Posted on 03/31/2011 5:32:42 PM PDT by Paragon Defender
Source: For Mormon Times
21 March 2011 5:00am
Critics frequently claim that one reason they reject the Book of Mormon is because it is unsupported by archaeological evidence. Some have gone as far to claim that they would believe in the church if archaeology could “prove” that the Book of Mormon is true. The next several installments will deal with evidence, proof, faith and Book of Mormon archaeology.
I should note two important points regarding the nature of evidence and the necessity of faith. First, I’m unconvinced that any critic would “convert” because of some alleged “proof” because I doubt that any “proof” could ever satisfy those who have truly hardened their hearts against Joseph Smith.
Some time back, for example, one angry message-board critic wrote that “even if modern DNA studies” exhibited an Israelite presence in the ancient Americas, it would “not in the slightest … lend some credence to Mormon truth claims.” All such a find would do, he argues, would confirm what many people in Joseph Smith’s day already believed — the “common belief in the United States 175 years ago, that the (American Indian) was a descendant of the Israelites” (quoted in "Shaken Faith Syndrome," 54).
This would be the critic’s likely response to virtually any evidence found to support the Book of Mormon. If a text was uncovered in an ancient Mesoamerican ruin that was translated to say “Nephi slept here,” the majority of critics would still not be satisfied, and issues would be raised. “How do we know that the text really dates from Book of Mormon times?” “How do we know the text wasn’t planted by a BYU archaeologist?”
Because such a text would not have been written in English, challenges would arise regarding the translation to the English “Nephi” and the decision to use all those specific Latin letters in the English rendition of Nephi’s name. Even if it could be shown that the name was really “Nephi,” critics would simply contend that this was an example of a fantastic coincidence — such as the bizarre coincidence that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who wrote and edited the Declaration of Independence which was adopted on July 4, 1776, both died exactly 50 years later on July 4, 1826.
Jesus once said: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). For those who do not want to believe, there simply are no convincing (let alone intellectually decisive) evidences.
The late Hugh Nibley once observed: “When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up.”
Secondly, the Lord doesn’t work via secular proofs because that would confound the primary principle of agency. While there are evidences that support religious convictions, there are no intellectually decisive proofs, and there will always be evidences that conflict with our beliefs (see 2 Nephi 2:11-16).
LDS scholar Terryl Givens explains: “(T)here are appealing arguments for God as a childish projection, for modern prophets as scheming or deluded imposters, and for modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction. But there is also compelling evidence that a glorious divinity presides over the cosmos, that God calls and anoints prophets, and that his word and will are made manifest through a sacred canon that is never definitively closed.”
Non-LDS philosophers have argued that in order for us to have spiritual freedom — freedom to make choices — God cannot allow us to know — by secular proof alone — that he exists. Non-LDS philosophy instructor Joseph Lynch, for instance, explains that this gap “is necessary so that human beings can freely make more moral choices and freely choose God — it can’t be too obvious that God exists, but his existence shouldn’t be altogether implausible either” (quoted in "Shaken Faith Syndrome," 40). If humans had incontrovertible secular evidence for the existence of God, they would be unable to freely choose whether or not to accept God.
From modern revelation, we know that without faith and testing we would be following a plan not unlike the one proposed by Satan — a plan that compels us all to return to the Father. “I am convinced,” notes Givens, “that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice. ...
“The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.”
“If humans had incontrovertible secular evidence for the existence of God, they would be unable to freely choose whether or not to accept God.”
Need anyone explain how absurd this statement is?
Please spare Christians from criticism from the LDS. The LDS “religion” is a poorly put together man-made concoction from a “fortune finder” with a magic stone who has been roundly proven wrong on all counts.
The fact that this heretic and his “book” have sent so many followers to hell should be enough for all mormons to repent. I get the BYU channel on my cable station and am amazed at all the discussions of the history of this charlatan and his followers and how he’s going to sit next to Jesus on judgement day, and I just shake my head. May Joe Smith, Jr., wind up on KOLOB and stay there.
Well, this is very convenient for Mr. Ash. If someone criticizes the quality of the proof, then the problem is with the critic, not the proof.
Maybe Mormons should consider the converse of Mr. Ash's statement. They accept this tripe as evidence because they are so desperate to prove the BOM true that they are not critical enough.
Yes but it is always nice to watch the Perry Mason reruns every night. That is if I can stay awake.
“Beware of FALSE prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are RAVENING wolves ... For such are FALSE apostles,
DECEITFUL workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:15, The Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 11:13
It sure is. An ancient culture that supposedly had numerous cities and battles and etc. should have at least a shred of something to back it up archeologically. Ancient cultures inevitably leave things behind. Tons of ancient stuff has been found or dug up from ancient Babylonian, Israelite, Assyrian, Aztec, Olmec, Chinese, Brittanic, Celtic, and etc. culture(s). If all the stuff in the Book of Mormon is true, then why not even a shred of archeological evidence to back it up? This is a reasonable question to ask.
The big question is not why anyone would reject the Book of Mormon. The big question is how anyone could possibly accept it.
In other words, the writer is saying that proof doesn't matter. "We have no proof, but hey, proof is not important anyway." Lol. Lame Dodge Attempt.
Lol. True!
What time do the Perry Mason reruns come on?
Stupider words have never been spoken.
While there are evidences that support religious convictions, there are no intellectually decisive proofs
For me it is a decisive lack of proof. The events of the BOM are huge. Huge civilizations, wars, animals, crops, armor, events. But there is no evidence of them ever having existed especially not near where the BOM claims.
One can doubt Christianity, but not Jerusalem, the Roman Empire, Galilee and on and on. If all these places and events in the Bible had the same lack of evidence as to their very existence, I would not be a Christian.
thanks for your post.
PD, http://www.watchman.org/lds/bomarch.htm ... "Despite all of F.A.R.M.S., and other similar organizations, attempts, the facts set forth by archaeologists continue to discredit the validity of the Book of Mormon. It is thus not surprising that in the final analysis, F.A.R.M.S. must admit, "However, proof of the Book of Mormon remains in the spiritual domain," (1988-1989 Catalogue, p. 1)." Thanks for making these posts for everyone to see the complete craziness of Mormonism. No one will ever vote for any politician that believes in Mormonism after reading the stuff you post here. Their judgment is questionable.
10:30 Mountain Time
The homosexual Raymond Burr sure put on a ‘macho’ performance!
Cause they are ripe for deception at thier own choosing and peril. I personally think they go this root because they've rejected Christianity...Mormonism makes them "feel" accepted as it has just enough use of Christian verbage to appeal to what is already known to them...and just enough differnece to trick them.
The events of the BOM are huge. Huge civilizations, wars, animals, crops, armor, events. But there is no evidence of them ever having existed
Sure there is. Not conclusive as of yet but yes there is. You should look such things on the links I provided for information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.