Enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is a lot of evidence in support of the authenticity of the BOM, but of course evidence is not proof, and not everyone would find the evidence persuasive (and none of it would prove the theological claims).

Define a lot.  And how much of it is quality evidence which I guess is subjective.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Define a lot.  And how much of it is quality evidence which I guess is subjective.

I think both definitions would be subjective.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes. Religion is plagued by such things. And religious apologetics is flawed from the beginning. It all starts with the premise that what is being defended is absolutely true. Then any "evidence" or arguments that can even slightly provide plausibility it is thus used.  I do not know if any other comparably bad methodology for defending something.

What you are describing is a methodology widely-used across the host of ideological positions. One's life experiences in general are often presented as "evidence" of the validity of a certain position. While that may be true for the one experiencing such things, they do not validate Truth with a capital T.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes. Religion is plagued by such things. And religious apologetics is flawed from the beginning. It all starts with the premise that what is being defended is absolutely true. Then any "evidence" or arguments that can even slightly provide plausibility it is thus used.  I do not know if any other comparably bad methodology for defending something.

Notice that this generalizes about apologetics at such a high level of abstraction that no specifics are involved.  It tells a story, a paradigm, a myth, as though it applies to every situation.   And it also ignores what Kuhn explains is the difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm (without actually bothering to solve any specific puzzles, such as Hebrew festival patterns in Mosiah, Lehi's qasida, the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Jerry Grover on New World geology, etc.), and paradigm testing using criteria that are not completely paradigm dependent.  It is indeed a very clear example of ideological dismissal.  I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

As Kuhn says, it makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two competing paradigms is better.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice that this generalizes about apologetics at such a high level of abstraction that no specifics are involved.  It tells a story, a paradigm, a myth, as though it applies to every situation.   And it also ignores what Kuhn explains is the difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm (without actually bothering to solve any specific puzzles, such as Hebrew festival patterns in Mosiah, Lehi's qasida, the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Jerry Grover on New World geology, etc.), and paradigm testing using criteria that are not completely paradigm dependent.  It is indeed a very clear example of ideological dismissal.  I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

As Kuhn says, it makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two competing paradigms is better.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Sure is was a generalization.  But when you have a key defender of the BoA for example, stating that he starts with the premise that the BoA is true and then seeks to find support for that, well that is a pretty flawed methodology. And do you dispute that BoM apologists don't do the exact same thing?

[Kevin Christensen]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure is was a generalization.  But when you have a key defender of the BoA for example, stating that he starts with the premise that the BoA is true and then seeks to find support for that, well that is a pretty flawed methodology. And do you dispute that BoM apologists don't do the exact same thing?

Do you understand the difference between normal science operating within the assumptions of a paradigm, and concious paradigm testing?  Have read and understood The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

I find specificity in which examples a person uses to generalize from is an essential starting point.  I have actually read all of Nibley's Book of Abraham apologetics.  He does not pretend that he does not have a point of view.  He is explicit that he has a perspective, and that no one is required to uncritically accept his arguments, nor does he presume to offer the last word.  Indeed, Will Schryver and Tim Barker have offered important observations that Nibley did not make.  Nibley read Kuhn and understands paradigm debate.  All Nibley was trying to do was to make an argument that belief in the Book of Abraham is reasonable.  Not on the basis of objective proof that coerces belief or unbelief, but on the basis of broad explorations that in his view invite belief, and that have not in fact been fully accounted for by skeptics.  I recently pointed to Jeff Lindsay's observations that Vogel's survey of Book of Abraham apologetics failed to mention or address One Eternal Round, Will Schryver's FAIR presentation, or Tim Barker's Under the Head presentation.  Indeed, I have noticed and called out in print several critics of LDS claims for premature ideological dismissal of Latter-day Saint scholarship.  

All scholars begin with a perspective.  Some have the self consciousness and wit to be self aware and self critical, and are willing to openly state that they have one.  Some are so pleased to be able to state that other people have an ideology that they don't stop to reflect on the implications of their own

I can think of some Latter-day Saint writers who do not consciously in engage in paradigm testing, but who just present their puzzle solutions as though final and indisputable.  Not just believers in Historicity.  McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple."  In terms of conscious paradigm testing of Joseph Smith's claims, McMurrin produced nothing.  He died before he could have read Brant Gardner's work, or that of Brian Stubbs, or Jerry Grover, or anything in the Interpreter, or the LiDar surveys, or my work on Barker.  So "better" does not enter into it.  

The point is that I know many top Latter-day Saint scholars who are consciously participating in paradigm testing.  Alan Goff, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and literally dozens of others, if not hundreds.  The generalization you offer does not account for my personal experience and observation.  Again, I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Edited October 23, 2025 by Kevin Christensen
Typo

[Teancum]

On 10/22/2025 at 6:07 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Do you understand the difference between normal science operating within the assumptions of a paradigm, and concious paradigm testing?  Have read and understood The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

I find specificity in which examples a person uses to generalize from is an essential starting point.  I have actually read all of Nibley's Book of Abraham apologetics.  He does not pretend that he does not have a point of view.  He is explicit that he has a perspective, and that no one is required to uncritically accept his arguments, nor does he presume to offer the last word.  Indeed, Will Schryver and Tim Barker have offered important observations that Nibley did not make.  Nibley read Kuhn and understands paradigm debate.  All Nibley was trying to do was to make an argument that belief in the Book of Abraham is reasonable.  Not on the basis of objective proof that coerces belief or unbelief, but on the basis of broad explorations that in his view invite belief, and that have not in fact been fully accounted for by skeptics.  I recently pointed to Jeff Lindsay's observations that Vogel's survey of Book of Abraham apologetics failed to mention or address One Eternal Round, Will Schryver's FAIR presentation, or Tim Barker's Under the Head presentation.  Indeed, I have noticed and called out in print several critics of LDS claims for premature ideological dismissal of Latter-day Saint scholarship.  

All scholars begin with a perspective.  Some have the self consciousness and wit to be self aware and self critical, and are willing to openly state that they have one.  Some are so pleased to be able to state that other people have an ideology that they don't stop to reflect on the implications of their own

I can think of some Latter-day Saint writers who do not consciously in engage in paradigm testing, but who just present their puzzle solutions as though final and indisputable.  Not just believers in Historicity.  McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple."  In terms of conscious paradigm testing of Joseph Smith's claims, McMurrin produced nothing.  He died before he could have read Brant Gardner's work, or that of Brian Stubbs, or Jerry Grover, or anything in the Interpreter, or the LiDar surveys, or my work on Barker.  So "better" does not enter into it.  

The point is that I know many top Latter-day Saint scholars who are consciously participating in paradigm testing.  Alan Goff, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and literally dozens of others, if not hundreds.  The generalization you offer does not account for my personal experience and observation.  Again, I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Ok fair enough. I will consider your well explained remarks and modify my simplistic conclusions about apologetics.