Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: A Mormon's letter to a doubter’

I struggle with vague distinctions about "science". Science is observation. If a certain reality exists, and can be observed, then why can't it be rigorously observed? That is the problem with Mormon "epistemology" as it pertains to Alma 32, and Moroni 10:3-5. Both invite readers to employ testing and observation, but they lack necessary controls and points of demarcation. Alma 32 is too ambiguous, i.e., if the "fruit is good" it "sprouteth, and beginneth to grow" and "enlargens your understanding". These statements are reasonable, but lack clarity of definition, i.e., how can I tell if my breast is "swelling"? How would I measure it, and compare it against a control to monitor significance? If you answer these questions, you have a valid test.

What about Moroni 10:3-5? The author mentions "hundreds" who have gained testimonies through the "search/ponder/pray" methodology. Does he likewise count the misses, i.e., those who have not gained testimonies? This one should be far easier to measure. Collect a random sample of individuals, invite them to read, and record their experiences. If religious experience can be observed, it ought to be able to undergo scientific testing.

I, too, have completed extensive A-B testing, strictly following the "Moroni'sChallenge" protocols. On every trial of that Idiographic approach, my results have been exactly opposite what Lane Williams reports. And I also know many hundreds who have replicated my results.

Lane's claim that the Mormon methodology "works" is a feeble attempt to derive Nomothetic conclusions, and are undermined by a "file drawer" bias. Those like me who get non-faith-promoting results are not allowed to "publish" our results in DN, Church testimony or other meetings, etc.

Given that bias, we would be prudent to at least tentatively conclude that there is a non-effect for the Moroni's Challenge prayer efficacy hypothesis.

But more important is the fact that, unlike the scientific method, the Mormon "epistemology, ontology, and metaphysic" has parallels with countless fictions (I.e., Santa Claus, UFO's, telekinesis) that are well-established as such. Given the Mormon methodology, one cannot objectively demonstrate the difference between the claims of Mormonism and the claims of these fictions. A methodology that fails so fundamentally is as epistemically valuable as no methodology at all - on par with repeating "I do believe in fairies" - ping! TinkerBell appears!

Any belief that makes the world a better place is important. But I'm not so sure we need words written by others (who write as if they have absolute knowledge), to be moral and ethical in our own deeds and works.

The "golden rule" has existed in human though for thousands of years and were humanity to follow it alone, a great many of our human challenges would be solved. It's hard to imagine the creative force of the universe not equipping each of us with the right stuff to live ethical lives. After all, the laws of nature are finely tuned.

Religion, because it is so varied and complex, requires too much. Why is it that we are willing to give it all to those who claim some divine knowledge that the rest don't possess? In our time, these people, who make such claims, are the same little snot nosed kids we ran around with on the playground a few decades ago.

Perhaps we are spiritual beings having a human experience, or not. Perhaps, we should make the best of our time as we breath the air and live life on planet earth.

"Doubt, to me, is an act — an act of indecision and wavering."
____________________

In Gethsemane, Jesus’ desire to have this cup pass from him was an honest confession of trepidation about the path in front of him. But we don’t think any the less of him for this moment of being human enough to give us a glimpse inside. What we remember is that he called on the Father for strength to do what he had to do.

That’s what faith is. Not the absence of doubt, but the courage to forge ahead in spite of our doubts. I would go so far as to say that without acknowledging our doubts, there can be no rational basis for faith.

@A Scientist

"A methodology that fails so fundamentally is as epistemically valuable as no methodology at all - on par with repeating "I do believe in fairies" - ping! TinkerBell appears!"

--------------

Insulting faithful Latter-Day Saints by comparing religious experiences with little children who believe in fairy tales is a common tactic by atheists and non-believers. This tactic really only makes your arguments look bad. After all, crying TinkerBell! is a convenient way to avoid how the Book of Mormon came to be, with its magnificent influence on millions of Latter-Day Saints, the joys they feel, etc. and not to mention the ancient patterns contained in the book and the utter lack of a reasonable explanation by critics. I don't expect these things to convince you of their truth, but only point them out so that others may make more reasoned assumptions about Latter-Day Saints and their beliefs.

"I don't expect these things to convince you of their truth, but only point them out so that others may make more reasoned assumptions about Latter-Day Saints and their beliefs."

Inded you don't expect "these things to convince", because if you did you would provide a better description of them which goes beyond the generic label of "things". How could I, or anyone, be convinced by evidence that is only alluded to?

It is convenient to think that simply because the Mormon Church claims baptismal figures at about fourteen million, that we can argue that the Book of Mormon has the support of "millions". This question however, has never really been put to the test, ie, how many people are actually "influenced" by the book directly. Furthermore, you label the comparison a "tactic", as though it were some kind of strategic action. It was an argument that compared Mormon epistemological methods with other systems. Rather than labeling the argument a tactic, you would be better served demonstrating why these comparisons aren't valid.

OK, so this is the basis for your faith: "When I read the [Book of Mormon] I feel uniquely good. Its insights enrich and provide hope."

I agree that this is a pretty typical statement for members of the LDS church, but it doesn't really compare to a scientific approach. More importantly couldn't any believer in virtually any other religion make the same statement? Substitute the word Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, or Bhagavat Gita into the brackets above, and the result is the same. How is you faith-based belief superior to that of any other sincere believer?

I am 5th generation Mormon, but I am also a "doubter" who no longer attends church. I have read the Book of Mormon 16 times and I too have prayed about this. But I did not get the same result; your results were not be replicated for me. I have also read other books that make me feel "uniquely good." Most importantly for me, I have serious doubts that God instructed the current leadership the LDS Church to discriminate against gays or to build shopping malls.

@Mormoncowboy

"Rather than labeling the argument a tactic, you would be better served demonstrating why these comparisons aren't valid."

--------

Come up with a reasonable explanation for the Book of Mormon, and the comparison will have merit.

Actually, don't bother. Critics have formed over 100 theories over the decades for the origins of the Book of Mormon. Funny, all but about 3 of those have been dismissed by the critics themselves. The current 3 or so, the critics can't decide amongst themselves which they agree on. Therefore, comparing it to a fairy tale is a waste of time and demonstrates a juvenile approach.

My reality check on my faith and faithful life is to remember what my religion asks of me.

My religion asks that I love and show kindness to my wife and children and extended family. I need to be educated and make myself useful to my family and community. I need to do what I can to be healthy and fit. I need to have wholesome recreational activities with those I love as well as work to make my home and community a better place to live.

My Church activity supports my faith, but equally important it organizes help for others who are in my neighborhood and also those on the other side of the world through humanitarian efforts. That’s part of the baptismal covenant (bear one another’s burdens).

And so I continue faithful, and that brings peace and joy.

Steadfast devotion speaks louder than outward displays of religious fervor. Fanaticism is not the evidence of faith but rather the lack thereof. It suggests a need to show others that he has more faith than anyone else, or perhaps a desperate need to convince himself. Those who quietly go about living their faith in everyday life doing right by their fellow man are the ones who are letting their light shine before men.

Utes Fan:

Here is my reasonable explanation for The Book of Mormon - Some 19th century human wrote it. A book that claims to be an ancient history, but that contains anachronisms, and 16th century New Testament errors, can be summarilly dismissed. I am not required to give a definite explanation for the book beyond that. You however must account for the errors if you wish to argue that it is anything more than fiction (fairy tales).

You mention that the "critics" have dismissed all but three common against the Book of Mormon, and suggest that they are not united enough to be taken serious. First, you fail to acknowledge that Church critics generally aren't part of an organized body. So how they could have collectively dismissed 97 options, and then split on three is beyond me. Secondly, it exposes your own ignorance on the subject of the Book of Mormon. Do you use this justification similarly to dismiss the Mormon intellectual community (who are supported through a single organization) over their sometimes vitriolic schizm over Book of Mormon geography? I'd suggest coming up with a reasonable geography and your argument will have a shot at being taken seriously.

@Mormoncowboy

Critics aren't organized in their criticism is evidence that a reasonable explanation does not exist. It has nothing to do with a formal critics' organization and everything to do with evidence that the Book of Mormon came to be in the way the Church claims.

"A book that claims to be an ancient history, but that contains anachronisms, and 16th century New Testament errors, can be summarilly dismissed."

Nonsense. The book contains theological ideas that are important for our day since the same religious issues existed anciently as they do now. Also, anachronisms show up in translations so that the reader may understand better. Try translating without introducing "anachronisms". If there were no ancient patterns in the book, then these things would be a problem. But the presence of ancient patterns and phrases make the anachronisms a mute point. The New Testament verses are there since again the same theological ideas were taught anciently. My opinion on this is that the Lord simply chose similar phrases, some direct quotes from the New Testament (some different) when inspiring Joseph in the translation. In other words, the Lord is quoting himself. Not a problem at all.

Utes Fan:

I can see that this is a dead end. Rather than pointing out all of the problems with your last argument, I will just let the arguments stand as they are. I would never be able to straighten someone out who rations on the basis of non-sequiturs and false contexts. You are of course welcome to believe that God decided to use the "familiar" language of the King James New Testament, even to the preservation of errors, but is not because such a belief is inherently reasonable, but because it is the contrivance necessary to preserve any hope at reason.

@Mormoncowboy

"I would never be able to straighten someone out who rations on the basis of non-sequiturs and false contexts."

The same logic can be applied to critics' explanations of the Book of Mormon. The lack of a remotely reasonable explanation is a big problem. Maybe not to you, but to me it is.

"You are of course welcome to believe that God decided to use the "familiar" language of the King James New Testament, even to the preservation of errors, but is not because such a belief is inherently reasonable..."

Yes it is reasonable. Jesus quotes himself as Jehovah, the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament ("errors" and all). Church leaders today quote from the Bible including "errors" knowingly - the point isn't to correct the translation errors all the time, but to convey the message - the Book of Mormon included. For example, if quoting Jesus includes the word "candle" which didn't exist at his time but conveys a spiritual message, it isn't important always to correct the anachronism "candle" - the meaning of the verse is the point. The translated corrections, if important, would come later, if at all.

What is my "reasonable explanation for The Book of Mormon"?

It came about in the same way as the Qu'ran, the Bible, all the religious and fictional works of L. Ron Hubbard, the works of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice in the Bahai religious tradition; the Diamond Sūtra, among others;
Donghak scriptures; gnostic scriptures of Cerdonianism and Marcionism, among others; the Book of the Law of The Lord (Strangite) or The Word of the Lord (Fettingite); The Mabinogion and the Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of Invasions); the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads...

The remarkable thing about the Book of Mormon is NOT that it is unique and must, therefore, have had a divine origin. the remarkable thing is that it is so common for people to create "scripture" that no divine explanation is necessary.

The burden of proof of divine origin rests, as it always has, on those who assert it... NOT on those of us who doubt it.

And believing in something simply because critics have not offered an acceptable explanation is gullible foolishness at its worst.