 'truth' disagrees with the objective truth. For example: you believe in your heart that smoking continues to save your life...you are ADAMANT that the act of smoking increases your life span by 10 years - and no matter what type of evidence and clinical research tests will move you away from what you really believe. Yet, if we look at objective truth: research does seem to show that smoking increases the chance of different types of cancer.
What do we do? We have reached, not just a philosophical, but also a physical conundrum. Who then determines truth? Does the person who is adamant of his truth, or is it the scientist?
Number 2:
"Remember, I have stated that this isn't official church doctrine and just my opinion.
This is crazy-talk. It's a get-out clause...that is worth nothing. stf, you by your own volition to align yourself with Mormon doctrine are a representative of the church. In fact, I have MORE RESPECT for you, for admitting that there are NO or little evidence to support the BoM than MANY LDS apologists and certainly your prophet - who is prepared only to hide his head in the sand, hoping that this will all blow away?!?!
Can I recommend a book for you to read on the subject of truth, meaning and purpose? Please, please, please take the time to read this book, it's called Sophie's World. It's excellent; I assure you, once you start, you won't want to put it down =)
Please, please, please read up on things like this. Do not be misconstrued for being ignorant and narrow-minded - instead, and in all humility, LEARN what it means for other people who interpret their own way of understanding truth/meaning. I promise you that once you have a good handle on subjects such as 'truth', your understanding of others will be even more rich.
By the way, I am a psychotherapist - so I know exactly what you mean about people having their own truths; you can respect others for having their own truth but it doesn't always mean that 'their truth' is always right. =)
So does that go for you as well? If you admit, "but it doesn't always mean that 'their truth' is always right," then perhaps you have the mistaken 'truth'...
Do you feel like your being a "psycho"therapist creates a more righteous dominion upon which you can tell others to re-evaluate their own beliefs? Sometimes I have to wonder what qualifies one to RIP others understanding of reality apart!
Do you believe in God? Where do you stand on the spiritual spectrum? - Not even religion, just spiritual...
Still Firm,
You said, "So does that go for you as well? If you admit, "but it doesn't always mean that 'their truth' is always right," then perhaps you have the mistaken 'truth'...
You have proved my point exactly. See, if our basis of truth hangs upon our own subjectivity, then there is no golden standard for which we measure things by. The problem that I picked up on with stance for truth, is that he (and you) base your realities upon your own selves.
'Truth' must be based on things that can be substantiated, otherwise, people will just make their own truth up, and it will stand as truth =/
Hitler, when he enforced his will against the Jews that they should be massacred was never a right thing to do. Hitler and his followers may have thought at the time that they were doing the right thing...but the Jews certainly did not. Do you see where I am going with this still firm?
If Hitler thought it was right to kill them, based upon his own feeling and the Jews thought that Hitler was wrong, based only upon their own collective feeling....WHO HAS TRUTH?
Feeling and subjective experiences alone CANNOT be the measure of what is true! Otherwise, we will have a society wrecked by one group of people thinking it's ok to murder others, and the another group of people thinking it's ok to go around raping 7 year old girls - with the judicial system (if there would be one) not having a leg to stand on - because this type of 'truth' is SUBJECTIVE!!
Still firm, your logic is ABSURD. Your experiences, as much as I respect them CANNOT ALONE SHOW THAT MORMONISM IS THE TRUTH...
It is A B S U R D...
With so much objective evidence to show that the Lamanite/Nephite civilizations DID NOT EXIST...I think it's about time that you re-think about whether or not your subjective experiences (because that is all that you are basing your 'truth' upon) is true...
Many, many, MANY people have had the same kind of experiences that you both have had...all within many, many, MANY different settings in religion, culure, political systems etc. that to say that you have the truth is COMPLETE ABSURDITY.
Don't misconstrue: I do not mean to say that experiences/subjective experiences are wrong or fake or whatever...but their experiences have to be substantiated (based upon things that can be physically measured), otherwise...it is just another philosophical laughing stock.
Can you hear yourself? "Your way of determining truth is absurd and self-fulfilling, but MY way of determining truth is the only correct way". Your own basis of truth hangs on your own subjectivity, so it is really no different.
I stopped reading when I saw the name "Hitler". I think the Hitler example that everyone always points to is over-done.
Stance,
I don't think that you have read my last comment; either that or you have not understood it.
You have nailed what I have been saying right on its head: without some substantiated grounds, experiences/emotion/feelings cannot be the golden standard to determine truth.
Whether the example of Hitler is overdone or not, his life serves as something of a warning for future generations...
Another way... and simply explained... to perceive what you are saying is that because YOU have not experienced certain scenarios, you are unable to see choices any other way than subjective. There is NOT proof that the Lamanites did not exist. There is NOT proof that Joseph Smith was dilusional... there is NOT proof that Nephi, God, Abraham, Ruth, or Adam were anything other than what the scriptures say they are. I have always thought of myself as a black or white person... not gray... but perhaps there is gray... perhaps the gray is okay... you seem to only want to deal with imperical evidence. Sorry, the gospel does not work that way. If you know anything about our religion then you would understand that to be Satan's plan... but instead, we have our agency to CHOOSE! Those who believe as you (apparently) do, they are called "Sign Seekers." Plain and simple.
How do I know the truthfulness of this gospel? It isn't because I was raised with it and it was so engrained in my being that I could never do anything else... Mine comes from questioning, reading, pondering, praying, receiving revelation (which was substantiated by others) and I would politely disagree that my thought process is ABSURD! You are just jealous that you are not so sure of yourself and what YOU believe! =)
With Love,
Still Firm
Post a Comment