Principle #3:

(Probably the most controversial --- and therefore most fun to discuss! )

An extension of principle #2 is how one sifts and weighs the individual verdicts of experts. A true and objective test of the Book of Mormon must begin by assuming that it is an authentic record and go from there in applying evidences, pro et con, because that is the only way anyone can ever test anything.

This is the foundation for Western jurisprudence (the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" ) , and was graphically illustrated in my only experience with jury duty. I was seated with 47 other potential jurors and introduced to the defendant and his attorneys (a domestic kidnapping case). The judge explained to us that, in his experience, potential jurors come to cases with one of three mindsets. He asked us to demonstrate by a show of hands which mindset we carried into this case:

1. The defendant was arrested and charged by competent police and judicial authority. He is probably guilty.

2. I haven't heard any of the details, either way, and so I have a completely open mind that will form its opinion as evidence is presented. (Almost all of the hands, including mine, went up on this one.

3. The defendant is probably innocent.

The judge then chastized us and told us that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't just a pretty phrase, it forms the core of our criminal court system. People can only be fairly tried in court under the assmption of innocence.

Similarly, the Book of Mormon (or any claimed authentic writing) can only be truly tested if one assumes that it is genuine and then allows evidence to either falsify or support it. Refusal to do this and insistence on reversing the process (assuming a writing is false and requiring evidence to "prove" its authenticity) indicates an unwillingness to actually submit it to an objective test. A writing will actually never be authenticated with the fundamental assumption that it is spurious, no matter how strong the evidence that is presented.

(The above is heavily condensed from Friedrich Blass, the foremost expert on detecting and testing counterfeits and forgeries.)

Friedrich Blass, "Hermeneutik und Kritik," Einleitende und Hilfs-Disziplinen, in Iwan von Müller, Handbuch der klassichen Altertumswissenschaft (Munich: Beck Verlag, 1886), 1:127-272.

Chimneyduck, I'm confused by your post; are you saying you know there is, absolutely no God, and so you're an atheist, or because of the lack of evidence, God is unknowable, and therefore you're agnostic?

And by your logic before man was apt enough know to discern the information around him, those things didn't exist. In one sense you're right; it didn't exist in the humans' mentality. There is definite anecdotal evidence of God, and just because that evidence doesn't rise to the standards of science doesn't mean it's invalid. The proposition of God by the standards of science would be a theory in need of evidence. There would be no proclamation of existence or nonexistence; to say otherwise in either direction becomes a subjective interpretation of the proposition.

I believe in God. God has touched upon my five sense, which is anecdotal, and just because I can't have you experience what I have, doesn't mean I didn't experience those things. Is it scientific; well ... no, but as wonderful as science is, it's also woefully inadequate, and it will never see past the big bang. That will always be conjecture. So, science will propose its theories that cannot be tested, and I will have my answer with my God. We're a beautiful species, and though we’ve magnificence, we’ve our limitations.

I’m going to end by paraphrasing something I read of Stephen Hawking’s that I agree with: If the universe is all-inclusive; having no beginning or end there is no need for God, but if the universe had a beginning it could be supposed that there is a God.

Respectfully,
Serp.

"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

"Man is a Religious Animal. Man is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.... The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."

Thanks!

He is just a god,  standing in front of the people, asking them to love him.

I watched Knotting Hill on TBS the other day.

Evidence is subjective, most people believe that Gravity is real, they also thought the Earth was flat at one time.

Why are you so up into proving something though?

Oh, I'm not under any delusions of "proving" anything to anybody who's not open to it (see principle #1 above). Certain critics of my faith (Mormonism) have been claiming with increasing frequency on multiple threads here that there isn't an iota of "proof" for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those making this claim have not read it and are completely unaware of evidences that believers offer, so I am going to outline these. Given the nature of these threads, and the rabbit trails that inevitably ensue, I first laid down some basic principles for comment.

You're largely right in what you posted above, but I think people who haven't really thought much about the Book of Mormon and the circumstances surrounding its coming forth will find the details very interesting. Even if they don't choose to believe it.

Knowing that most readers here don't believe that the Book of Mormon is really an account written by real prophets who lived in this hemisphere anciently, I intend to share some things I find to be convincing evidences with this in mind (that is, that many will demand documentation and verification).

Critics have every right to demand this, and believers have the responsibility to answer these criticisms. At the very least, these critics will know in the back of their minds that there are many fascinating things in the Book of Mormon that are difficult to explain away while rejecting its divine origins. And, having rejected the explanation of divine origins, they are then placed in the position of having to account for these things in some other way. But how?

But this will shake out in the course of this thread . . .

But is that the proper way to go about apologetics? Trust me, my faith has just as much criticism then yours, and rightly so. Its one of the largest faiths in the world, and every Christian in the world whether they like it or not, owe their Faith to the Catholic Church. Yes the Orthodox churches are just as old and hold just as much Truth, but I believe that only the Latin Rite had a schism with protestants. But like all large orgs that are in control of men, there is plenty of wrong doing and horrid acts.

Maybe "Proof" is importent to the LDS, when I was interviewing in Salt Lake, I was reading a article about a plate that was found and dated back to the time of Christ. The article went into great detail on how this was proof for the Golden Plates. I just found it wierd that they would need to find something to porve that their Faith is real.

Why not field questions? Like what is the deal with the underwear, is it real, urban myth, or has some truth but someone blew it out of proportion?