The Book of Judas

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Robin

That is quite a long gap between Jesus and the gospls.

A FORTY YEAR GAP.

You appear to doubt what the enlightenment of the holy spirit can do.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

It's one thing to admit that you don't know something. It's quite another to say that since you don't know, neither do I; and furthermore, I can't know and will never know.

And no, I didn't miss the implied tongue-in-cheek. Nor have any of us failed to notice the self-evident head-up-ass.

If you can present a non-circular explanation why you know the BOM is true, then I will call it a day.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

You appear to doubt what the enlightenment of the holy spirit can do.

Maybe they looked into a cap or something. Maybe they had a +3 Magic Stone of Tongues, or a +2 Sword of Laban, or +3 Liahona of Divination.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Sounds like Judas was their version of a Ward Clerk. I'm a Ward Clerk. I wonder if that means anything.

:?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

If you can present a non-circular explanation why you know the BOM is true, then I will call it a day.

What could possibly satisfy your urge for "non-cyclical" evidence?

The lists of names with verifiable ancient origin, along with placenames that have been shown to be in the exact location predicted by the Book of Mormon?

The complicated history of three peoples interwoven into one narrative, intermingled with complex, detailed theology, dictated while sticking his head in a hat?

Detailed elaboration on customs and practices of ancient people described decades before their discovery?

Eight eye-witnesses who proclaimed to the world that they saw and felt the gold plates, and never denied their testimonies?

The three witnesses who not only saw the plates and other artifacts, but saw an angel and heard the voice of God proclaim its truth, who not only never denied their testimonies but reaffirmed the literal veracity of their statements with their dying breath?

You will surely point out that every one of these arguments is debatable (though few ever debate them). But that ultimately is not the problem with the Book of Mormon. The root of the matter is that you have already made up your mind and you will not accept any further evidence. I would just as soon try to convince a wall than you.

The fact is, either you're right and by arguing I am doing nothing but kicking against the pricks, or I am right and you are nothing but a screaming and kicking prick. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

What could possibly satisfy your urge for "non-cyclical" evidence?

The lists of names with verifiable ancient origin, along with placenames that have been shown to be in the exact location predicted by the Book of Mormon?

The complicated history of three peoples interwoven into one narrative, intermingled with complex, detailed theology, dictated while sticking his head in a hat?

Detailed elaboration on customs and practices of ancient people described decades before their discovery?

Eight eye-witnesses who proclaimed to the world that they saw and felt the gold plates, and never denied their testimonies?

The three witnesses who not only saw the plates and other artifacts, but saw an angel and heard the voice of God proclaim its truth, who not only never denied their testimonies but reaffirmed the literal veracity of their statements with their dying breath?

You will surely point out that every one of these arguments is debatable (though few ever debate them). But that ultimately is not the problem with the Book of Mormon. The root of the matter is that you have already made up your mind and you will not accept any further evidence. I would just as soon try to convince a wall than you.

The fact is, either you're right and by arguing I am doing nothing but kicking against the pricks, or I am right and you are nothing but a screaming and kicking prick. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time.

I'll try to illustrate what I think Robin means by "non-circular": Your point is that the Book of Mormon must certainly be what Joseph Smith claims it was. As a predicate for this point you assume that the Book of Mormon is a brilliant, magisterial work of literature that no mortal could have created by the arm of flesh, certainly no mortal of Joseph Smith's limited education and experience. But your predicate is very much subject to dispute. For example, Mark Twain--no less than the man many regard as having written the greatest novel ever written by an American, Huckleberry Finn--called the Book of Mormon "chloroform in print." Another random example: Harold Bloom has called Joseph Smith "a religious genius," but regards the Book of Mormon as "prosaic." I am still waiting for somebody intimate with the indubitable great works of Western Civilization to tell me that the Book of Mormon stands on similar footing with these works. In my personal opinion, it does not. In fact, this argument for veracity of the Book of Mormon is one of my pet peeves, I'll confess.

As for the witnesses, I'll quote Twain again: "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."

Ultimately a belief in the Book of Mormon must rest only on faith, not in any way reason. Robin should respect your faith unless you try to use reason to convince him you are right.

[All-American]

I never claimed the Book of Mormon was great literature. It was never meant to be. As a matter of fact, I find the prose to be somewhat drab. The significance of the Book of Mormon lies elsewhere.

Nor did I ever claim the existing evidence was non-debatable. I did claim that a), valid evidence does exist, and b), it would be just as inappropriate for me to say that Robin should conform to my understanding of the book as it is for Robin to expect me to conform to his understanding.

He's not asking for "non-circular" evidence, irrespective of the words he uses to pose the question. He's looking for indisputable evidence, ignoring the fact that there never has been a fact that was not disputed. As long as he has decided that something is so, and refuses to be convinced otherwise, there is no point in trying. Same goes for us.

[MikeWaters]

The Book of Mormon is to valued by spiritual eyes and a spiritual mind.

Its value is not to be understood through literary criticism.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The Book of Mormon is to valued by spiritual eyes and a spiritual mind.

Its value is not to be understood through literary criticism.

Okay, so now I know. God is prosaic. I'm crushed.

[Archaea]

Or the voice of the people through which he speaks are prosaic.

Stephen Hawking believes the mind of God is one big, math equation. I sure hope not, as I no longer understand those equations, if I ever did.

I imagine God's utterances are more sublime, more surreal. Perhaps I have no idea.

The BOM as a literary piece is not too remarkable. As a spiritual witness, it is amazing and beyond comparison.