What They Talk About: Historical Skepticism of Mormonism

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And as near as I can tell, all religions claim to know with a great deal of certainty the answers to those and many other questions. And as far as I can tell the answers do not match. This is what makes comparing religion to physics a red herring. Religion is bad at knowing what is unknown (as demonstrated by each faith tradition having different and contradictory answers - and each faith tradition being sure they are correct). Science on the other hand is pretty good at knowing what is unknown (see Sean Carroll's statement on Many Worlds) and it has a built in mechanism to correct itself.

Greetings my friend. It has been years since I have posted here. Your post prompted me to see if I am still registered. I guess I am . . . So here goes. I do not believe that each faith tradition is sure it is correct. Perhaps most do, but I certainly don't believe that about either my faith or my beliefs (which to me are two different things). In fact, all my adult life I have tended to shy away from faiths that are certain that they are the "only," by necessity then, making me and mine the "other." I have no objections to the LDS church for either a lack or plenitude of evidence for its beliefs. My objections to the LDS church today is the same that it was the last time I posted - perhaps a bit stronger today than then. I am of the belief that certitude is a sin. Uncertainty opens the door to faith. Certainty closes it. Absolute certainty locks it. I have probably said that on this board before.

I am a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite - far third. None of those require me to scorn those who are not me or who do not share my particular form of faith. In my life I have had both a Muslim and a Jew as my very best friend in the world. We rarely talked religion, and that was fine with each of us. My Muslim friend died, my Jewish friend retired, and I still live in rural Chihuahua. I'm in favor of what has been deemed "The Noble Dream"—that "of beliefs based on pure facts, reason, and data free from bias and prejudice. However, because we are human, that noble dream is . . . well, just a dream - unrealizable due to our humanity. That humanity is incapable of complete freedom from bias and prejudice so long as we rank, generalize, normalize, only, other, or dehumanize each other. Ok, I always write too much. See, nothing has changed in the time I have been gone! Very best wishes to all. Navidad

[Okrahomer]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Greetings my friend. It has been years since I have posted here.

Good to see you again!  Hope all is well in Mexico.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Okrahomer

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It has been years since I have posted here.

Nice to see you back.   

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My objections to the LDS church today is the same that it was the last time I posted - perhaps a bit stronger today than then. I am of the belief that certitude is a sin. Uncertainty opens the door to faith. Certainty closes it. Absolute certainty locks it.

Are you certain about this?  

You have indeed said it before, expressed yourself quite well on the matter over a number of posts.  The only thing that has ever confused me about your position is it does seem you are very secure in naming certainty as a sin and yet that seems to be an example of the certainty you reject….

I am likely missing something fundamental to your position that is causing this confusion.  I am not insisting your position is inherently a paradox, just my current understanding of it forms one.  I think it’s likely I have said this as well before.   

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

None of those require me to scorn those who are not me or who do not share my particular form of faith.

I don’t believe believing one has the best and possibly even believing one has ultimately the only correct path to whatever destination inherently leads to scorning others, though unfortunately it can since humans are often prone to unrighteous pride and arrogance.  It probably is less likely though that someone will scorn others that do not share their beliefs at least for that reason if they hold the belief that there is many acceptable and truly best faiths and not just one.

An analogy….if one knew of a valley surrounded by truly impenetrable mountains except for one path, it could be an act of kindness and compassion in many cases to inform others they were wasting their time and risking harm by refusing to use that one path.

Added:  Of course it is important whether or not the reality is there is only one path.  One may not be intending to limit or harm others by insisting there is only one path if one believes this, but if one is wrong, it could cause others to limit their opportunities where other paths may be better for them.  In the analogy, perhaps there is a hidden tunnel that is a shorter path through the mountains that actually protects travelers more than once the entrance has been opened up to them than the longer, open path.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe believing one has the best and possibly even believing one has ultimately the only correct path to whatever destination inherently leads to scorning others, though unfortunately it can since humans are often prone to unrighteous pride and arrogance.  It probably is less likely though that someone will scorn others that do not share their beliefs at least for that reason if they hold the belief that there is many acceptable and truly best faiths and not just one.

An analogy….if one knew of a valley surrounded by truly impenetrable mountains except for one path, it could be an act of kindness and compassion in many cases to inform others they were wasting their time and risking harm by refusing to use that one path.

I agree with you completely. I don't think certitude inherently leads to scorning others, but I do believe that certitude and human fallibility often does indeed lead to scorning, discounting, mocking, and a form of isolation. I have come to better understand the concept of symbolic violence as perhaps appropriate for this type of wounding. Symbolic violence is different from physical violence in many ways, but one commonality it has is the resultant wounding of both victim and perpetrator.

Your analogy is great. However when it comes to faith, I suggest that Christ is the way (the path or sendero in Spanish). He is the "way" in that He will be the ultimate judge and will judge according to his own perfect wisdom and judgment - something we don't have. Nor has He chosen to reveal to us the exact criteria He will use. I am of the belief (with incertitude) that he may even have differing criteria for different folks. Only He knows what those will be. I guess I choose those to believe (with incertitude), that choice will have nothing to do with denominationalism, breadth of spirituality (we all come short), or any creedal aspects of our belief (which we all have). It is not universalism, but the path is not characterized by its exclusivity either. I prefer to agree with your analogy, but amend it in the sense that no human fully knows with certainty the path through the mountains. We know they are not impenetrable because we know there is a way. Good to chat with you again. Best wishes.  

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree with you completely. I don't think certitude inherently leads to scorning others, but I do believe that certitude and human fallibility often does indeed lead to scorning, discounting, mocking, and a form of isolation. I have come to better understand the concept of symbolic violence as perhaps appropriate for this type of wounding. Symbolic violence is different from physical violence in many ways, but one commonality it has is the resultant wounding of both victim and perpetrator.

Your analogy is great. However when it comes to faith, I suggest that Christ is the way (the path or sendero in Spanish). He is the "way" in that He will be the ultimate judge and will judge according to his own perfect wisdom and judgment - something we don't have. Nor has He chosen to reveal to us the exact criteria He will use. I am of the belief (with incertitude) that he may even have differing criteria for different folks. Only He knows what those will be. I guess I choose those to believe (with incertitude), that choice will have nothing to do with denominationalism, breadth of spirituality (we all come short), or any creedal aspects of our belief (which we all have). It is not universalism, but the path is not characterized by its exclusivity either. I prefer to agree with your analogy, but amend it in the sense that no human fully knows with certainty the path through the mountains. We know they are not impenetrable because we know there is a way. Good to chat with you again. Best wishes.  

This is a question meant for clarification of your other post about the sin of certainty and not as a way to argue or a "gotcha":  Do you feel certain that Christ is the Savior?

How you answer that will help me understand better how to interpret your previous post on the topic so I'm not thinking that I get it when I actually don't.

(PS, good to see you back!)

[Teancum]

On 8/20/2025 at 11:07 AM, Analytics said:

(4/4)

Prompt
How do you define agnosticism? How does that differ from atheism? Atheists typically say that atheism means "without belief in God(s)" and generally say they are without belief because "God" hasn't been coherently defined and sufficient proof hasn't been offered. They typically say that they'd change their mind if enough evidence came to light regarding the God hypothesis.

In contrast, they tend to say "agnosticism" means the affirmative belief that an answer to the God hypothesis is intrinsically unknowable. With these definitions, "atheism" is actually a more humble position than "agnosticism"--atheism isn't positively claiming that something is unknowable; it's merely claiming that to date, we lack sufficient evidence to justify belief.

Can you evaluate whether or not these definitions are coherent and are generally the ones most commonly used by self-described atheists? Based on that analysis, would you like to revise your conclusion that "running that playbook" will most likely lead to agnosticism?

Finally, if one is left in this position, what are your thoughts about meaning, morality, and quality of life? Is it possible to find morality, meaning, and joy without God?

On this final question, keep the response to 300 words or less.

 

GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 5m 13s

Definitions (straight up):

• Atheism: In popular/org usage, “lack of belief in gods.” In academic philosophy, often the stronger claim “there is no God.” Both are live; contexts differ. (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• Agnosticism: Originally Huxley’s epistemic norm—don’t claim to know/believe without adequate evidence. In popular use, either “unknown” or the stronger “unknowable.” It’s a knowledge stance, not a belief stance, so you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Are your proposed defs coherent/common?
Yes—with a caveat. Your atheism = “without belief pending evidence” matches how many self‑described atheists and orgs use it. Your agnosticism = “intrinsically unknowable” describes strong agnosticism; many agnostics just say “not known,” not “can’t be known.” Philosophers stress the belief/knowledge split and note common hybrids (e.g., “agnostic atheist”). (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do I revise my earlier destination (“agnostic”)?
Yep—precision matters. Running the adversarial‑empiricism playbook usually lands people at agnostic atheism: withholding belief in gods while also saying the question isn’t settled to knowledge-level standards. Call it “weak atheism on belief, agnosticism on knowledge.” Confidence: moderate. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---

Meaning, morality, joy—without God (≤300 words)

Short version: absolutely possible; millions do. The reliably useful ingredients are human, not supernatural.

• Morality: You can ground “oughts” without revelation—e.g., reduce suffering (consequentialism), respect persons/rights (deontology), and cultivate character (virtue ethics). In practice, pluralistic ethics works by overlapping reasons: harm reduction, fairness, reciprocity, and consent.

• Meaning: Build a “meaning portfolio”: relationships, mastery, service, and awe. You don’t need metaphysics to feel transcendence—music, nature, art, and hard problems will do fine.

• Well‑being: Much of religion’s happiness edge comes from community practice (regular gatherings, service, rituals). Those benefits can be reproduced secularly: join or build communities with shared projects and prosocial norms. Data: the “actively religious” report more happiness largely where community is strong—the operative word is active; the mechanism is social. You can get the mechanism without the metaphysics. (Pew Research Center)

• How to live it:

  1. Embed in a real community with recurring commitments.

  2. Do visible good weekly (volunteer, mentor, mutual aid).

  3. Keep a truth diary: what would change your mind about big claims?

  4. Ritualize the good stuff (walks at dawn, Sunday dinners, monthly letters to future‑you).

  5. Guard your attention; curate media like your diet.

Net: you can have morality, meaning, and joy on a strictly truth‑first path. You’ll trade some cosmic certainty for intellectual honesty and durable human goods—a fair deal for most grown‑ups.

All of your questions and the results were quite interesting. Thank you.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings my friend. It has been years since I have posted here. Your post prompted me to see if I am still registered. I guess I am . . . So here goes. I do not believe that each faith tradition is sure it is correct. Perhaps most do, but I certainly don't believe that about either my faith or my beliefs (which to me are two different things). In fact, all my adult life I have tended to shy away from faiths that are certain that they are the "only," by necessity then, making me and mine the "other." I have no objections to the LDS church for either a lack or plenitude of evidence for its beliefs. My objections to the LDS church today is the same that it was the last time I posted - perhaps a bit stronger today than then. I am of the belief that certitude is a sin. Uncertainty opens the door to faith. Certainty closes it. Absolute certainty locks it. I have probably said that on this board before.

I am a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite - far third. None of those require me to scorn those who are not me or who do not share my particular form of faith. In my life I have had both a Muslim and a Jew as my very best friend in the world. We rarely talked religion, and that was fine with each of us. My Muslim friend died, my Jewish friend retired, and I still live in rural Chihuahua. I'm in favor of what has been deemed "The Noble Dream"—that "of beliefs based on pure facts, reason, and data free from bias and prejudice. However, because we are human, that noble dream is . . . well, just a dream - unrealizable due to our humanity. That humanity is incapable of complete freedom from bias and prejudice so long as we rank, generalize, normalize, only, other, or dehumanize each other. Ok, I always write too much. See, nothing has changed in the time I have been gone! Very best wishes to all. Navidad

Hello! We have missed you. I participate less here as well.  Many regular posters have also left or have reduced participations. I wonder where @smac97has gone?

So my question for you say you do not believe the each faith tradition claims or is sure it is correct. And you do not feel that way. So are you open to the possibility that Christianity is not correct?  That perhaps there is no theistic God being?

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings my friend. It has been years since I have posted here. Your post prompted me to see if I am still registered. I guess I am . . . So here goes.

Glad I could drag you out of retirement. The board is better for your presence of course!

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

I do not believe that each faith tradition is sure it is correct. 

I do agree with you that I was over broad in my characterization. There are many who claim to know they are correct and many that are much more humble in their truth claims. I appreciate the correction.

[Navidad]

On 8/20/2025 at 9:04 PM, bluebell said:

This is a question meant for clarification of your other post about the sin of certainty and not as a way to argue or a "gotcha":  Do you feel certain that Christ is the Savior?

How you answer that will help me understand better how to interpret your previous post on the topic so I'm not thinking that I get it when I actually don't.

(PS, good to see you back!)

Good to be back. Sorry for the delay in responding. I may not be as regular as I used to be. . . My wife is very much limited in mobility due to serious spinal disease. I do my best to care for her as she has done for me all these years together (55). 

Having said that, let me try and answer you in accordance with my thinking. I believe that Christ is the high priest and judge - the future arbitor of all of those He created (in his Oneness with God the Father and the Spirit). I have no need to identify that unity with the word trinity, but neither do I object to it, even though I can't, in my limited ability, define it. Through his death and resurrection, He paid the price for our (humanity's) nature which includes a propensity for erring, doing the wrong thing (along with many good things), or sin - whichever with one is more comfortable. I also belief our good things can never merit eternity with him at any level. So in that sense our destiny rests in Him, whether we acknowledge that or not. That leads us to criteria. That is where I surrender. I can't declare that I understand or am certain about the criteria. I do believe, as I have said many times before on this forum, that many more will spend eternity with Him that most supporters of one particular faith can fathom. Since He is judge and no one merits a positive judgment regardless of religious affiliation, I do believe he is the Savior, according to His own will and way. I am certainly far from a universalist, but neither am I a restrictivist as are most members of the LDS church I have met. Somehow Christ, in his will for his human children will provide a way to be with him for many, if not most, if not the vast majority of us -- including many, if not most, if not the vast majority of my LDS friends. Thanks for the welcome back. 

[Navidad]

On 8/21/2025 at 11:13 AM, Teancum said:

Hello! We have missed you. I participate less here as well.  Many regular posters have also left or have reduced participations. I wonder where @smac97has gone?

So my question for you say you do not believe the each faith tradition claims or is sure it is correct. And you do not feel that way. So are you open to the possibility that Christianity is not correct?  That perhaps there is no theistic God being?

 

Hello my friend. I certainly (smile) believe that some versions of Christianity are not correct in many of their teachings and doctrine, especially in their dogma (used in a non-strictly Catholic sense of the word). Mostly I would emphasize that incorrectness to be around "only" issues as probably is obvious from my perseveration on that issue. I believe too many Christians use sling and stone to commit symbolic violence against those who are not them. In fact in September, I am taking a break from writing about Mexican history and going to focus for the rest of the year on "stones humans throw - justification and wounding" as the focus of my writing. Enough about religious and other conflicts in 1930s Chihuahua! After this next book, I may have to watch my back when walking in Colonia Dublán or Colonia Juarez! Ha! Sorry, I digress.

I guess, I have never really pondered on doubts about the existence of a theistic God being. I have accepted that as one of the few absolute truths without ever actually considering its absence. That is about as honest as I can be. Take care and very best wishes.  Phil

[InCognitus]

On 8/20/2025 at 1:36 PM, Navidad said:

Greetings my friend. It has been years since I have posted here.

Glad to see you back.

[OGHoosier]

On 8/17/2025 at 12:00 PM, Analytics said:

Are you saying that when people rigorously apply methodological empiricism (predictive risk, falsifiability, evidence-weighted updating, and bias correction) they don’t converge on a broadly naturalistic view of the world?

As I said:

Quote

In what way was Bertrand Russell somehow more in tune with predictive risk, falsification, and bias correction than Kurt Godel, who blew up the Russellian dream of a complete and consistent mathematics? I've learned a lot from Sean Carroll, but I don't see him as particularly better at these epistemic virtues than Iain McGilchrist, Ed Feser, or Larry Sanger, all of whom have updated and changed their minds based on exposure to evidence and argumentation while coming to dramatically different conclusions about the nature of the universe. I suppose you must consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2006 superior to Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2025, though her style of argumentation doesn't seem to have changed much. Bart Ehrman is an good scholar, but I also get surprising and remarkable insights from others, among them Jonathan Bernier, T.C. Schmidt, and James Ware, who come to different conclusions with imo better cases. You claim much for your cited examples based on a common methodology which you attribute to them, but as far as I can tell, the evidence for both the presence of this methodology and the success of its application is that they came to similar conclusions as you regarding naturalism.

I suggest that the convergence you perceive is an artifact of your search methods. You will likely agree with Benjamin McGuire's assessment that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon cannot be regarded as particularly compelling evidence for an ancient origin because the literary form is not unique to ancient Hebrew - that same form pops up in later European writings but is called by other names, like "ring form." LDS scholars, familiar with biblical Hebrew but not as familiar with Middle High German, fixed on the appearance of the literary form and flagged it as something they were familiar with from Hebrew without considering that the phenomenon might occur elsewhere under other names. I believe you have done something similar, and passed over many examples of the cited epistemic virtues because they were not explicitly described in Pinker's terms, or found among the reading materials to which you regularly refer.

On 8/17/2025 at 12:00 PM, Analytics said:

Or are you saying that convergence isn’t meaningful--that there’s no epistemic reason to prefer beliefs that survive these filters over those that don’t?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the four features you describe are tools, they do not equally fit all inquiries, and must be applied correctly in order to work - and in my experience the major areas where I and others have disagreed with those thinkers you cited concern precisely the considerations of fit, proper application, and metaphysics which govern whether or not a prediction actually follows from a theory.

As I said right after the section you quote:

Quote

You've got yourself a methodology for arriving at very secure beliefs regarding a subset of questions which (a) rely on readily manipulated experimental conditions or (b) give rise to very straightforward predictions, but this is not the whole picture - the formulation of definitions and predictions is the hard part and necessarily depends on epistemic virtues entirely prior to prediction and falsification!

Prediction and falsification become more difficult to apply the further you get away from physics. I don't know how you could even apply them to a priori reasoning like Godel's ontological argument or Russell's mathematics. You could apply them to biblical studies but only in a sort of post facto way - with the exception of yet-to-be-found inscriptions from relevant periods (of which there are not likely to be many) the body of observable data is pretty much fixed, thus you can't make predictions about new discoveries, so you're stuck making predictions about new theories. The making of predictions thus collapses into the alternative criterion of "explanatory power" since all you're predicting is the emergence of explanations. So it makes sense for you to group the physicists together, no objection there, but then you tack on Russell and Bokovoy and Ehrman and I'm left wondering what the actual unifying criterion is since the application of prediction + falsifiability to their fields is so different. It seems to be something along the lines of a very general "they look at the world, observe that it doesn't match what they think follows from theistic beliefs, and thus came to belief in naturalism" - that seems to be what they have in common. Which is why I said: 

Quote

as far as I can tell, the evidence for both the presence of this methodology and the success of its application is that they came to similar conclusions as you regarding naturalism.

After all, I don't see you mentioning the atheist Thomas Nagel, who affirmatively hopes that there is no God and yet finds himself incapable of accepting materialist reductionism and neo-Darwinism in particular. His case is a striking counterexample to your theory of general convergence on materialism - an anomaly if not a disproof. However, at this point it seems that tossing further counterexamples out there would just be repetition. If you want to agree with Carroll, Ehrman, et al, go ahead - they make reasonable cases though I'm not ultimately convinced. But you can't make a convergence argument based on a common methodology if the methodology in question is so highly abstracted. If you make that methodological tent too big you'll invite people into it who undermine your argument, and I believe you have substantially done so.

To lay out some of my own epistemological commitments - I think the idea of a unitary "method of rationality" is absurd, and frankly a lot of my beef would dissolve if you would drop Pinker's pompous appropriation of the term "rationality" for what is in reality a cognitive science-flavored falsificationism. A priori reasoning and deduction, for instance, have nothing to do with the four tools mentioned above, and yet are indispensable to any rational endeavour (indeed, they underlie all reasoning.) My own beliefs are more in line with Norton, Paul Feyerabend, and the general school of American pragmatism: there is no universal method of induction or methodology of reasoning which has a handle on all truth. That would be spooky in itself, is not to be expected from such a complicated universe, and for good measure Godel killed the very possibility of a comprehensive axiomatic system. "The method of rationality" would better be described as a toolbox in which some methods work on some problems but none work on all. "Science" is what scientists do and further demarcation is mere politics. We believe in what works, and what is consistent with what works.

An interesting corollary is that this complicates the common account of "bias." Heuristics are less elaborated tools, but functional and even optimal in some contexts, therefore bias is not automatically imprecatory.  Its epistemic harms can only be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and accusations of bias have to be viewed with heightened scrutiny since they often function as a method of dismissing foundational value differences. I have a hard time explaining Thomas Nagel's, or Iain McGilchrist's, or Larry Sangers', or Don Bradley's journeys as examples of "bias" without feeling that I have been remarkably intellectually uncharitable, and thus I do not do so. The field of cognitive science of religion has generally handled this well imo, internet discussions and popsci books somewhat less so. 

Edited August 23, 2025 by OGHoosier

[Malc]

On 8/20/2025 at 4:34 PM, Calm said:

I don’t believe believing one has the best and possibly even believing one has ultimately the only correct path to whatever destination inherently leads to scorning others, though unfortunately it can since humans are often prone to unrighteous pride and arrogance.  It probably is less likely though that someone will scorn others that do not share their beliefs at least for that reason if they hold the belief that there is many acceptable and truly best faiths and not just one.

An analogy….if one knew of a valley surrounded by truly impenetrable mountains except for one path, it could be an act of kindness and compassion in many cases to inform others they were wasting their time and risking harm by refusing to use that one path.

Added:  Of course it is important whether or not the reality is there is only one path.  One may not be intending to limit or harm others by insisting there is only one path if one believes this, but if one is wrong, it could cause others to limit their opportunities where other paths may be better for them.  In the analogy, perhaps there is a hidden tunnel that is a shorter path through the mountains that actually protects travelers more than once the entrance has been opened up to them than the longer, open path.

I know I'm more than a little late replying, but this analogy makes me think of my Patriarchal Blessing - it says (paraphrasing) that I should be up there in the mountains helping people.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Malc said:

I know I'm more than a little late replying, but this analogy makes me think of my Patriarchal Blessing - it says (paraphrasing) that I should be up there in the mountains helping people.

Lovely…

[Malc]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Lovely…

Thanks, Calm.

You know that I'm a non-believer - I'm sure nobody here thinks otherwise - but if it is of interest to you I'd be happy to send you the text of my PB.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 8/20/2025 at 12:36 PM, Navidad said:

None of those require me to scorn those who are not me or who do not share my particular form of faith.

I'm fascinated by your implication that certitude concerning one's religion necessarily entails the scorning of other beliefs. 

Perhaps I am reading that sentence wrong, but it seems to be the implications based on the context of your overall post.

 

[Clear]

On 7/31/2025 at 1:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

Many threads on r/exmormon focus on Historical Skepticism. Usually, the atheists usually focus on the Book of Abraham as a core turning point. Key arguments include: Egyptian papyri clearly do not match Joseph Smith’s claims. They are standard funerary texts, none written by Abraham or from his time. LDS explanations (e.g. "missing papyri" or "catalyst theory") are often rejected as weak, contradictory, or ad hoc. 

I do not think the LDS realize the historical strength of their theology.  While some distance themselves from LDS theology because of the Pearl of Great Price, it is a text that brings me increasingly closer (historically) to Restorational theology. 

I grew up protestant and became interested and steeped in early Judeo-Christian literature (Talmud, haggadic literature, Zohar, Testament literature, Mishnas, lectionaries, Hellenistic Prayers, Nag Hamadi library, the Qumran Library, early ascension and descensus literature, etc…) and have noticed what I call, The “Heiser theological funnel”.

 

THE HEISER THEOLOGICAL FUNNEL

Michael Heiser, a wonderful Hebraist wrote his doctoral thesis on the council of the Gods in early Jahwist religion.  Because it paralleled the LDS theology, his fellows at Liberty University claimed Michael was a “closet Mormon”.  Michael denied the characterization and even wrote a response to LDS Scholars called “If you’ve met one Elohim, you’ve met them all” in an effort to distinguish his scholarly findings from LDS theology.   The problem for Michael was that the LDS scholars agreed with his findings and pointed out the LDS beliefs paralleled Michaels research rather than disagreed with it.

The historical data simply “funneled” Michael into conclusions that paralleled LDS theology despite Michaels efforts to distance himself from this conclusion.   I’ve noticed that students of early Judeo-Christian literature are, increasingly, in the same position as Michael.

For example, one cannot read Jewish Enoch, from 300 b.c. without coming face to face with pre-existence and themes that parallel Restorational theology.  One cannot read 40 day literature (e.g. abbaton) without the same thing happening.   One cannot read descensus literature such as the Gospel of Nicodemus without wondering if Smith himself somehow wrote such descriptions.  Most of the parallel literature such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, dead sea scrolls, Nag Hamadi libraries were not discovered in Smiths life time. 

 

HOW WAS SMITH ABLE TO BORROW FROM FUTURE TEXTUAL DISCOVERIES?

Thus, while one can easily explain rare potential errors in Smiths theology, I’ve never met anyone who could explain how he “borrowed” from future textual discoveries not available in his life time, yet describe his theology in wonderful detail.

[Pyreaux]

39 minutes ago, Clear said:

I do not think the LDS realize the historical strength of their theology.  While some distance themselves from LDS theology because of the Pearl of Great Price, it is a text that brings me increasingly closer (historically) to Restorational theology. 

I grew up protestant and became interested and steeped in early Judeo-Christian literature (Talmud, haggadic literature, Zohar, Testament literature, Mishnas, lectionaries, Hellenistic Prayers, Nag Hamadi library, the Qumran Library, early ascension and descensus literature, etc…) and have noticed what I call, The “Heiser theological funnel”.

 

THE HEISER THEOLOGICAL FUNNEL

Michael Heiser, a wonderful Hebraist wrote his doctoral thesis on the council of the Gods in early Jahwist religion.  Because it paralleled the LDS theology, his fellows at Liberty University claimed Michael was a “closet Mormon”.  Michael denied the characterization and even wrote a response to LDS Scholars called “If you’ve met one Elohim, you’ve met them all” in an effort to distinguish his scholarly findings from LDS theology.   The problem for Michael was that the LDS scholars agreed with his findings and pointed out the LDS beliefs paralleled Michaels research rather than disagreed with it.

The historical data simply “funneled” Michael into conclusions that paralleled LDS theology despite Michaels efforts to distance himself from this conclusion.   I’ve noticed that students of early Judeo-Christian literature are, increasingly, in the same position as Michael.

For example, one cannot read Jewish Enoch, from 300 b.c. without coming face to face with pre-existence and themes that parallel Restorational theology.  One cannot read 40 day literature (e.g. abbaton) without the same thing happening.   One cannot read descensus literature such as the Gospel of Nicodemus without wondering if Smith himself somehow wrote such descriptions.  Most of the parallel literature such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, dead sea scrolls, Nag Hamadi libraries were not discovered in Smiths life time. 

 

HOW WAS SMITH ABLE TO BORROW FROM FUTURE TEXTUAL DISCOVERIES?

Thus, while one can easily explain rare potential errors in Smiths theology, I’ve never met anyone who could explain how he “borrowed” from future textual discoveries not available in his life time, yet describe his theology in wonderful detail.

Awesome a new member. Maybe the mods finally fixed... You joined in 2014??!! Darn, it's probably not fixed then.

The idolatry of Terah, the premortal existence of spirits and other items are seen in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which the first English translation was released in August 1898. But poster @CA Steve told me:

On 7/4/2023 at 9:31 AM, CA Steve said:

Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? 

 

[Clear]

Pyreaux quoted CA Steve as saying : "Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? "

I'm not sure what point CA Steve was trying to make. 

Pyreaux,  Can you give me three specific examples from these books CA Steve is referring to and what point he is trying to make by these examples?

[Pyreaux]

54 minutes ago, Clear said:

Pyreaux quoted CA Steve as saying : "Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? "

I'm not sure what point CA Steve was trying to make. 

Pyreaux,  Can you give me three specific examples from these books CA Steve is referring to and what point he is trying to make by these examples?

It was in this thread we were talking:

I made similar arguments as you about the parallels in the then undiscovered Apocalypse of Abraham, and he replied to me that Joseph had access to those same parallels in other contemporary works. I'm not an expert in Joseph's private book collection to refute him. I thought it was an interesting claim. I wanted your opinion.

On 7/3/2023 at 7:00 PM, CA Steve said:

Regardless of what was in the Apocalypse of Abraham, these were common themes long before in the early 19th century America, before Joseph Smith finished the Book of Abraham in 1842. For example, see both Clarkes Bible Commentary and Brown's Bible Dictionary for the idolatry of Terah. Joseph Smith owned a copy of Brown's and had access to Clarke's. As for the pre-existence and who was in it, it was a commonly debated or discussed by people at that time like Noah Worchester, Jacob Tidd, James Simmons, Hosea Ballou, just to name a few. 

[Tacenda]

Not to derail, but did anyone notice in the memorial for Charlie Kirk, someone mentioned Royal Skousen? If I got that right. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail, but did anyone notice in the memorial for Charlie Kirk, someone mentioned Royal Skousen? If I got that right. 

Cleon….it was for political ideas Skousen had, not religious.

Skousens are a big family (I had a Jewish friend in Canada who was related to them).  Royal is the nephew of Cleon, an academic involved with the Book of Mormon text and is very alive.  Cleon wrote the Thousand Year series, which was definitely not academic, but ended up teaching religion at BYU anyway….along with writing a lot of anti communist texts and died in 2006.  Glen Beck is fond of him.  I don’t know if that is the reason for his current popularity or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Skousen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Cleon_Skousen

Edited September 24, 2025 by Calm

[Clear]

Pyreaux said : "I made similar arguments as you about the parallels in the then undiscovered Apocalypse of Abraham, and he replied to me that Joseph had access to those same parallels in other contemporary works. I'm not an expert in Joseph's private book collection to refute him. I thought it was an interesting claim. I wanted your opinion."

This is an interesting claim.  Please give me specific examples from the books you referenced and lets discuss them.