In the fallout from the SCOTUS ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, I received an email that noted a quote from John Adams:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The email went on to say that in the past when the country was filled with moral and religious people, the Constitution worked. But now that the country is increasingly filled with immoral and irreligious people, the Constitution is being used against logic, against reason, and against once moral and religious principles. In other words, the Constitution of the United States is wholly inadequate to now govern our citizens. Isn’t this a veiled attack on the Constitution?
This was my reply. Continue reading
According to LDS apologists, the following statements are true: (see posts here and here)
- There is no conclusive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity.
- There does not exist conclusive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity that could ever be discovered, or at least it is extremely unlikely or highly doubtful.
The reason I believe there is not conclusive evidence, and that it does not exist, or can not exist, is either epistemic distance (which creates its own share of difficulties) or the book is not historical. Continue reading
Let’s consider the case of Big Foot. Some might think this is a straw man. But I think it is a very good comparison to what is going on with Book of Mormon historicity. If you believe that Book of Mormon historicity is somehow fundamentally different than Big Foot, please tell me how it is different. Continue reading
It seems to me that any evidence, even a little evidence, which would show non-LDS scholars undoubtedly that something, anything, in the Book of Mormon is real history, is prohibited, even an accumulation of conjectural evidence which would show with near certainty the reality of Book of Mormon history. These evidences must remain forever undiscoverable in the secular world, by its very nature. And this from a believing historical viewpoint. Continue reading
The problem for Book of Mormon historicity is not simply the lack of conclusive evidence. LDS apologists admit, at least begrudgingly, that there is not conclusive evidence for a historical Book of Mormon. But I’m going one level deeper. My argument is that there cannot be conclusive evidence, and this creates difficulties for the Mormon God. Continue reading
Regarding my last post which quoted Francis Collins, and the “fundamentally flawed claim” required of young earth creationists, the question could be asked, what is the fundamentally flawed claim required of Book of Mormon historians?
The fundamentally flawed claim is this—conclusive evidence cannot exist for a physical historical reality. It’s not just that it is not there, that we haven’t found it yet, was destroyed, etc. It’s that it cannot exist for us to find it. It’s not that it does not exist, it is that it can not exist.
Like Brant Gardner, I too doubt that conclusive evidence exists for the Book of Mormon, but not because the supposed ancient Book of Mormon people never created such evidence, that it got destroyed through time by the elements, that we can’t rightly interpret the evidence we have, or that we haven’t found it yet. As I noted before, there are other reasons why we can’t find objective evidence for the book, even if we wanted to, and even if the book is truly historical. God mandates that objective evidence can’t be found, and this has significant implications for God. Whether or not evidence exists in the soil, simply situating the Book of Mormon in historical reality causes immense logical problems. Continue reading