.jpg)
In a previous article, I discussed some of the faults with the "religion test," the process proposed to find the truth of God and his word. It's a topic worth revisiting.
The Book of Mormon promise is this:
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Essentially, it states that the Book of Mormon is true, and that God will confirm this to you as long as your heart is sincere enough, your intent is genuine enough, and your faith is strong enough.
The process in practice looks something like this:
.jpg)
Like the Emperor's New Clothes, the religious test presumes its answer, and then blames the individual if their conclusion is different.
The Emperor's clothes are presumed to exist and are magical, just as God and the Holy Ghost are presumed to exist and can confirm truth. Anyone who can't see the clothes is stupid or incompetent, just as anyone who doesn't realize the truth of the Book of Mormon is insincere, sinning, being tested, or didn't listen the first time when God did provide the answer.
Not only does the test not allow for the possibility of the Book of Mormon being false, it does not allow for the possibility that humans can experience good feelings, sometimes even profound feelings, all on their own. Blissful and loving feelings can be the product of our own mind, evidenced by the fact that they can even be triggered by a stroke.
The Book of Mormon process is presented in such a way that to get the positive response, we must work to get it. Be more sincere, have more faith. Work towards the positive response. Try to get the feeling.
Of course if you're sincere and faithful enough, that's what will happen. And it would happen, whether the Book of Mormon was true or not.
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read Jonathan's other articles on science and religion
Comments
Good article. I've always felt the same way about this cop-out. I do believe in the power of prayer, but I also believe in self-fulfilling prophecies. By the time you've completed the BoM, you will already have a lot of pressure and sense of investment that you will want it to be true.
Being a Christian, I feel that prayer is something that is meant to be done with meditation as well, as in-- Thinking out your thoughts and not just relying on a "bosom burning." Prayer is talking to God and Him letting you know that you are in His hands, not necessarily Him giving a guidebook of what to do with your life, although I do believe in direct answers.
When I was having doubts about the LDS church, I prayed sincerely about it and was told: "No." I prayed several times, almost hoping for a different answer, always getting "No."
Simply asking God whether or not a book was written under His direction, is the assumption that prayer is real. IF prayer is real; IF prayer really is communication with God, then why on earth can't one ask this question? That is, if one sincerely desires the answer. It make no sense that so many have a problem with this.
Another superb article Jonathan. I know many of the commentors that are apologists, or more so "those who make excuses for anything LDS" will beat your valid points down.
But rest assured, your points are sound and the silent majority of us who read your posts do so with vigor and anticipation for the next. Many of us have the same conclusions as you, but don't think to argue them in such specific detail and logic as you have.
Thanks mate.
One odd thing about the quote you mentioned is that the statement reads ask God if these things are "not true" and he will reveal the truth unto you. Does that mean that if one gets that warm and fuzzy feeling after praying about said book that it means the book is "not true." Hmmm... wouldn't that be an interesting twist?
"The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it." -- Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Feb. 2004.
It seems to me that past church leaders have eagerly invited physical investigation of the Book of Mormon. The retreat to only a consideration of the text through reading (as noted in this quote) doesn't seem entirely right to me. I understand and accept that spiritual truth must be gained by spiritual means. But the presidents of the Church boldly proclaimed that the American Indians were Lamanites (Pres. Kimball comes to mind), as evidence of book's physical reality. Now what we have is a lamanite shell game and a plea to consider only the text itself.
CH: I've thought about that too. I couldn't help but think of Homer Simpson when he prayed: "I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. (Nothing happens.) Thy will be done."
It's almost worded as if unless God comes down and specifically says the BoM is NOT true, then it is.
Most Mormons don't understand or practice it that way, though, so I didn't approach it that way either.
Great niche. It seems to me that if I considered writing for Examiner (which I have) then the key to earning money is to have people read it regularly and comment. I would need something either interesting or controversial. What greater way to do that than to write about Mormonism in Utah? Kudos. Alas I am not controversial enough to earn dough. Wait a minute, I do believe in birth control for animals. Do you think that would do the trick?
"It seems to me that past church leaders have eagerly invited physical investigation of the Book of Mormon."
Yet, they dissuade looking at anything that challenges the Mormon church because it is automatically "anti-Mormon," the reason being that if you read legitimate challenges and questions of the church's sordid past, then that is going to pull you away from the "truth," it seems to me that it's the best way to find out the truth. Which isn't to say that there aren't people out there who ARE anti Mormon and have ulterior and sinister motives, but I find Mormons who don't want people to do actual research sinister.
Colin:
I have researched anti-Mormon literature and the faith claims of many Christian denominations and have found no compelling arguments (when we look at all of the evidence) against Mormonism and no compelling evidence that the Catholic or Protestant traditions accurately represent New testament theology or the authority of Jesus Christ.
Jonathan (4)
The prior assumptions are:
1. The seeker believes God exists.
2. The seeker believes that God is merciful
3. The seeker ponders and meditates about God's mercy.
4. The seeker asks God if it is NOT true (assumes that it is true)
5. The seeker asks with real intent to know (not to disprove.)
6. The seeker asks in sincerity, being true to the 5 conditions above.
7. The seeker exercises faith in Jesus Christ that the truth will be manifest by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Notice that the promise does not contain the words, “you will receive good feelings.” Instead, it says that God will manifest the truth of it to the person through the power of the Holy Ghost – a measurable response from God.
Apart from this, there is measurable, tangible archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon narrative as real history.
You tried to address this in an article about Nahom and Bountiful but you failed to address all of the evidences.
Jonathan (3)
In your diagram you're missing these necessary actions, before prayer:
Moroni's promise:
1) remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things,
2) ponder it in your hearts.
3) And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true;
4) and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
5) with real intent,
6) having faith in Christ,
he (God) will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Jonathan (2)
Once again Jonathan, you’re the KING of the floating abstraction. However, in Mormonism, the “truth” is not a floating abstraction as it relates to personal revelation. The truth, as manifest by the Holy Ghost is “the still small voice, which whisperth and pierceth all things; (DC 85:6). The spirit of revelation is also when God provides truth to both the mind and the heart simultaneously and that which dwells in the heart, (DC 8) These are measurable experiences that are brought on by interacting with God by reading scripture, living principles, and behaving in ways consistent with God’s instructions.
Jonathan (1)
Always scratching at the surface but never reaching the heart of these issues, eh Jonathan?
Your argument basic rest on these premises:
1. Human feelings are all created in our minds, evoked by our own personal consciousness.
2. All human feeling originates from the same place for reasons that are scientifically understood.
3. Therefore, the claim that Mormons are receiving “feelings” from God is false.
So, what exactly do you mean by “feeling?” Do you mean the prospective person feels emotion? Reaches a conclusion? Recognizes the truth through logic? Or perhaps you’re talking about a “gut feeling” that is not regarded as modulated by conscious thought? Or is it something else altogether?
"1. Human feelings are all created in our minds, evoked by our own personal consciousness."
I wouldn't declare that all feelings are created in our minds, I would only say that so far, there is no reason to suspect they come from anywhere else. You can ASSERT it's possible to come from somewhere else, but I don't think you have anything but faith to support that assertion.
"So, what exactly do you mean by “feeling?”
A "burning in the bosom," if you like. (Because that's so much clearer...) What exactly is "a burning in the bosom" or a "still small voice" and how is it observationally different from a "feeling?"
How does one "measure" a "still small voice"? TomH, you make a lot of decent points, but claiming that the "still small voice" can be "measured" is pretty far out. How do you even DEFINE the "still small voice?" Is it literally an audible voice? Does it speak English? Can it be recorded?
Or is it more of a prompting, an urge, an instinct, a feeling? If it's anything like those things, how do you distinguish and separate it from them? You say it can actually be measured. How so? What does the measuring? What test could you perform that would distinguish between a powerful feeling/prompting/urge/whatever that comes from the Holy Ghost, and one that does not?
You really can't see the circle you just outlined? The conclusion: "God will manifest the truth" EXISTS WITHIN all of the assumptions you just provided. You have to assume God exists and you have to assume the Book of Mormon is true and you have to assume the Holy Ghost can communicate with you and you have to assume the only possible answer is a confirmatory one...
Yes, TomH, if you accept those as your a priori assumptions, you will conclude that the Book of Mormon is true. Not because you reached that conclusion through any logical means, but because you began by assuming it.
4. The distinction between the definition of faith, and the belief in faith in God as a method to bring about new states within reality and the state of mind while employing skepticism. While you cite the promise in the Book of Mormon, and can apparently see that it operates solely upon the well defined principle of faith (not blind faith), you ignore this premise, and essential argue that skepticism is the only way to know if the Book of Mormon represents true history.
5. The clear and open distinction between the definition of faith within Mormonism and the definition of skepticism.
6. The distinction between your limited understanding of cognitive feelings, emotions, and physiological sensations, and your skepticism about whether these can inform human beings of real states of reality.
7. The concept and reality of how cognitive feelings, emotions or physiological sensations inform human decisions.
Jonathan:
Based on your posts, it seems these concepts remain muddled in your understanding.
1. The distinction between the assumption that a proposition could be true (open to truth and devoid of skepticism) and receiving the assurance or the confirmation that a proposition if true through experience.
2. The clear distinction between skepticism and faith You essentially argue that in order to know the truth you have to be a skeptic first, and remain so until the “proof” arrives in a form that others can confirm. In your approach, you deny the operation of faith.
3. The distinction between the concept of skepticism as a cognitive tool to avoid deception and skepticism as the sole reason for disbelief.
Jonathan:
Based on your posts, it seems these concepts remain muddled in your understanding.
1. The distinction between the assumption that a proposition could be true (open to truth and devoid of skepticism) and receiving the assurance or the confirmation that a proposition if true through experience.
2. The clear distinction between skepticism and faith You essentially argue that in order to know the truth you have to be a skeptic first, and remain so until the “proof” arrives in a form that others can confirm. In your approach, you deny the operation of faith.
3. The distinction between the concept of skepticism as a cognitive tool to avoid deception and skepticism as the sole reason for disbelief.
Jonathan:
Based on your posts, it seems these concepts remain muddled in your understanding.
1. The distinction between the assumption that a proposition could be true (open to truth and devoid of skepticism) and receiving the assurance or the confirmation that a proposition if true through experience.
2. The clear distinction between skepticism and faith You essentially argue that in order to know the truth you have to be a skeptic first, and remain so until the “proof” arrives in a form that others can confirm. In your approach, you deny the operation of faith.
3. The distinction between the concept of skepticism as a cognitive tool to avoid deception and skepticism as the sole reason for disbelief.
Jonathan: (3)
What we find in Moroni 10:3-5 is an experiment. There are rules to the experiment. The claim is that if a person follows the rules precisely, the person will receive a witness from God. The first rule in the experiment is open mindedness that it might be true. Skepticism will always invalidate the experiment.
If after reading the Book of Mormon, a person concludes, through logic, that it IS true or that it is NOT true, then personal reason is the source for his/her belief, and not the witness spoken of in the promise.
However, to receive the witness from God, certain assumptions must be made to receive that gift and the rules of the experiment must be followed.
Therefore, a more appropriate title for your article would be:
“Why praying for confirmation of truth cannot work for skeptics.”
Jonathan: (2)
What you’re arguing, essentially, is that you believe that a person must remain skeptical, or in a state of doubt and incredulity, while reading the Book of Mormon. This state of disbelief is even more important for the person when he/she attempts to follow conduct the experiment of praying to God to receive an answer about it. In that moment, the person wants a “sign” beyond the reach of his/her skepticism, that the Book of Mormon is true, in spite of his/her strong skepticism that the Book of Mormon is not true. According to the definition of faith, it is impossible to receive any gift from God without it, and therefore, in the presence of skepticism, the “sign” does not appear. The skeptic concludes that the Book of Mormon is not true.
Jonathan: (1)
You wrote:
“Yes, TomH, if you accept those as your a priori assumptions, you will conclude that the Book of Mormon is true. Not because you reached that conclusion through any logical means, but because you began by assuming it.”
You haven’t done the necessary analytical work to understand how this cognitive process works. Assuming that something unproven could be true is different from concluding that it IS true, without reason, investigation, experiment, or testing. In Mormonism (and reality) the basis for open mindedness is reason. Skepticism is not open minded but instead is based on doubt. Faith and doubt cannot co-exist, side by side.
Jonathan: (1)
You wrote:
“Yes, TomH, if you accept those as your a priori assumptions, you will conclude that the Book of Mormon is true. Not because you reached that conclusion through any logical means, but because you began by assuming it.”
You haven’t done the necessary analytical work to understand how this cognitive process works. Assuming that something unproven could be true is different from concluding that it IS true, without reason, investigation, experiment, or testing. In Mormonism (and reality) the basis for open mindedness is reason. Skepticism is not open minded but instead is based on doubt. Faith and doubt cannot co-exist, side by side.
I don't buy the faith/doubt incongruity. Too many doubters have been faithful, and vice versa. I believe they compliment each other. Doubt often leads to increased and more intense faith.
Some notes from Paul Toscano's brilliant works on the subject of faith and doubt:
Faith & doubt are twin offspring of genuine spirituality.
New faith cannot be made without doubting old ways.
Without doubt, faith hardens into arrogance.
The enemy of faith is not doubt, but certainty.
The skeptic who doubts his doubts is holier than the believer who believes unquestioningly.
The opposite of faith is not doubt but unbelief.
Try also Jennifer Michael Hecht's book, "Doubt: A History." Or find a past podcast where she discusses it. RadioWest had one in February '09.
Tad:
There is a clear distinction between being open minded, searching, and not knowing whether a proposition is true and having an attitude of pessimism and skepticism and going through the motions of searching.
In order to receive a witness from God, skepticism cannot be dormant, faith must be dormant.
Faith is not to have a perfect knolwedge and therefore, there is a lack of some knowledge or uncertainty. However, there is the sincere assumption that a proposition could be true without having all of the physical evidence laid out.
However, this is in contrast to the dormant skepticism Jonathan advocates wherein there are no assumptions that God exists, etc.
Today it is not 100% knowable whether the Book of Mormon is true history and therefore the need for faith and a witness from God.
(However, recently, archeological evidence is sufficient in Southern Arabia to indicate the Nephi was a real person in 600 BC.)
I am content that doubt is not a threat to sincere faith. How many spiritual folks, LDS or otherwise, have found greater faith after a period of doubt. However, I think doubt is a threat to arrogant, institutionalized faith, however. At that point faith becomes a different thing, like tradition.
So, what is the evidence in Southern Arabia for Nephi's existence?
Tom, when somebody comes up to you trying to sell you some miracle cure, how do you approach his claims? do you go in accepting his pitch as facts, or do you go in skeptical? You have to start from a position of skepticism to avoid the con-men. Let's take it a step further, how do you face Christianity or Islam? It's apparent to me that you face the claims of each of these religions with skepticism as well. So why's that? why should you view these with skepticism while you give an automatic pass to your own religion? Atheists face all religions with skepticism, as it should be the default position. If from there you can find actual reproducible evidence, not just stories written in a book from someone you didn't know, then you've got something. But if you start out with the belief that you religion is fact, you won't let yourself see the holes in the story, and will just fall for the con.
@TomH
Yawn... Tom's normal illogical arguments, a different post.
The diagram used is false. It ignores the fact that God could say "no it is not true" or that the person would receive no answer.
Moroni in The Book of Mormon asks people to ask God if the book is true. This is significant. Joseph Smith could have just tried to convince people. He could have had them rely on the testimony of 3 witnesses who saw the plates, the angel moroni, and heard the audible voice of God. Or he could have said we had to accept it because of the added testimony of 8 witnesses who saw the plates. So we have Joseph's testimony, those of the 3 and 8 for 12 witnesses involving angels (not just the spirit) and the actual plates. But the LDS church (and the Book of Mormon) still asks people to pray and find out firsthand that it is true. I know from my experience that it is true. Why should you get annoyed that we ask you to do the same? We are just saying "Don't take our word for it even with abundant witnesses. Find out for yourself"
I love TomH's comments, because it's fun watching them fly by while I'm scrolling towards something more worthwhile.
Steve:
I made some posts about the new Book of Mormon evidence on Jonathan's article about Nahom and Bountiful.
Enjoy.
Donovan:
You wrote:
"
Yawn... Tom's normal illogical arguments, a different post. "
I notice that your comment is not accompanied by a logical and coherent refutation of my arguments. Please don't ask the rest of us to live in your personal fantasy.
Well Tom, that looks like snake oil to me.
Steve:
Hmmmm.... I find that the term snake oil has no connection with 22 fulfilled predictions of 7th century BC history validated by present day archeology, geography, and geology.
But, your criticism of the evidence does smell a lot like snake oil.
But does apparent knowledge of those locations necessarily prove anything about the religion or god? or even the factuality of the Mormon bible? As Jonathan has already pointed out, it's not unlikely that there were locations that just happened to fit the predictions with the help of a little creative interpretation. Christian and Muslim apologists also like to point out such "predictions" in their bibles. But even if Joseph did some how get that part right, it doesn't make every other statement in the book right. The problem with trying to prove a book true, is that while you only need to prove one part false to discredit it, you have to show all parts true to prove the book true.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!