In Elder Holland’s 2009 conference talk “Safety for the Soul” he defended the Book of Mormon by saying “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart. And still it stands.”
In a way, he is right.
When I was a believer this idea that the Book of Mormon still stands in the face of all scrutiny was faith-affirming. I have noticed that it’s the kind of idea that others also use as a shield against doubts.
In a recent interview, YouTuber David Snell said “whenever I might feel like my testimony is in a free fall, I always just slam right back into the Book of Mormon. And it’s one thing that I can’t figure out, that I would need to figure out in order to leave.”
The idea is essentially that the Book of Mormon claims to have come forth in a miraculous way, and if we can’t explain or refute it, then it still stands, and there is hope.
For me, this was a very well meaning hope. I had accepted the idea that either the gospel was true, or there was no real good in the universe. I was wrong about that. I was also wrong that because the Book of Mormon had not been refuted, that it “stands”. Those are not the same thing.
Saying that something stands because it has not been refuted is a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It operates by shifting the burden of proof and then arbitrarily changing the narrative to fit established evidence. (see video in the comments)
Are you using the argument from ignorance as a means of propping up a shelf that is heavy with contradictions?
Leave a Reply