Thought Experiment 1: Correct Faithful Worldview/Paradigm for BOA

[ed123]

.

[ed123]

.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

OK, here's my response to the thought experiment. Sorry, I'm in a hurry and only had time to scan the instructions, so I may not be following the rules.

The only way I can see to harmonize all of these issues in a way that makes the Book of Abraham true would be to assume that God intentionally created a long laundry list of diversions that create the appearance that the Book of Abraham is fraudulent. Why would God do such a thing? It fololows along the lines of the claims that fossils cannot be used as evidence of evolution because God placed them in the earth as a deception to test our faith in the scriptural creation narrative. In this scenario God is intentionally deceiving us so that we will trust the claims of authority figures above our own reasoning. Or, alternatively, that we will trust the Holy Ghost, assuming that we have felt strong spiritual confirmation specifically about the Book of Abraham.

Thanks for your response. As I have responded to the other response already about the notion of Jesus Christ as a Trickster God, I embrace the fact that he is a trickster as I said, and I embrace the fact that the Hor Papyrus in the end is indeed a diversion. However, your attempt to make it along the same lines as fossils are a deception to test our faith is not a good analogy. It is not that he has placed these things in the way so much as they are naturally occurring things that he has allowed to happen so that they naturally cause a stumbling block.

Rather, a better analogy here is the fact that naturalistic things that occur in a naturalistic manner are not always as they seem, and only with further elucidation of the facts of the matter, digging more deeply, is nature actually revealed in its true form. In other words, man's own assumptions and beliefs and predispositions naturally become the things that get in the way.

Similarly, when all is known about the DNA of the native Americans, we will understand why the ancient Canaanite DNA (notice that I specifically did not say ancient Jewish DNA), was not detected earlier, or why we didn't recognize it as such sooner. Because, in the end, the DNA problem will become one of a lack of full understanding of natural facts as they are. It will not be because the evidence was not there.

Similarly, when we have a full understanding of the state and nature of all of the facts and evidences regarding Pre-Classic Mayan ruins, most of which haven't even been touched, we will have a better understanding of the reasons why Nephite-specific evidences have not been found. It is not because the evidence is not there. It is because it hasn't been discerned properly yet. It has nothing to do with the evidence being hidden, so much as it is a natural result of some natural set of facts that were not properly dealt with yet in their entirety. This will be where the Book of Mormon becomes another stumbling block like the Hor papyrus, another set of facts that were stumbling blocks that were naturally in a certain state that were not fully understood until after the unbelievers had opportunity to not believe.

And so, this is the methodology God of nature who is a trickster that we are dealing with here. So, it doesn't follow along the same lines as the notion that fossils are a deception at all. That is a young earth creationism argument. I reject that argument. It is that the nature of the thing in the first place was allowed to naturally be set up this way so as to become a stumbling block. It has nothing to do with some sort of deliberate engineering of fake evidence by God at all.

Couldn't this naturally occurring stumbling block theory be applied to any religions truth claims or arguments against their truth claims?

And if not, why not?

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

Once you posit a trickster God, there is no way to know anything. All things could be a deception. There is no basis for calling anything evidence; no basis for saying this is a deception and that is not.

Your entire premise is merely one of faith from the first step. It is not an evidencial or even apologist argument. It is simply another declaration of faith.

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

In the number of unsupported assumptions necessary for the epistemological baseline.

The more assumptions, the less reliable the methodology.

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

trickster god and god of principle are internally inconsistent. The one precludes a reliable differentiation from the other.

[ed123]

trickster god and god of principle are internally inconsistent. The one precludes a reliable differentiation from the other.

Actually no, if you actually reason through what I just said, but I can't get everyone to actually reason here. Some are here to just troll. If that is what you are here for, and you can't reason through what I just said, whether you agree with it or not, then there is no point in continuance with responding to you.

[dogbite]

I did follow the reasoning. You merely declared it as so.

[moksha]

And this isn't the conventional trickster God theory. This is a theory that is consistent with known LDS beliefs, the idea that God can frustrate the attempts of non-believers, and even the devil, to thwart his purposes.

Like planting dinosaur bones to lead non-believers astray? Or making it hard for the Devil to shake hands and therefore requiring written contracts?

[ed123]

.

[ed123]

Since this thread has devolved and is not accomplishing anything, and we are now on a separate trickster God debate, by those making one an offender for a word, and not thinking through the other descriptions and words used of the point to be made, I am abandoning this thread. See you on other threads.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Since this thread has devolved and is not accomplishing anything, and we are now on a separate trickster God debate, by those making one an offender for a word, and not thinking through the other descriptions and words used of the point to be made, I am abandoning this thread. See you on other threads.

[moksha]

Since this thread has devolved and is not accomplishing anything, and we are now on a separate trickster God debate, by those making one an offender for a word, and not thinking through the other descriptions and words used of the point to be made, I am abandoning this thread. See you on other threads.

Hey Ed, forgive me for my part. I know whenever I am serious about something and not getting a desired response I can see red too. It is simply a human reaction. At that point, it is best for me to do my Pillsbury Doughboy routine of poking myself in the tummy and giggling. As the song says, it's "nothing to get hung up about since strawberry fields are forever".

[Hagoth]

Similarly, when all is known about the DNA of the native Americans, we will understand why the ancient Canaanite DNA (notice that I specifically did not say ancient Jewish DNA), was not detected earlier, or why we didn't recognize it as such sooner. Because, in the end, the DNA problem will become one of a lack of full understanding of natural facts as they are. It will not be because the evidence was not there.

Similarly, when we have a full understanding of the state and nature of all of the facts and evidences regarding Pre-Classic Mayan ruins, most of which haven't even been touched, we will have a better understanding of the reasons why Nephite-specific evidences have not been found.

I have exactly the same conviction that Leprechauns built the pyramids. I believe it so I expect others to do the same and I'm certain the evidence will show up some day. Bigfoot. UFOs. Flat Earth...

I need to point out here that this is the problem with pretty much every element of LDS truth claims. The accumulated evidence appears to point in the opposite direction, and the unfortunate body of evidence accumulates as time goes by. The options are to change our thoughts about the church's claims or to just write off any undesired evidence and anticipate that other evidence will eventually come along to corroborate our beliefs. Eventually we grow old and die while holding our breath, so it all works out in the end.

We know vastly more about Ancient American cultures and origins than we knew a couple of decades ago and it continues to look worse and worse for the Book of Mormon. The best metric of this is the speed with which LDS apologists have been retreating and dragging the goalposts along with them.

[Hagoth]

OK, so I see that Ed picked up his ball and went home sometime while I was away.

I just want to say something in case Ed or any future Eds are reading this. We have seen similar behavior several times. Next time maybe spend a month or so just reading the group to understand the vibe and get the lay of the land. This is a close-nit community of people with who have a lot in common. When people swoop in out of nowhere and stomp around making demands about how the longtime members should react to them, accuse them of being trolls or whatever, and generally try to disrupt things, they will generally either get banned (and they always bring up the prospect of banning as some kind of badge of honor proving that "you can't handle the truth!") or they get angry, call everyone stupid, and slink away. The funny thing is that NOM is never their first choice. They come to us all beaten and bruised from previous rejections and then they take it out on us. Like Jesus crushing the Nephites in retaliation for his crucifixion by someone else. Sure, the Nephites had issues, but geeze.

So next time, guys, please just read the forum for a while before you get any big ideas about changing it. Overall, the people on NOM are some of the best people I have encountered. Maybe you' could actually make some friends here who could help you salve those wounds.

[ed123]

OK, so I see that Ed picked up his ball and went home sometime while I was away.

I just want to say something in case Ed or any future Eds are reading this. We have seen similar behavior several times. Next time maybe spend a month or so just reading the group to understand the vibe and get the lay of the land. This is a close-nit community of people with who have a lot in common. When people swoop in out of nowhere and stomp around making demands about how the longtime members should react to them, accuse them of being trolls or whatever, and generally try to disrupt things, they will generally either get banned (and they always bring up the prospect of banning as some kind of badge of honor proving that "you can't handle the truth!") or they get angry, call everyone stupid, and slink away. The funny thing is that NOM is never their first choice. They come to us all beaten and bruised from previous rejections and then they take it out on us. Like Jesus crushing the Nephites in retaliation for his crucifixion by someone else. Sure, the Nephites had issues, but geeze.

So next time, guys, please just read the forum for a while before you get any big ideas about changing it. Overall, the people on NOM are some of the best people I have encountered. Maybe you' could actually make some friends here who could help you salve those wounds.

Just for clarification from my side of the story. I started my own thread on this forum, and I was the owner of that thread with the declared OP. People came on there deliberately taking me grossly out of context when I carefully and very deliberately qualified what I meant by "Trickster", which is not the same as the classic mythological "Trickster," but instead, a principled situation where God allows people to have agency, and holds back justice until after such time that people are allowed to act out their choices, then he, in a principled way, delivers justice at some time of his choosing.

And this justice is the natural result of chosen actions. But in essence, being in a simulation of sorts, but a naturalistic one, people are "tricked" in a manner of speaking by that simulation into thinking that their course of action may not have consequence, but the consequence in reality has merely been delayed to a time of God's choosing. Otherwise, they would not choose and become what they become. This is the careful, deliberate qualifications that I put on the word trickster. Then other people decided to entirely take that out of context. If they wish to reject that, then they can reject that on its terms, not make a parody out of what I said and mock it. I gave scriptural support for this concept.

Then they proceed by deliberately provoking me further on a different thread, mocking and scorning and taking it not just grossly out of context, and then they proceeded to put it all on me, and derail everything as a deliberate part of the provocation. Don't get all holier than thou on me. You people provoked the response you got. I was INVITED here by Moksha and others, who thought that my contribution might be taken better here than MormonDiscussions, and they were the ones that suggested that my material would have a better reaction here under the conditions that I asked to discuss it. I told you what I wanted from you. I told you that I was trying to solidify my arguments, not get agreement with you, but get friendly feedback where you put yourself in my position rather than get your panties twisted in a knot because you had a fit because I had the audacity to ask for help from some of you with a mental exercise. That is not too much to ask. Rather, it turned out worse. I'm not going to be grossly taken out of context and deliberately provoked and then turned into the bad guy and then driven off. You want to make friends, then act like a human being and don't mock, and don't scorn, and don't act holier than thou, and act like your intellect is superior to mine. You people are in the same boat as me as being a human being. There is nothing here for me. There is no balm or salve to be had from people that are grossly taking me out of context, provoke me, kick me when I'm down, and then say, gee, what's wrong with you?

You say I'm supposed to come here and make friends. Under what condition? Stop being myself? Deny Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and THEN I am your friend? See the error of my ways after you mock me to scorn and THEN you are my friend? Try to FORCE me to AGREE with you by mockery and scorning me into being like you and THEN you are my friend? How is it going to be? Are you going to let me be me in all my authenticity as my authentic self? Apparently not. Pointless, many of you said. What is it that you value, my potential friendship on human terms, or trying to coerce me into being a mental clone of you by mockery, scorn and taking me out of context?

[Emower]

Its the tone man, the tone. I agree, people did not engage with the subject matter. I didnt, simply because I did not want to read the wall of text, spend an hour trying to understand the thought process, and then realize that it is something I didnt want to engage in. I still dont. So I didnt comment. I get that you expect people to stay on message on a thread, but if it doesnt happen dont get butthurt, and dont respond. Thick skin, (and I dont know your history, if you existed on the other board maybe you do have thick skin) is a must on the internet. It sounds like you are fed up with people not taking you seriously, and I get it. But flying off the handle to some strangers online is not going to improve that. Plus, maybe you could simplify the language and length. I am a decently intelligent person, but I dont want to have to read psuedo-academic way you write (which comes off as you really wanting to sound smart). I do enough of that for work. Call me ignorant if you will, but that doesnt make people want to engage.