Why are these truths not self evident?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Old Timer wrote:

one sign that someone still has at least a foot solidly in Stage 3 is when they insist with complete certainty that those who are certain are certainly wrong.

Wouldn’t that be Stage 4? Did you accidentally say 3? Or are you using hyperbole? (Sorry. The engineer in me coming out.)

Not really. Stage 3 is characterized by a sense of certainty; Stage 4 is largely about the shattering of certainty and struggle with dissonance; Stage 5 is movement toward acceptance of dissonance and ambiguity and nuance and paradox . . .

Many people hit Stage 4 and recoil back into a different iteration of Stage 3. Someone insisting with certainty that others who are certain of something other than that which the first person is certain – and especially someone who is certain they now are absolutely correct and those who disagree are incorrect . . . really that is just the opposite side of the exact same Stage 3 coin. Yes, the questioning of those who hold one’s former views occurs in Stage 4 – but a return to exclusive certainty is a retreat back into Stage 3.

This is largely because most truths aren’t self-evident.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Rix wrote:

…And maybe the suicide bombers that are also totally convinced that they have been inspired by God to strap bombs to themselves, run into a building and kill those infidels along with taking their own life, are also hearing God’s voice…Can anybody really know exactly what another’s witness is?…I don’t see Paul’s writings as any more or less “inspired” than hundreds of other enlightened spiritual leaders.

I don’t think Christianity really has much of anything to do with Islamic Jihadists. In principle, Christianity is a non-violent and peaceful religion that teaches forgiveness, loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, etc., so I don’t really see the comparison to Islam.

I wasn’t trying to claim that everything Paul ever said is inspired; my point is that I take his story and opinions more seriously than many others because I don’t believe that he was just making things up in a casual or haphazard way. It wasn’t just talk, he walked the walk and we can’t necessarily say the same thing about many other authors of so-called scriptures.

I think we have vastly different perceptions of history, DA. Yes, Jihadists are a uniquely terroristic small faction of a much larger Islam — one that is by definition very peaceful and loving of all people. I guess you haven’t heard of the Crusades in Christian history? Millions slaughtered for not professing allegiance to Jesus…quite violent, IMO.

Of course Christianity has thrived in our western world — partially due to the slaughtering of those who didn’t comply over the centuries. And each major world religion has its violent past…and most claim to have a peaceful, love your enemies sort of foundation. But even the Mormons have quite an unsavory past including the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Danites, and even the Blackhawk war where they were a part of murdering thousands of innocent Natives here in Sanpete County. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

So what I see is very equally violent pasts “under the Banner of Heaven” by most religions, and hopefully an evolution to a much more tolerant, respectful attitude towards others that believe differently today. I’m glad to see that Mormonism has transitioned to a more peaceful people today. I see good and bad, inspired and uninspired leaders throughout history of each religion…and hope each can continue evolving to a place of love in their doctrines. Heaven knows we have room to grow in that direction!

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t think Christianity really has much of anything to do with Islamic Jihadists. In principle, Christianity is a non-violent and peaceful religion that teaches forgiveness, loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, etc., so I don’t really see the comparison to Islam.

I think we have vastly different perceptions of history, DA. Yes, Jihadists are a uniquely terroristic small faction of a much larger Islam — one that is by definition very peaceful and loving of all people. I guess you haven’t heard of the Crusades in Christian history? Millions slaughtered for not professing allegiance to Jesus…quite violent, IMO…Of course Christianity has thrived in our western world — partially due to the slaughtering of those who didn’t comply over the centuries. And each major world religion has its violent past…

Yes I’ve heard of the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, etc., but most of this is ancient history as far as I’m concerned and I’m not convinced that Christianity was really the primary cause as much as ignorance, politics, irrational hatred, and many other contributing factors. The truth is that atheist communists have killed far more people the last 100 years than all supposed religious fanatics combined.

Personally, I think most of these so-called Muslim terrorists probably have more in common with the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh than the majority of Muslims. My guess is that they are basically just malcontents that don’t feel like they have anything better to do so they hate and blame others for their own dissatisfaction in life. Some of the 9-11 hijackers were drinking at some nudie bar the night before their terrorist attack. That hardly sounds like devout Muslim behaviour to me.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think I can see where you are coming from, DA. I might generalize even further and say that when it comes to mass slaughtering, there seems to be a common theme of classifying “your” type of people as being better, or chosen, more than the others…ala Hitler, “whites” over the “Indians,” etc….

Fortunately, as the world has become smaller, and we become more educated, we understand that none of us is uniquely superior to another. A needed evolution of attitude!

[Anonymous]

I think if we look at something specific as opposed to things in general I can get my point across.

Quote:

The Book of Mormon is historically accurate and the most correct book.

Now forget everything else and focus on this one statement. If this is a true statement as many believe then why:

1. Why Is there no real evidence of a gigantic battle taking place 1600 years ago in New York. Dig me up some swords and breastplates

2. Why are errors in the bible transferred to the Book of Mormon if it was translated from original texts

3. Why do we have to try and keep explaining things like horses, elephants, and cement.

4. How come DNA evidence does not support the story of the Book of Mormon

5. Mostly how come it is not so obvious that there was a giant Christian culture on the american continent and everyone was just waiting for a book to come along and explain it all.

Why do we need to manipulate and search for these basic answers if it is so obviously and accurate recored? I do not want to discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon but answer the question why is it not obviously true given the physical evidence. You can apply this same logic to polygamy or other basic tenants of our belief. I am not even asking if they are true, maybe they are just why is it not obvious.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Why do we need to manipulate and search for these basic answers if it is so obviously and accurate recored? I do not want to discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon but answer the question why is it not obviously true given the physical evidence. You can apply this same logic to polygamy or other basic tenants of our belief. I am not even asking if they are true, maybe they are just why is it not obvious.

I think I get the question now. I guess the answer is, “Because they aren’t true.” The truth in anything is probably self-evident. What isn’t immediately obvious sometimes is that self-evident the truth is hidden somewhere in the tangled mess of lies.

Old-Timer wrote:

Stage 3 is characterized by a sense of certainty; Stage 4 is largely about the shattering of certainty and struggle with dissonance; Stage 5 is movement toward acceptance of dissonance and ambiguity and nuance and paradox . . .

Many people hit Stage 4 and recoil back into a different iteration of Stage 3. Someone insisting with certainty that others who are certain of something other than that which the first person is certain – and especially someone who is certain they now are absolutely correct and those who disagree are incorrect

Roger. I guess we each understand the stages differently. To me, your last sentence above is the common case when people are in Stage 4. Personally, I never felt more certain in my life than breaking from Stage 3 (relying on a Synthesis of the Conventional faith authority) to Stage 4 (relying on an Individual faith consistent with my own Reflections). I wouldn’t call it a regression, but merely another step on the journey, a full-fledge stage of faith growth.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Cadence wrote:

Why do we need to manipulate and search for these basic answers if it is so obviously and accurate recored? I do not want to discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon but answer the question why is it not obviously true given the physical evidence. You can apply this same logic to polygamy or other basic tenants of our belief. I am not even asking if they are true, maybe they are just why is it not obvious.

I think I get the question now. I guess the answer is, “Because they aren’t true.”

Great, now that we’ve answered that question what’s the best way to convince my wife of this without making her too upset?

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I think if we look at something specific as opposed to things in general I can get my point across.

Quote:

The Book of Mormon is historically accurate and the most correct book.

Now forget everything else and focus on this one statement. If this is a true statement as many believe then why:

1. Why Is there no real evidence of a gigantic battle taking place 1600 years ago in New York. Dig me up some swords and breastplates

2. Why are errors in the bible transferred to the Book of Mormon if it was translated from original texts

3. Why do we have to try and keep explaining things like horses, elephants, and cement.

4. How come DNA evidence does not support the story of the Book of Mormon

5. Mostly how come it is not so obvious that there was a giant Christian culture on the american continent and everyone was just waiting for a book to come along and explain it all.

Why do we need to manipulate and search for these basic answers if it is so obviously and accurate recored? I do not want to discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon but answer the question why is it not obviously true given the physical evidence. You can apply this same logic to polygamy or other basic tenants of our belief. I am not even asking if they are true, maybe they are just why is it not obvious.

The more I think about the physical and archeological evidence for the BoM the less it means to me. My positive experiences with it are not related to that at all.

For me the question is not about elephants and horses, but more “has it improved my life?” The answer is yes. (I’m afraid I can’t say the same about some parts of the BoA, but there you go)

I think similarly about the evolution vs creation debate. For me, they’re barking up the wrong tree (of life). It’s all very well whether we come from pond scum, or from Adam and Eve, but how much difference does it make to my everyday life? Sure, Richard Dawkins would say, “well, you wouldn’t exist without evolution, blah blah”, but in actual fact it’s not of much import to my everyday life where my species came from, I’m here as I am now… Eden or evolve, I still have the same needs for happiness, fulfilment, financial and physical comfort. Somehow that debate is a sideline.

As it happens, the Eden story (other than being slightly sexist, but enough on that issue) does have some useful lessons for my life… whether or not it actually happened as written.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Great, now that we’ve answered that question what’s the best way to convince my wife of this without making her too upset?

Does it matter? I know that, as Ray said, there are no academic issues, and everything is emotional to somebody. But is it necessary to convince her? If her faith didn’t work for her (or in the event it no longer works for her), she would not adhere to it. Maybe the Book of Mormon has what she needs. Maybe her view of it is correct. After all, though you are her husband, can you be sure exactly how she sees it? Or maybe she is deceived. Is she suffering?

In my experience, the only way to really share the great stuff I have learned is to keep learning great stuff and revealing new truths about myself and reality and love and others. I can’t turn back and holler to the others, “Hey, you all, it’s better here.” Are they really behind me? Could I scoot up if somebody else hollered that at me? Would I want to? Would I believe them?

I hate to say it, but you just gotta be patient and focus on your continued growth.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

I hate to say it, but you just gotta be patient and focus on your continued growth.

Your continued ‘subjective’ growth. 😈 Which becomes objective as you serve others and continue to love them more and more.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Great, now that we’ve answered that question what’s the best way to convince my wife of this without making her too upset?

Does it matter? I know that, as Ray said, there are no academic issues, and everything is emotional to somebody. But is it necessary to convince her? If her faith didn’t work for her (or in the event it no longer works for her), she would not adhere to it. Maybe the Book of Mormon has what she needs…

I was only half serious about that idea. I don’t really want to try to force others to accept my own beliefs or burst anyone’s bubble if they are happy with things the way they are. My point is that it is fairly easy to convince people that expect this kind of evidence and logic to justify their beliefs but people that have more of an emotional attachment to the Church or people that don’t really care that much about trying to prove everything might not want to hear it.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

The more I think about the physical and archeological evidence for the BoM the less it means to me. My positive experiences with it are not related to that at all.

For me the question is not about elephants and horses, but more “has it improved my life?” The answer is yes.

Yeah. I can’t honestly say “No.” It hasn’t been a significant force in my life this decade (I needed other things). But I think in its time, the Book of Mormon really improved my life. And maybe it yet has a future for me, when the time is right again. Who can say?

HiJolly wrote:

Your continued ‘subjective’ growth. 😈 Which becomes objective as you serve others and continue to love them more and more.

Wow! Too true. Thanks.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I was only half serious about that idea.

You’re good. I get you now. But yeah, I can identify with the old urge!

[Anonymous]

Cadence, the following are my honest, simple answers to your questions.

Quote:

1. Why Is there no real evidence of a gigantic battle taking place 1600 years ago in New York. Dig me up some swords and breastplates.

Because the BofM doesn’t claim there was such a battle in that place.

Quote:

2. Why are errors in the bible transferred to the Book of Mormon if it was translated from original texts?

Because it wasn’t – which the translation process as described by Joseph himself makes clear. (Also, fwiw, there are lots of examples of wording in the “Bible passages” in the Book of Mormon that are different than those same passages in the Bible, including one where phrases from two different Biblical translations appear in the BofM – one of which was not available to Joseph.)

Quote:

3. Why do we have to try and keep explaining things like horses, elephants, and cement.

Because there is lots of evidence that people rode animals (which would lead to a tranlsation of “horse”), there actually are oral histories of massive animals with tusks exactly like “elephants”, and “cement” is a perfectly fine translation for a mortar-like substance – especially if we accept that translators can’t use words that are not in their vocabulary. (“Steel” fits this concept perfectly, as well.) That last point is true of ALL translations of ALL records. The less-educated the translator (the smaller the native vocabulary of the translator), the less-specific and precise the translation. Given a relatively uneducated translator, approximations should be expected.

Quote:

4. How come DNA evidence does not support the story of the Book of Mormon?

It does – if you grant that the BoM actually describes an original, massive, long-term population of people from Asia generally (the Jaredites) and a later, much smaller, short-term population from the Middle East with an apparent inter-mingling with more numerous native populations. That honestly is how I read the actual text. Nothing else makes sense from a purely demographic perspective.

Quote:

5. Mostly how come it is not so obvious that there was a giant Christian culture on the american continent and everyone was just waiting for a book to come along and explain it all.

Because the book itself doesn’t make those claims. The only “Christian” culture would have been the Nephites (or, more precisely, the very small portion of the Nephites, as described in the actual record itself, who were “believers”) – and the “Christian” culture would have died out by 200AD. Given how small the actual “Christian” population was, according to the BofM itself, there is no reason to believe there would be any other record of its existence than the one its leaders kept. (As Mormon Heretic pointed out elsewhere, there is NO evidence for the Hebrew exodus, except the Bible – and that event, and those surrounding it, are recorded to have occurred in a location where it should be much easier to find evidence that it occurred.)

I understand your questions address the dominant interpretations and beliefs of the vast majority of the membership since the foundation of the Church – but they don’t address the actual book, imo.

You are correct:

Sometimes truths aren’t self-evident simply because they aren’t truths.

(NOTE: I’m not claiming any of this proves the BofM is an actual, accurate historical record. I’m just saying flawed interpretations can’t be used as the standard for examining the self-evidence of truth – even if those flawed interpretations are dominant within a culture.)

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Because it wasn’t – which the translation process as described by Joseph himself makes clear. (Also, fwiw, there are lots of examples of wording in the “Bible passages” in the Book of Mormon that are different than those same passages in the Bible, including one where phrases from two different Biblical translations appear in the BofM – one of which was not available to Joseph.)

Is that the Ships of Tarshish bit? I was reading about that the other day in the BoM footnotes. Very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Yes, Sam. The reference in 12 Nephi 2:16 is “upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish” – while the KJV of Isaiah 2:16 only mentions the ships of Tarshish. The version of Isaiah 2:16 that mentions the ships of the sea is in the Septuagint.

I typed a bit carelessly in my comment about this verse. I should have said there is no indication that Joseph had access to the Septuagint at the time of the translation of the BofM – nor is there any indication that the Septuagint had any other influence on the translation.

[Author]

Posts