Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The State of the Evidence


How do you feel about evidence in favor of LDS truth-claims?  

77 members have voted

  1. 1. What best describes your assessment of evidence regarding LDS truth-claims

    • If I didn't have a testimony, I would not believe based on the evidence.
      18
    • The evidence leaves room for faith and belief, but on its own I don't find it compelling.
      33
    • On balance, the evidence is compelling in supporting LDS truth-claims.
      20
    • The evidence is overwhelming in favor of LDS truth-claims.
      6


Recommended Posts

Thanks Calm.  Pop in often just to read rather than comment.

I don't agree with John Welch on this.  I would follow Rob Bowman's take in his response to him.  So much in Matthew is about the Kingdom as available to all - the opening up of the Temple if you like. Thus the miraculous feedings can be seen in this light.  The temple liturgy was about a meal, a sacred meal for God - the miraculous feedings extend this meal to all. Male, female, young, old - and if Gal 3:28 is a baptismal formula then to slave, free, male, female, Jew and Greek.  All borders are broken down in the Kingdom.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Abulafia said:

As I understand, both the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain come from another source (Quelle).  Goodacre would suggest Luke copied from Matthew on this,  but he would be in the minority on this issue.

I understand why members would consider the Book of Mormon an ancient text, and so try to make the evidence fit, but without that initial assumption of historicity it really is blindingly obvious that Joseph wove a story from his deep knowledge, and love of, the King James Bible.  It's not just the sermon on the plain and mount which Joseph uses without knowledge of the historical critical method, it's also the unacknowledged references to Pauline language.  With the host of other anachronistic renderings of biblical verse whether from the OT or NT, I would suggest that the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon is obvious to anyone without a spiritual testimony that it is genuinely ancient.

For me, this is and was a case of the head and heart telling me something completely different.

It is understandable why you would say that, and it does neatly straddle both worlds.  However, it leaves us with several insuperable problems:

1.  Joseph could not be the author, even if it is a pastiche from disparate and incompatible sources.  As Skousen & Carmack have shown, the BofM comes to us in Early Modern English, the crucial constituent elements of which were no longer being used in Joseph's time at least two centuries later.

2.  There are hundreds of facts internal to the BofM text which it would have been impossible for even the best scholar of the Elizabethan era (or for Joseph Smith) to have known and inserted into the text, and which have only been disclosed by archeology since 1830.  See, for example, my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ,

3.  Ignorance of the historical critical method is actually an advantage for a translator in melding together a variety of ways of expressing the meaning of his base text -- even if the translation is more a midrashic expansion, pesher on, or targum of an original sermon.  That would be true even if the translator were Dr john Dee (who was the proud owner of an Aztec obsidian magic mirror, now in the British Museum # 1966,1001.1).

Link to comment
On 8/11/2016 at 10:59 PM, Gervin said:

Good grief. He recites that it may have come from " ...versions of a common oral tradition" - not a historical event.  "Versions" and "oral tradition" are the words to focus on.  Besides, if the author is a typical Fuller grad, don't expect a strict literalist [it was an actual sermon at a specific location] - as someone described the seminary, "the voice of a third way that flows out of biblical values, instead of buying into the political ideology of either the right or the left."

The fact?  What does "fact" mean to you?  For me it means "irrefutable."  If it's "irrefutable" that "Joseph didn't do the translation" then how is this "fact" evidenced in the teachings of the Prophets and Professors or communicated through public relations?

If you believe with every fiber of your being that the BofM was translated in the 1600's, then you should dump this board, start a website, and devote your life to the proposition.  It may be a fact to you but all that tells me is that you've convinced yourself.  Who else is convinced?

Ohhhh, myyy ... sensitive judgments are being overwhelmed by an odorous and obvious fact ... and <sigh> analyses are corrupt and clouded by the foreboding KJV language, accompanied by its sinister style ...  what shall I dooo?

You realize that when you attack a person rather than his position that you're basically saying, "your position survives intact"?

OHH MY indeed....

"Irrefutable"?  As a definition for "fact"?

"Jesus is the Christ" is irrefutable as is "Evolution explains all life forms on earth"or  "Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest"

In fact any proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever is "irrefutable" while also being non-falsifiable.

So now being irrefutable is the criterion for being a "fact"?   Very strange idea.  I have always wanted Bigfoot to be factual, I guess the time has finally come!

Can you see a way to refute "Joseph didn't do the translation"?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

OHH MY indeed....

"Irrefutable"?  As a definition for "fact"?

"Jesus is the Christ" is irrefutable as is "Evolution explains all life forms on earth"or  "Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest"

In fact any proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever is "irrefutable" while also being non-falsifiable.

So now being irrefutable is the criterion for being a "fact"?   Very strange idea.  I have always wanted Bigfoot to be factual, I guess the time has finally come!

Can you see a way to refute "Joseph didn't do the translation"?

Robert F. Smith said

Quote

 you missed the fact that Joseph didn't do the translation.  It had been done a couple centuries earlier.

How is one supposed to interpret Smith's use of the word "fact" in this instance? 

More importantly, what do you think the word means?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Robert F. Smith said

How is one supposed to interpret Smith's use of the word "fact" in this instance? 

More importantly, what do you think the word means?

I seem to recall someone saying it was bad form to talk about facts when it comes to religion.

I admit I'm rather nonplussed with the arguments about the translation having been done a couple of centuries before. The problem is that these purported examples of older usage are not consistent and, even if they were, there are not enough of them to be statistically significant. Even if we accept that these anomalous words were used intentionally, there are other more likely explanations for their origin. Admittedly, I have no expertise in these matters, but it seems like a non-starter to me.

Link to comment

Of course the Kingdom is available to all.. all have been invited.  That does not mean that everyone accepts the invitation, or is willing to accept the conditions for entry that accepting the invitation requires and that the Sermon on the Mount spells out.

"How often I would have gathered you... but ye would not."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I seem to recall someone saying it was bad form to talk about facts when it comes to religion.

I admit I'm rather nonplussed with the arguments about the translation having been done a couple of centuries before. The problem is that these purported examples of older usage are not consistent and, even if they were, there are not enough of them to be statistically significant. Even if we accept that these anomalous words were used intentionally, there are other more likely explanations for their origin. Admittedly, I have no expertise in these matters, but it seems like a non-starter to me.

I discussed your exchange with Stan Carmack with Carmack himself recently, and it seemed clear to him that you did not understand what his and Skousen's research discloses -- in addition to not presenting here an accurate account of your exchange with him.

For example, far from being "purported" examples of older and then extinct usage, Carmack presented superabundant, specific examples and documentation in his articles.  There is nothing "anomalous" about Early Modern English as it was used in its own time.  I don't have any problem with your skepticism, but your outright rejection without any substantive rationale seems premature.  You could at least closely examine his claims and be specific about any real objections.  Meantime, it is not so much the facts that we have to contend with as the interpretation of those facts, and I haven't found an adequate explanation yet for why Early Modern English constitutes the base English text of the BofM.  It is probably "a non-starter" for a lot of people just for that reason.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I discussed your exchange with Stan Carmack with Carmack himself recently, and it seemed clear to him that you did not understand what his and Skousen's research discloses -- in addition to not presenting here an accurate account of your exchange with him.

For example, far from being "purported" examples of older and then extinct usage, Carmack presented superabundant, specific examples and documentation in his articles.  There is nothing "anomalous" about Early Modern English as it was used in its own time.  I don't have any problem with your skepticism, but your outright rejection without any substantive rationale seems premature.  You could at least closely examine his claims and be specific about any real objections.  Meantime, it is not so much the facts that we have to contend with as the interpretation of those facts, and I haven't found an adequate explanation yet for why Early Modern English constitutes the base English text of the BofM.  It is probably "a non-starter" for a lot of people just for that reason.

"Anomalous" is the word Stan used in our conversations for words he considered not to be consistent with usage in Joseph Smith's day. As I said, I did not purposely misrepresent what he said to me. The reason it's a non-starter for me is that, as I said, there are a number of other possible sources--and that's after we grant that this kind of usage is consistent and significant. Yes, Stan presented specific examples, but the average reader notices rather quickly that the book is not consistently written in an early modern style. But sure, random words and phrases could have been picked up elsewhere, such as John Dee's magic texts that were circulating at the time and, as mentioned earlier, Bunyan and other sources.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but I thought he and I had a good long conversation, and I certainly was receptive enough to look into what he sent to me. But as I said to Stan, the usage has to be consistent or at least statistically significant to show an early modern English translator, but again, the other problem is that there are plenty of other common sources for such usage. If you can point me to where the usage is shown to be consistent and significant and unlikely to come from other sources, I'm all ears. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is understandable why you would say that, and it does neatly straddle both worlds.  However, it leaves us with several insuperable problems:

1.  Joseph could not be the author, even if it is a pastiche from disparate and incompatible sources.  As Skousen & Carmack have shown, the BofM comes to us in Early Modern English, the crucial constituent elements of which were no longer being used in Joseph's time at least two centuries later.

2.  There are hundreds of facts internal to the BofM text which it would have been impossible for even the best scholar of the Elizabethan era (or for Joseph Smith) to have known and inserted into the text, and which have only been disclosed by archeology since 1830.  See, for example, my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ,

3.  Ignorance of the historical critical method is actually an advantage for a translator in melding together a variety of ways of expressing the meaning of his base text -- even if the translation is more a midrashic expansion, pesher on, or targum of an original sermon.  That would be true even if the translator were Dr john Dee (who was the proud owner of an Aztec obsidian magic mirror, now in the British Museum # 1966,1001.1).

1. Why would God go to the trouble of the pre-translation and having plates for that matter when God could have given the entire book of mormon to JS, without grammatical error, similar to how He gave us the Book of Moses?  Why not a more direct route to giving us the book of mormon?

2. "impossible for even the best scholar of the Elizabethian era?"  Isn't that a little strong?  Isn't it more likely that the poor grammar of a back woods boy combined with the desire to make his text look biblical be the reason for the way the language appears in the earliest drafts of the book of mormon?  Also, why all the changes to the text if God was involved with the supposed pre-translation (in heaven???) and transmission to JS?  One would think God would step in and make the corrections ahead of time?

Edited by James Tunney
Link to comment
1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of the pre-translation and having plates for that matter when God could have given the entire book of mormon to JS, without grammatical error, similar to how He gave us the Book of Moses?  Why not a more direct route to giving us the book of mormon?

2. "impossible for even the best scholar of the Elizabethian era?"  Isn't that a little strong?  Isn't it more likely that the poor grammar of a back woods boy combined with the desire to make his text look biblical be the reason for the way the language appears in the earliest drafts of the book of mormon?  Also, why all the changes to the text if God was involved with the supposed pre-translation (in heaven???) and transmission to JS?  One would think God would step in and make the corrections ahead of time?

This is my question also...why wouldn't inspiration come a different way than going through all of this?  Plates that are non historical?? That doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

OHH MY indeed....

"Irrefutable"?  As a definition for "fact"?

"Jesus is the Christ" is irrefutable as is "Evolution explains all life forms on earth"or  "Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest"

In fact any proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever is "irrefutable" while also being non-falsifiable.

So now being irrefutable is the criterion for being a "fact"?   Very strange idea.  I have always wanted Bigfoot to be factual, I guess the time has finally come!

Can you see a way to refute "Joseph didn't do the translation"?

I don't think anyone believes we're talking about "irrefutable" facts, just where evidence points as to the construction of the Book of Mormon (which, as you note, isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of whether the spirit testifies it's true or not). 

BTW, just read your review of Givens on the Interpreter website. Nicely done. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is my question also...why wouldn't inspiration come a different way than going through all of this?  Plates that are non historical?? That doesn't make sense to me.

If Skousen and Carmack are correct, doesn't that make Joseph Smith more of a transcriber than a translator? It doesn't make sense that he'd have to study it out in his mind if the words were already translated and just dictated to him. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gervin said:

Robert F. Smith said

How is one supposed to interpret Smith's use of the word "fact" in this instance? 

More importantly, what do you think the word means?

Well I will not speak for Robert but I suspect we agree on this

The assertion that some proposition is a "fact" usually is simply an assertion that the proposition is "true"

Most often, in religious discourse especially and almost always in other types of discussion the assertion that a statement is "true" is simply tantamount to saying "I agree with this assertion".

Many if not most contemporary philosophers subscribe to the "Deflationary Theory of Truth" in some form, since no other theory of truth has been able to stand up to scrutiny. 

This also goes to the idea of "evidence" which is largely in the eye of the beholder.   Nietzsche famously said "There are no facts, only interpretations" and I have not seen a better statement which holds up to examination.  

As Kevin often points out, this all relates directly to the Perry Scheme  in understanding the ambiguity of language and the difficulty in making statements which can be understood as universally "true"

Quote

 

3. Ethics and Religion

Wittgenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and claimed to see every problem from a religious point of view, but never committed himself to any formal religion. His various remarks on ethics also suggest a particular point of view, and Wittgenstein often spoke of ethics and religion together. This point of view or attitude can be seen in the four main themes that run through Wittgenstein's writings on ethics and religion: goodness, value or meaning are not to be found in the world; living the right way involves acceptance of or agreement with the world, or life, or God's will, or fate; one who lives this way will see the world as a miracle; there is no answer to the problem of life--the solution is the disappearance of the problem.

Certainly Wittgenstein worried about being morally good or even perfect, and he had great respect for sincere religious conviction, but he also said, in his 1929 lecture on ethics, that "the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language," i.e. to talk or write nonsense. This gives support to the view that Wittgenstein believed in mystical truths that somehow cannot be expressed meaningfully but that are of the utmost importance. It is hard to conceive, though, what these 'truths' might be.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/

It could be said that in morality W believed in "orthopraxis" and not "orthodoxy" due to the difficulty in formulating statements that always worked in any situation.   He distinguished right living from defining dogma, and saw the latter as impossible to define.

Wittgenstein was a practicing Catholic though to my knowledge never "joined" the church.  He was born Jewish. 

He was close friends with Catholic philosopher GEM Anscombe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Anscombe

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

BTW, just read your review of Givens on the Interpreter website. Nicely done. 

Thanks

Link to comment

So if "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, the "state of evidence" is a never ending debate, words and more words without coming to a conclusion.

The evidence for this statement is this thread itself.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So if "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, the "state of evidence" is a never ending debate, words and more words without coming to a conclusion.

The evidence for this statement is this thread itself.

I don't know that it's so much that evidence is in the eye of the beholder but that people see the evidence pointing to different conclusions. That's why I find it interesting that the majority of people here seem to believe in spite of what they think of the evidence. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

If Skousen and Carmack are correct, doesn't that make Joseph Smith more of a transcriber than a translator? It doesn't make sense that he'd have to study it out in his mind if the words were already translated and just dictated to him. 

I agree.  In fact it changes some of the purpose Joseph Smith had in said restoration.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If Skousen and Carmack are correct, doesn't that make Joseph Smith more of a transcriber than a translator? It doesn't make sense that he'd have to study it out in his mind if the words were already translated and just dictated to him. 

I don't see the lick of difference between that and words and phrases appearing before Joseph with a view of the original sitting above them, and wouldn't disappear until they were written down correctly or spelled correctly, though.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see the lick of difference between that and words and phrases appearing before Joseph with a view of the original sitting above them, and wouldn't disappear until they were written down correctly or spelled correctly, though.

Yes, but isn't that a secondhand account, the thing about the words appearing?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, but isn't that a secondhand account, the thing about the words appearing?

Of course.  But, as it goes, all we have to know about the process is second hand accounts.  I'm just saying if the theory of already translated and Joseph transcribed is the issue, there's really no difference between that and some form of translating the characters by seeing the English translation as he read it off. 

Link to comment
Just now, stemelbow said:

Of course.  But, as it goes, all we have to know about the process is second hand accounts.  I'm just saying if the theory of already translated and Joseph transcribed is the issue, there's really no difference between that and some form of translating the characters by seeing the English translation as he read it off. 

Yep, unless somehow Joseph willed the words to appear. Who knows?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know that it's so much that evidence is in the eye of the beholder but that people see the evidence pointing to different conclusions. That's why I find it interesting that the majority of people here seem to believe in spite of what they think of the evidence. 

Sigh.

No John there is no evidence, only conclusions conditioned by what we want to believe, and justifications for those beliefs

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

No John there is no evidence, only conclusions conditioned by what we want to believe, and justifications for those beliefs

That would make it exceedingly difficult and rare for anyone to change their minds, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

No John there is no evidence, only conclusions conditioned by what we want to believe, and justifications for those beliefs

Within the Rortian paradigm, do you believe there is any point to the historical method or to the scientific method? Should scientists and historians pack it in and become postmodernists? I would guess that the answer is no, but the way you phrase things sometimes I think that's sort of what you're getting at. But perhaps you believe that science and history still have pragmatic value, even if they operate on a different (and indefensible) philosophic wavelength?

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...