[The burden of proof]

That's awesome. I don't count that as just a small change, I think it's a very significant step for you.

If you'd like a really good presentation on evidence for the B of M, I can send you a DVD titled "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography" by Rodney Meldrum (BookofMormonEvidence.org), maybe as an early or late (whichever applies) birthday present. :) It talks about many different things, not just about the DNA stuff. P.M. me your address and I'll send that to you.

Thank you for the gesture, but I am somewhat skeptical of sources that set out to prove something and already have a vested interest in it being true or false. I don't go reading much anti-LDS literature because they are often misleading to further their own agenda. By the same token however, pro-LDS sources have a tendency to be misleading as well to further their own agenda. I like to get the facts for myself and make my own judgements rather than view strongly biased (in either way) material that tends to only give half the story.

I have found that when you set out to find evidence reaffirming a belief that you already hold, you tend to find that evidence whether it is truly there or not and ignore anything that may point to the contrary. That is what I found particularly fascinating about Thor Heyerdahl. He seems to have independently found reinforcing evidence to the Book of Mormon without first specifically looking for it.

I will watch the video though if you are still willing to send it. I am curious what evidence it presents, since most of the arguments about DNA studies and the Book of Mormon go along the lines of "they don't prove anything" rather than "this supports the claims in the Book of Mormon". My dad works very much with genetics, so I am more well versed in the techniques and what they actually point to than most people.

I have to go to lunch now, but I'll PM you afterwards :)

[The burden of proof]

And the way that truthfulness is manifested -- the way to get that proof you seek, is laid-out in the Book itself:

...

The Book of Mormon does not purport to "prove" it's truthfullness in any other ways, although many well-meaning individuals have tried to show evidence for it via the scientific method. But the Book never has claimed that a witness of it's truthfulness can come in any other way except the way it states. That is not to say proof via those other methods does not exist. It only says that a witness of the truthfulness is not given via those means.

If it is true, there will be other ways to evaluate its truth. It is my firm belief that evidence from a single source or method, while sometimes useful, rarely tells the whole story. Concepts that are true can be verified in multiple ways. If there truly is no other way to verify the Book of Mormon, I don't know that I'll ever consider it "true".

[The burden of proof]

He loves us all the same.

If he truly loves us all the same, I find it more likely that he does not interfere in these life or death situations and people see miracles in the unlikely survival of people because they want miracles to exist :)

[The burden of proof]

Some of your responses:

The first critics of the Book of Mormon used the “why is there no evidence” argument concerning the vast Nephite civilization clamed by the Book of Mormon. At the time it was said that there were no signs of a civilization of millions of people living in vast cities of hundred of thousand of inhabitants using advanced beyond primitive technologies. It was argued that there were no signs or indications of advanced civilization. Let us look at this convergence or divergence.

There are a lot of theories concerning indigenous peoples in the Americas. The prevailing theories purport two migrations in pre-historic times at about 60,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago. Nice theories but note that such theories disprove the Bible as much as the Book of Mormon. But let us continue.

Prior to the Pre-Classic period of ancient American civilization the indigenous peoples of central and South America were very primitive. They were Stone Age hunter-gathers with limited use of tools and fire. They ate their food raw and did not hunt anything larger than a rat. According to experts these were the migrants of the most recent migration and are identified as the Dine peoples.

At this point I give you the world famous and honored explorer and archaeologist – Thor Heyerdahl (no connection to LDS). He argued that it is a bit ridiculous to argue that the civilizations of the ancient Americas arose from such primitive indigenous peoples that in 100 years or so walked out of the pristine jungles and developed language, built large cities with stone and mortar, domesticated various plants and animals, developed education systems, science, art, vast trading (engineering bridges and highways) and many other things – when such developments took thousands of years every where else in the world. Yet these ancient peoples were successful for 10,000+ years prior as primitive hunter gathers – why did they suddenly advance?

Thor argued that the sudden uprising in technology resulted from a migration. Based on the methods of building temples and other technology he theorized the first migration came from the Western Mediterranean to Persia area around 2,000 to 2,200 BC. In my studies I do not know of any rise of civilization in the Americas prior to this period and I would point out that this converges very quickly on the date, time and place provided in the Book of Mormon. Thor was most interested in a migration around 600 BC (we can talk about that later if you like) that triggered the rise of the Classic civilization. To prove his point and convince critics he built a boat with ancient technologies and sailed to the Americas. I would point out that since his expedition it has been proven that the ancients had more sea worthy vessels than what he was copying – in fact some of the vessels were 3 times the size and more capable than the ships Columbus used to come to America.

I have documented close to 100 ancient facts concerning Arabia that was not know in America at the time of Joseph Smith but are referenced in the Book of Mormon; many of which critics have stated at one time or another; that because such facts were not forth coming and could not be proven at the time of criticism that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true. And as there is continual convergence in time demonstrating the Book of Mormon to be more accurate than it critics - it should cause some to at least soften their view. But in all my experience I have not found once where such critics have been proven to be wrong that any such critic has ever modified their view or criticism.

And so I ask you – what is the point of which you have the most concern that has you convinced that in the last 150 years there has been a divergence away from the Book of Mormon? Is it DNA evidence? Let us look at what was known on that subject and related theories through 150 years and compare that with what is known currently and see if there is convergence or divergence. Let us begin with any one single point of your choosing.

The Traveler

Interesting stuff about Thor Heyerdahl. I just spent the last hour looking up stuff about him and reading the wikipedia article on him. I will grant you that his theories and findings are evidence of truth of the Book of Mormon (the first of such evidence I've been presented with). I will retract my statements about there being no evidence and replace it with there being little evidence for the historical truth Book of Mormon.

It may seem like a small change, but I assure you that it is not trivial or sarcastic on my part and that it does mean a lot to me. I sincerely thank you for the information.

[The burden of proof]

I'm curious Digital, do you believe there is any credible evidence at all in favor of the B of M? You seem to always just discount any evidence that others bring forth. Have you tried taking the other side, and looking for supporting evidence?

I know this will be hard for many people to believe, but I really do want to believe, and I really do want the B of M to be true. The problem is that before that can happen, it has to get past the logical side of my brain which is rather difficult. You may see that as a flaw on my part, but I can tell you that if I didn't critically scrutinize these ideas, I would just as easily be a catholic or scientologist by now.

[The burden of proof]

Now here is an interesting fact; most "scholars" and researchers are not even themselves religious people!!! You could not find that in any other discipline. How come you ever heard a Doctors say he/she does not believe people should be alive or that they should not live longer?

Like the rest of the population, most "scholars" and scientists are Christian. Granted there is a slightly higher percent of atheists/agnostics in the scientific community, but it is still well under 15%

The human body is very complex and there is much we still don't know about it. When doctors don't understand what is going on with a patient, it only speaks to their lack of knowledge, not of any "miraculous events". Also keep in mind that for every person that is amazingly still alive, there are plenty of people who just plain die. Does God care less about those people?

And yes; they spend their lives digging about here and there looking for what? No other human endevour drives people with such intensity such the urge to prove (or disprove) that God exist. For those that claim they will not believe until "sufficient evidence exist" I'd saying spend your time in something more productive for yourself. All hours accounted in this tasks, you are working for less than minimum wage. Just a thought.

You seem to be under the false impression that "scholars" sit around all day trying to prove or disprove God, when really there are many areas of study and very few bother with specializing in philosophy. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but your view of the scientific community is severely distorted.

[The burden of proof]

There is so little we know about ancient America at this point. It is quite clear from what we do know that there was war, politics, religion, and vibrant civilizations that just seemed to mysteriously vanish. Of the languages and scripts of Mesoamerica only Mayan script has been deciphered, which although not related to ancient Egyptian, has been described as Egyptian-like hyroglyphics (source). Which is amazing in itself, considering the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that their prophets wrote an adapted Hebrew with a script that was based on a form of Egyptian that was modified to fit their needs. Obviously Mayan doesn't prove anything, but more and more evidence like that is coming forth that seems to make ol' Joe Smith's claims a little less crazy.

From your source:

Maya writing used logograms complemented by a set of syllabic glyphs, somewhat similar in function to modern Japanese writing. Maya writing was called "hieroglyphics" or "hieroglyphs" by early European explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries who did not understand it but found its general appearance reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs, to which however the Maya writing system is not at all related.

I think your intepretation is a little bit misleading. The explorers probably only related it to Egyptian writing because that was the most well known writing system to them that used glyphs. Functionally it is more similar to the modern japanese writing system.

Also, why would a people completely abandon their old writing system and start using a new one? Why aren't there any writings from the old world found in the Americas?

I mean Joseph Smith produced a book seemingly out of nowhere that claimed that there were great literate civilizations with incredible agriculture and technology at their disposal, anciently in America, and the critics went crazy. The thing is, we now know that those things are true. Here's a quote from an article by Michael Ash:

"...the Book of Mormon mentions barley which, until recently, was thought not to exist in the ancient Americas. Critics considered barley to be one of the things that "Joseph Smith got wrong." However, pre-Columbian New World barley has now been verified, without people flocking to join the Church because of this discovery. For critics, finding such items are too often seen as "lucky guesses" on the part of Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon mentions cities, trade, warfare, towers, and the use of armor--all of which did exist in the ancient Americas--yet their existence has not convinced critics that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text."(Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon)

The Book of Mormon talked about concepts that Joseph Smith was familiar with which is entirely understandable if he made it up. Whether some of those concepts were used to varying degrees by the indiginous people of the Americas does not point to "coincidences" adding up to show the truth of the Book of Mormon.

To me the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the Book of Mormon considering the short amount of time we have been able to devote to American archaeology compared to other parts of the world, and considering how little Joseph Smith and the world at large would have know about these things at that time. Yet as something is confirmed that the the critics used to point to, they just ignore it and move on to the other points that haven't been confirmed yet. Why not think about all the things the BoM got right? Everything will come to light as science finally catches up to the truth of the matter, if God is willing.

I could make 1000 random predictions right now. I guarantee that some of them would be right. Some of them would appear to be obviously wrong and people would criticize me for them, but when one proves to be right despite people criticizing it, can I then point to it and say that this is proof that all of them will be shown to be true in time?

There is also enourmous resistance on the part of non-LDS scholars and scientists to concede any evidence about the Book fo Mormon. The reason for that is quite simple, and righly so.

I've noticed quite a persecution complex when it comes to Mormons. The fact is that many scientists don't even know what LDS stands for or what Mormons believe in let alone resist evidence that might confirm it. Before I came to Utah 3 years ago I didn't even know those commercials that were on late at night talking about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" had anything to do with those Mormons I heard lived in Utah and I certainly had no idea about your beliefs on the origins of Native Americans.

Just one piece of evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is an actual record of ancient American inhabitants is all it takes to prove to everyone that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that God is the author of the message. Because then the next question that would need to be answered would be, how did he know this stuff to write it down? You would all be left without any excuse not to be baptized and accept the truth! And that would be a damning situation indeed, because many would still reject the message, and many would be baptized with out the proper foundation of faith.

That is why that kind of "proof" is not forthcoming. It would stand in the way of people developing a foundation of faith. It's all about faith for both our edification and protection. Not just any faith, but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. That's really what the Book of Mormon is all about anyway.

According to the writers of the Book, they pruposely left out many of the specifics of their lives, because they wanted the space for writing about their religion. Nephi began recording these things because of a commandment from God, and the plates were passed along from generation to generation with the same instructions. The purpose was for the book to come forth in our day, and it is therefore written for us.

The specifics could have been left out so that it is vague enough to not easily be "proven" false, or because there would then be a greater burden on the people who do not accept the Book of Mormon. Again, I find this convenient reasoning, but will give it the benifet of the doubt and wait for my own testimony.

Have you read the Book of Mormon?

In the process of it. Talked to some missionaries yesterday.

[The burden of proof]

Fascinating.

I think the question is valid, and I think we all have to come to our own sense of what is true for us. Within the Church, we call this conversion. A person can be a member all their life...but at some point they must come to know the truth for themselves, separate and apart from what their parents taught them.

How do we find truth? Does it really come down to religion vs. science?

Hmm. I am not so sure. Because I believe that God is the creator of all things...including science.

When a scientist has a hunch about something...what exactly is that "hunch"? What is that feeling that keeps them motivated to keep going to prove their theory despite opposition, hardship, and disbelief?

Is that not the same for those who are religious? They believe something to be true. They have a hunch or feeling that they are right. They continue to explore and dig to find things that support their belief (scriptures, words of the Prophet, direction from leaders, etc.). What is that feeling inside their heart that confirms to them that they are on the right track? Within the Church, we call it the Spirit.

For us, that IS fact. I trust the Spirit. I believe that the Spirit directs me and guides me. For me, it is the same as Heavenly Father Himself standing before me and talking to me and guiding me.

I don't need to be in a lab. For me, the Spirit is as good as any test in a lab.

The difference between science and religion is that science recognizes that hunches can and often are wrong. That is why hunches are then put to the test with reapeatable, observable experiments. Religion on the other hand requires you to follow these hunches and feelings based only on your subjective experience of them.

Science is wonderful. I don't have a problem with science. But too much of it is based on theory. Even within science, there is much contention and disagreement on certain theories. The word theory is NOT synonymous with fact. Theory is merely a word to explain a highly educated guess or idea. That's all. And science has many, many theories. Yes, some things science says are "fact", but so much is merely theory.

Science still can't prove how dinosaurs became extinct. But there are many theories.

Too many times something has been documented as fact, only to later be changed or amended. I own several astronomy books, some say that Pluto is not a planet...others say that it is, or that it is a sub-planet. Who is right?

I don't whole-heartedly believe in the latest scientific theories, but I do whole-heartedly believe in the process and methods of science and I believe that it is a much more self-correcting and reliable method of gaining knowledge than trusting your hunches and feelings as divine knowledge without holding them to the standard of reason.

As an unrelated side-note, the argument over what Pluto is, is purely an argument over the semantics of the word "planet" and what it actually includes. It's not as if "facts" changed, astronomers are simply re-evaluating how exactly a "planet" is defined.

As far as proof...

I do not have proof that my husband is absolutely faithful. However, I do not have proof that he has ever cheated either. But my heart and spirit tell me that he is honest and faithful. I believe this. I trust him. I trust the feeling that I have. Why do I need to dig for "proof" either way, if I am content and all is well? Shouldn't my spirit be trusted to lead me in the right direction for me?

Which goes back to my earlier words...for me, the Spirit is my proof. It works for me. I have a good life and I am happy.

I do not require proof that my wife is faithful either, but that is less a matter of following my "spirit" and more a matter of common sense. If your husband came home trying to hide stains of lipstick and smelling of other women's perfumes, would your "feelings" not change about the matter?

I lived most of my life as agnostic. I remember what it felt like to desire hard facts in regards to God and religion. I am not ashamed of myself for they way I used to be or the way I used to believe, but I now know something, I now feel something, that I never felt before. I no longer question who I am or where I came from. I believe that I have found my proof and I have found my answers. That is good enough for me.

I have yet to find such proof or even evidence, but I am happy that you have found what you were looking for.

This is not a frivolous or dumb topic. It is very serious and very sacred. I do not condemn or ridicule those who are different than me. We all have our own minds and hearts. I love science...so many of the books that I buy from Scholastic Book Clubs through the elementary school are about earth, space, animals, etc. I want my children to know that they do not have to make a choice between religion and science. Heavenly Father organized this planet and all that surrounds it. Though we cannot ever begin to know all of the mysteries of the universe, for we do not have God's omniscience, that does not mean that we cannot appreciate science or the mysteries themselves.

I agree for the most part.

[The burden of proof]

You are right if you are talking about random data such as clouds and trees. The problem is that with the dog the data is not random it consists of a set of interrelated data (spots arranged to form a picture of a dog) placed in an envirement of random data (unrelated spots). Yes the mind sees what it wants to see but in the case of real data camaflaged by random data of a similar appearance to the single units of the camaflaged data, once the organized data is recognized then it is no longer random and as Brant says as well as others in the field of visual camaflage, it becomes real and you then can not not see the dog. The more the real data appears to be similar to the random data the harder it is to see but that does not preclude its being there.

Larry P

My point is that when looking at grainy data we can just as easily see what is NOT there as what actually IS there.

[The burden of proof]

DigitalShadow: To whom falls the burden of proof? Must there be absolute proof before a thing is considered? Or believed? Must there be proof before we consider an option to what is established?

No, I don't require absolute proof, but evidence would be nice.

I have attempted to differentiate between proof and evidence in previous posts. In my life I have learned to realize undisputed proof of anything is elusive and often an illusion. More often than not we are left to deal with evidence that even in preponderance is not necessarily conclusive, or as we say in mathematics – the evidence is both necessary and sufficient. But lacking conclusive proof should never deter us from searching and making our best effort to interpret the evidence available to us.

That is true, but again I am at a loss trying to find evidence to intepret.

The question I have for Digital Shadow is this; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to say that you believe there is enough evidence (scientific?) that the Book of Mormon could be true – and then the next step; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to conclude that the Book of Mormon is inspired beyond the capabilities of the boy Joseph Smith of limited education in the frontier of early 19th century America?

If the scientific evidence were converging on what the Book of Mormon claimed, then I would say that is strong evidence. As it is, I see scientific evidence strongly diverging (not disproving) from the claims in the Book of Mormon. The theory proposed by the Book of Mormon for the origins of Native Americans is not even a considered scientific theory because there is no scientific evidence for it.

I ask this because some (even on this forum) would not accept the Book of Mormon as inspired regardless of what-ever scientific evidence was provided. Heaven knows they choke and almost die rather that swallow a drop of evolutionary evidence – let alone the preponderance of evidence available concerning the Book of Mormon. If this is you status then there is no reason to proceed. Since I believe you are willing to discuss evidence and possibilities (as any scientist should) I will proceed.

And there are many who would not accept the Book of Mormon as historically incorrect regardless of what evidence is presented against it. I am always up for discussing evidence and theories as long as there is solid reasoning behind it (which I've seen you demonstrate before, so I will continue discussing).

So let us begin with something chronological and simple concerning evidence associated with the Book of Mormon:

The rise of pre-Classic civilizations of the ancient Americas: From what evidence have you concluded your understanding of the engine of that rise of civilization (especially from what was known in 1820 when Joseph claimed to have translated the record) – was the rise of pre-Classic civilizations triggered from what event(s) among existing indigenous peoples or from migrations caused by what, where and when? How does the evidence which currently holds your attention provide for your skepticism concerning the Book of Mormon?

Indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me where anyone even proposes the theory that any of the Native Americans migrated from Israel based on scientific evidence.

BTW – can we conclude that missing evidence is not really evidence of anything? - That, unless there is specific reason to consider otherwise, we should draw our conclusions from the evidence that exist and the trend in the evidence that is being discovered and not upon evidence that may or may not be an expected missing puzzle piece but cannot be found.

Is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? In my opinion, yes. Does absence of evidence prove anything? No. Do I base any of my conclusions on that? No. That is why I remain agnostic as opposed to strong atheist.

[The burden of proof]

I was just looking at Brant Gardners presentation at the FAIR conference in 2006. He presented an example that may be related to your problems. It is called "seeing the dog".

Here is the dog.

All you see at first is a bunch of spots. However if you stop looking at the individual spots and try to look at the picture as a whole you will see a dog. Once you have seen the dog, you will not be able to not see the dog.

Brant used this illustration to point out that no single piece of data that supports the Book of Mormon is conclusive or even somewhat compelling but when taken together and in context with each other they form a picture that is compelling. And just like with the dog, once you have seen it, you will always see it. It is somewhat like this with gaining a testimony of the restoration. However if you concentrate on the parts of the picture that are not a part of the dog, you will never see the dog.

For those of you who have not yet seen the dog, here it is.

Just as with this picture, the dog only includes a small portion of the total number of spots in the picture but once seen is always clearly there. So does the gospel of the restoration only include a small part of the data available to us but once seen , it stands out against the background.

Larry P

I've linked this before, but I think this video explains the phenomenon better:

TED | Talks | Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things (video)

Basically people easily see what they want to see when given "random" data.

[The burden of proof]

I find, on the average, gnostic arguments quite bland. My theory is that some folk just do not want to bother with God. It interferes with whatever it is they are doing.

And on average, I find theistic arguments to be quite bland and simplistic. "I don't understand how this happened, so God must of done it."

One of the best evidence of God is order and purpose in design. I think it is actually quite difficult to prove the contrary.

Actually that is one of the most shallow and logically flawed arguments for the existance of God. If order can only come a creator, who created the creator and then his creator before that? Wait, let me guess... God just IS. I fail to see how that is a more logically sound argument than leaving out the God step and saying the universe and the rules governing it just ARE.

We have been peering into space for 10,000 years and have seen nothing that resembles intelligence out there. The first radio waves were sent in the 40's and recently photo-coded (fiber optic emitted) signaling was sent just a few years ago. Such signals have already traveled billions of light years from earth and no response yet from the other side.

As Vanhin pointed out, radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the amount of light years they have traveled is the same as the amount of years ago they were sent out. Divide that in half for the trip back assuming they reached some form of life that comprehends the signal and sends a response back and we're limited to solar systems ~30 light years away. Not to mention this assumes that both the lifeforms on this other planet and our planet are listening in all directions nonstop for some type of signal (even our SETI program only scans a miniscule fraction of the sky) AND realize that the signal had some intelligence behind it.

To sum it up, saying there is no other life out there in the universe because we haven't heard from them yet is a rediculously undefensible claim.

Statistically speaking, the chance that earth and the inhabitants thereof are "just an anomaly" of this vast universe is ZERO. There is in fact no evidence of greater complexity or better design than the eco-system we inhabit. Of course, the above will not convinced those that refuse to be confused by the facts. They already made up their minds.

And how many other planets outside of this solar system have you even seen pictures of? We know of VERY few planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets), not because planets are a rare occurance, but because trying to see them with a telescope is near impossible because of the brightness of the star they are next to. Most of the extrasolar planets that we know of are merely inferred from the gravitational tug they exert on the star they orbit. So to say that nothing like our ecosystem exists in the universe is a another rediculous claim.

I completely agree that the chance that life would arise out of the chance occurances that happened on our planet is miniscule. What you are not taking into account though, is that there are ~100 billion stars JUST in our galaxy. There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies visible to us. Even if there is only a 1 in a billion chance that life would spontaneously occur at any given solar system, the universe would still incredibly be full of life.

So far I see no "evidence" that you have presented, only an argument from incredulity.

[The burden of proof]

But if the church weren't true, you wouldn't have so many people testifying that they KNOW it is true because they got on their knees, and in prayer asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and were sincerely willing to act according to the answer. That is the ONLY reason that I know this church is true, and the only reason I'm on this blog declaring that it is true. You want proof, read the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the book of mormon. How many historical accounts of the 1820s have 11 witnesses declaring the truthfulness of a single event? Usually its just a couple of journals which don't have a completely consistent story. and all these witnessess do not ask you to believe on thier words, but to kneel and ask God, who will tell you they are true. Other churches do not do this. Other churches (at least none that I have studied) do not tell their membership to pray and ask God if the church is true, and by that you come to know. This church is unique, because God tells its members that it is His church, and any person who seeks God, to do his will, and to submit to him, and is willing to ask, knows. Its that simple. But remember, you will receive no witness till after the trial of your faith (ether 12:6). I know my faith was sore tried before I came to know, so I can sympathize with you and encourage you to press forward--God will tell you the truth if you seek his will. He's promised to tell you. Rely on him and no other.

One of my main points is that there are people testifying that they KNOW other churches are true as well. Are you saying that your KNOWING is somehow better than these other people's KNOWING? This is all I mean when I say feelings are an unreliable source.

I really don't want to get into a debate about history, but 11 people testifying that something happened proves nothing other than the fact that 11 people can agree on something and stick to their story. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[The burden of proof]

I would love to be in a position where I were able to say that "spiritual feelings" are enough to keep my testimony of the Book of Mormon intact and rescue my family from the grief I am causing them but I am unable to do this.

I just cannot do it. To me there are too many errors, Its like everything that is mentioned in there has been swallowed up leaving no traces. Is it plausable the God has hidden everything as part of the test of faith? I don't think so.

I wish it was true though, then I wouldnt be in this dark, lonely place.

Living in Utah, I see a lot of families torn apart by religion. I think the main problem is that they don't realize that everyone is their own person and religion is a personal choice that doesn't have to be shared by an entire family. I don't fault the church for this, but I do fault the culture for making non-believers (especially those who left the church) outsiders and black sheep in a religion that is supposed to practice love and acceptance.

I wish you the best and that your family can come to terms with your decision.

[The burden of proof]

Well, what are you looking for? It says that IF you accept this lesser account, and manifest your faith in it, then the greater things will be given to you. This knowledge of the greater things which take us beyond "faith" in the Book of Mormon towards a "knowledge" come not by artifacts and scientific observations. It is by the revelation from on high. God's system is very convenient--it is the only way for him to dictate who gets to know his mysteries and greater truths--he reserves the right to give them to the individual himself. As such, those who manifest faith are rewarded, and their faith becomes firm unto a knowledge (see alma 32-34). We can KNOW that jesus is the SON (which is the seed in the allegory). To some it is give to know, to others it is given to believe on their words (see gifts of the spirit). You may consider this process an "inconvenience" just like how having to learn how to read and write were an "incovenience." Exercizing faith to come to know the great things makes us really appreciate higher light and knowledge given us. If it came easy, we wouldn't value it nearly as much. And, if all things were open for the world to see, then those who rejected the truth (when they had the greater portion given), would have all the more condemnation upon their heads. God's plan is perfect for the development of his children on earth. We shouted for joy to be here (well, atleast I hope we were among the faithful ones who did shout for joy). No inconvenience, this is the central part--to exercise faith to come to know God.

By "convenient" I meant like getting an email from a wealthy middle eastern prince who needs to liquidate his assets but can only do so if you give him your bank account information!

I do get your point though and I can see how since something harder to obtain is valued more, Heavenly Father would not make it easy for us. The problem is that I also see that if the church weren't true, the exact same tactics would be used to get members to believe.

[The burden of proof]

What about evaluating the words of the BofM on their merits? I think that it is faith to look at a doctrine and believe that it is true. Are there any doctrines or ideas in the book that you feel are true or might be true.

What about the concept of sin vs righteousness or opposites in all things?

What about the Atonement and understanding the demands of justice and mercy?

What about prayer, obedience, and service?

In my mind, understanding this doctrine and evaluating it in this way is very logical and reasonable.

I was reading in the D&C and read these verses and I thought immediately of you, DS.

Section 50: 10-12

"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

"Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face."

"Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of men, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord reason with you that ye may understand."

I agree with many (not all) of the concepts presented by the church, otherwise I would not have married a Mormon. Making the leap from having some useful teachings to being the word of God is where I stop short of.

[The burden of proof]

There is very little that can be definitively proven for a species with perception as limited as ours. As Descartes says, "Cogito, ergo sum" shows definitively that I exist in some form, though I can't be definitively sure in what form I exist. For all intents and purposes I can be assured that my senses are generally correct. If I witness the same response to the same stimuli without fail then I can be reasonably assured of a causal link between the two. This (along with the scientific method) is the foundation of modern science. Beyond this fundamental ideal we can't hold to anything more substantial then speculation and faith. Both speculation and faith can be strengthened in their own way but neither can be proven until they become part of our observable reality. Science deals with speculation (inference based on evidence) while religion deals with faith. We can never know with assurance that either are totally correct, you just have to decide what you believe and what you think for yourself.

That sums up my philosophy pretty well. I'm guessing you are agnostic as well?

[The burden of proof]

I believe that one of the main reasons for signs or evidences is for the benefit of those who have faith. If you don't or won't have faith, the signs are pretty meaningless, and even if they give you pause in the short term, in the long term, you will learn to ignore the significance of the sign. The Book of Mormon shows this process repeating itself over and over again. People who look for a physical sign of the truthfulness of the gospel eventually ignore or downgrade the significance of that same sign. People who have faith in the gospel generally look to that sign as a reinforcement of their faith, but not as an end-all, be-all of their faith. Signs benefit the believers, not the unbelievers.

But human psychology shows us that if we are already looking for signs for something, we will see them in the random events of everyday life and assign more meaning to them. Having faith just tells your brain, alright I'm looking for more "signs" to back up this piece of information.

[The burden of proof]

You know, I see this same process exhibited in my daily life. Perhaps faith and religion can be seen as the science of the soul.

I had never thought of it that way.

[The burden of proof]

True, although as time goes on the evidence points nearer and nearer to the explanations the Book of Mormon offers.

As to your question about the burden of proof, I think any literature's burden of proof can be assessed from two sources, internal and external. To this day I have found no internal inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, and no external data that conclusively proves the Book of Mormon false. Indeed, there's much data to support it's claims. Additionally, it shows a process whereby one can ascertain its validity.

If you found a mysterious cookbook in the back of a used book store purportedly containing the secrets to making exquisite meals, how would you go about finding the truth of its claims? One could attempt to study its place of origin, compare it to other cookbooks, even use contextual criticism to an extent- but the fastest, simplest, and most honest way is to try it and see if it works! While the history of the book may be questionable from a scientific, historical viewpoint (because one cannot find all of the facts of its history) if it teaches one how to make exquisite meals- the cookbook is what it claims to be.

I have not seen any external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon or any religious text for that matter. Many people point to "coincidences" and claim they are ample evidence, but the problem is that if you really want there to be evidence for something, you will see it in coincidences and disregard anything that goes against it. The great thing about science is that it accounts for that and looks for repeatable experiments and evidence from multiple sources that supports the same conclusion independently.

And if you found a mysterious cookbook that calls for ingredients that don't make sense together, tried its meals and determined they did not taste good, how would you react? What if the cookbook then said that only those who have faith the meal will taste good will enjoy it? I'm sure if you convince yourself it should taste good or grew up eating it, it would actually taste good to you, but that doesn't mean there's any point in it.

Actually, as far as I understand the situation Mormonism is the ONLY church that tells a person what to pray about, how to go about it, and what to expect as a result. Though not an expert on world religions, I would say that Mormonism's proof for its verity is much more attainable, clear, and 'scientific' (to the degree that it has a designated formula).

Nearly all churches encourage you to pray, if people got responses along the lines of "your church isn't true", I don't imagine they would stay with their church very long.

You would be right, if it weren't for the fact that we need to know precisely what we are praying about- otherwise the answer is far too muddled to correctly perceive. Also, there's the issue of 'sincere desire and real intent'- if you don't really want to know the answer you won't find it. As skalenfehl quoted, one must be willing to 'forsake [one's] kingdom' (or, one's worldly status, assumptions, and practices) to find the truth.

Again, I am aware of how you are "supposed" to do it, but it seems a bit too convenient to me that you can pray to Heavenly Father and he will tell you that the church is true, but only if you ask properly, have faith and ask about the "right" church. If we really are children of a loving Heavenly Father who want us to know Him and is our all-powerful creator, why couldn't he just lead anyone honestly searching to the "right" church?

I would make the note that the 'truth in religion' that we learn is actually the 'ultimate truth' every person seeks to find- religion is merely the organizational reflection created to teach the doctrines of that truth. Even irreligionists embrace irreligion as their dearest views on life- or, irreligionists reject the idea of truth coming from God and seek other ways to find it.

I have no idea what an "irreligionist" is, but I'm assuming it is some term for atheist and if that is the case, I don't think you are accurately portraying their thought process.

Consider this- when a gymnast is learning to execute a backflip they exercise the basic principles of receiving a spiritual witness (or, in a broader sense the basic principles of faith).

1- Study. In the gymnast's case, (s)he learns the body movements (s)he needs to execute on the ground; related movements (such as the front flip); theory on body movement; etc.

2- Preperation + Execution. The gymnast goes to a safe location, prepares him/herself mentally, and attempts the backflip. (S)he keeps trying until (s)he succeeds.

3- Knowledge. The gymnast is now well aware of his/her own ability to backflip- (s)he has now done it for him/herself and knows, by execution and experience, what a backflip feels like.

The three steps- Study, Preperation + Execution, and Knowledge, are analagous to the Faith/Works/Knowledge cycle in spiritual experience. The gymnast could not know what doing a backflip felt like by ground-based tumbling; we cannot know what a witness feels like without experiencing it for ourselves.

As you can see, the cycle is the same for mastering all new experiences in life.

Yes, I will agree that the steps to joining a religion require the same processes as anything else, but the problem with your analogy is that I don't want to join a religion any more than I want to be a gymnast. I am in search of the truth, and your religion (among others) claims to have it and so I am investigating that truth.

[The burden of proof]

I will reply to everyone, but at the moment I need to get some sleep so I'll get to it in the morning :)

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far, goodnight everyone.

[The burden of proof]

I think I am much like you. Being a mechanical engineering student, I have been trained to look for holes in theories. That's how you prove things in the science world, test the theory until you know it is true. This can make studying the gospel very hard because instead of looking for truth, you are looking for lies to prove it is true. Not a very intuitive approach when doctrine can't be seen like other things in this world.

But I also realize that science isn't as perfect as we think, or would like it to be. At one time, science spoke of a medium light could pass through called the aether.

Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wasn't that long ago when science seriously considered this mystical thing.

I think when it comes to the relationship between faith and science, it shouldn't have to be "I believe in such and such even though science proves otherwise," but rather "I believe that the day will come when science will understand truth and my faith and science will be one and the same."

I don't know much about DNA, but I do know that we don't understand as much about it as we think we do.

P-Worm

I am well aware of the many failed theories given by science, but in general it is a self correcting process giving closer approximations to the truth as more evidence comes to light. All our scientific advancements are not achieved through feats of faith, but quite the opposite... questioning even things that are assumed to be true when the evidence to the contrary comes to light.

If science and faith are indeed converging on something, I will wait until science arrives there and see for myself :)

[The burden of proof]

Sounds to me like you'll just have to ask God why he's done it that way. He's clearly told us that it is intentional:

3ne26:9-11 says: 9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the agreater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the agreater things be bwithheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord aforbade it, saying: I will btry the faith of my people.

There are gaps and holes intentially. Thats just the way it is to try your faith.

I have asked God, and the results have been underwhelming. Yes, the scriptures say the need for faith is intentional by God, but that doesn't make it any less convenient.

[The burden of proof]

I truly enjoy your posts and conversing with you, so I hope you don't take offense from my responses because none is intended.

God and faith exist in a different "plane" than science does. We can hypothesize, find proof for, and solve problems based on data and evidence, but even evidence is not always enough. We can be deceived by our own eyes.

Of course we can be deceived by our own eyes, otherwise magicians would be out of a job, however I have found reason and examining evidence to be more reliable than feelings in my experience.

Let us assume that everything in the Bible did indeed occur. The Israelites, who were delivered from bondage by Moses, whom they followed out as God's prophet, saw great and marvelous things, including crossing the parted Red Sea. What did they do right afterward? They built a golden calf and worshiped it. Christ performed miracles in front of the Jews and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law. Still they crucified their own God.

Now let's take the inverse of your proposal and assume that the events in the Bible are the ancient equivilent of urban legends passed down by oral tradition. That explains why in the Bible, people who saw proof of their God would betray Him so easily, since it makes for a better allegory that way.

Not to say that either explaination is true, but both are plausible.

Peter, who was Christ's disciple knew that Christ was the Son of the Living God, not because he witnessed Christ perform mighty miracles, including walking on water and causing Peter to walk on water before faltering in his faith, but Peter knew that Christ was the Son of God because it was his Father in Heaven who revealed the truth to him. Christ came to the earth to bear witness of His Father and likewise in turn did Father in Heaven witness to Peter through personal revelation that Christ indeed was the Savior of mankind. Witnessing the miracles and Christ's atonement was not substantially enough. It was through the Power of the Holy Ghost that that Father in Heaven revealed and confirmed this witness to Peter.

Matt 16: 13-17

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16

Yes, I have heard that story in church before.

We each have to take that leap for ourselves. Would you ever go skydiving? Do you consider it safe? Many thrill seekers love it, but many people would never jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Why? Do they lack the faith in their parachute to open? It's a perfectly good parachute isn't it? Father in Heaven challenges us to jump and assures us that he will catch us. If a parachute fails, the diver is killed. But if you never take the leap of faith of earnest and sincere supplication, what really do you have to lose?

You say that Heavenly Father is challenging us to make the first leap of faith, I say that faith is a convenient concept for religion to get and maintain members without having to stand up to reason. I would like to believe, but it seems like the the more I discuss things, the latter explaination is appearing more likely to me.

In the Book of Mormon, a missionary named Aaron preached to a king who held no belief in a God but through Aaron's teachings, the king took that leap of faith:

Alma 22:15-18

15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day....

Alma 22

The chapter isn't that long if you read it. It is not an unreliable method and more and more people are taking that leap every day and finding the truth. You just have to take the appropriate steps to make a successful leap.

I will read the chapter you suggest, however the fact that people make leaps of faith in drastically different directions does make it an unreliable method by definition.

[A good reason to support the death penalty.]

Seems like Charles Manson keeps getting parole hearings. If he wasn't so famous he'd be out there walking the streets.

In states that don't have the death penalty was exactly does "life sentence" really mean?

I thought most religions believed in some concept of redemption?