Warts and all kind of history

[Tarski]

While I, by contrast, think that there is too much evidence for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims for me to reject them.

It seems you put the testimony of the eight witnesses on one side of the scale and a few other hints and tid bits from history, but refuse to put the weight of the general implausibility and metaphysical and scientific inconsistencies on the other side of the balance. It still goes back to the old "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" maxim (which you may despise).

For me, we have on the other side of the scale all the obvious philosophical and scientific problems with the mammal gods, anthropomorphic spirit bodies, demons possessing bodies, heaven and hell, global floods, a first man (in Missouri!), Noah's ark, a lack of modern miracles, etc. as well as the outstanding fact that there exists an embarrassing plenitude of competing and similar stories.

One may as well put a pea on one side of the scale and a mountain on the other.

But it seems for you this wold of the fantasic just starts out quite plausible and need not be factored in--it just "floats" so to speak--gets a free pass.

[Deborah]

While I, by contrast, think that there is too much evidence for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims for me to reject them.

Ditto, including but not limited to the writings and doctrine he produced.

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems you put the testimony of the eight witnesses on one side of the scale and a few other hints and tid bits from history, but refuse to put the weight of the general implausibility and metaphysical and scientific inconsistencies on the other side of the balance. . . . One may as well put a pea on one side of the scale and a mountain on the other. [emphasis mine]

What an entirely fair summary of my position! What a just and objective description of the state of things!

It still goes back to the old "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" maxim (which you may despise).

I don't despise it, though I do think that it's often wielded (as in your case) in defense of an ironically obscurantist dogmatism.

But it seems for you this wold of the fantasic just starts out quite plausible and need not be factored in--it just "floats" so to speak--gets a free pass. [emphasis mine]

In your dogmatic, question-begging, and caricaturing way, you have, in fact, blundered reasonably close -- within several miles, at any rate -- of the notion of prior probabilities or presumptions. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth," remarked Winston Churchill, "but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

[Tarski]

What an entirely fair summary of my position! What a just and objective description of the state of things!

You always do this. I know better than to ask you to explain in detail your actual positions (and reasons for holding them) in regard to the issues that I have put forth over these past several years. You will point me to your many writings, of course, but the problem is that it's a one way street and you get to pick the issues and agenda.

Maybe I wouldn't be so wrong about your (philosophic and scientific) positions if you were a bit less terse online.

By the way, I have a feeling you read a lot of Plantinga (too much). I wonder what his assessment of Mormon theology might be.

[Mortal Man]

The internet, while certainly a tool for discovering the "problems" is also a tool for finding the solutions.

How can we find the solutions if they are locked in the Church Historian's vault? http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=42039

[Daniel Peterson]

You always do this. I know better than to ask you to explain in detail your actual positions (and reasons for holding them) in regard to the issues that I have put forth over these past several years. You will point me to your many writings, of course, but the problem is that it's a one way street and you get to pick the issues and agenda.

Sorry. I should let you pick the issues I address, and determine my agenda.

Maybe I wouldn't be so wrong about your (philosophic and scientific) positions if you were a bit less terse online.

All will be revealed in its time.

By the way, I have a feeling you read a lot of Plantinga (too much). I wonder what his assessment of Mormon theology might be.

I think he would vigorously disagree with some of it, though not with all.

One of my former students did a Ph.D. with Plantinga at Notre Dame. He would probably have a more precise idea.

[Tarski]

Sorry. I should let you pick the issues I address, and determine my agenda.

Lets put it this way. I have asked questions, made some points in hopes of getting counterarguments (specifically your counterarguments) and I have asked for your feedback on numerous things.

But lets not let the questioner choose the questions.

Based on what little you have said about these things (in this case how you weigh evidence) I think I have made pretty good guesses.

You tell me I am wrong and am making caricature but then don't follow up with an explanation of the realistic picture.

Are you a presuppositionalist of sorts?

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you a presuppositionalist of sorts?

Not even slightly.

[Free Agent]

While I, by contrast, think that there is too much evidence for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims for me to reject them.

I would perhaps put the following on the side of the scale against Joseph Smith.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's3.htm

There are plenty of others I could as well, but this is a start. I do, however, respect the conclusion you have come to and that many others who have studied it out and stayed in the Church have done as well. It does just get exhausting hearing from others, not necessarily you, that we somehow didn't have a strong enough testimony, didn't study enough, didn't pray about it in the right context, etc. The problem is I already did all that when I made the decision at 19 to change gears and join the Church. At 45 I didn't think I'd have to deal with a paradigm such as the one that has presented itself over the last 2 years to myself and my family. Honestly, I could study for years all the contradictions and apologetics that exist and still not come to the conclusion and feelings I did when I believed it was such a simple gospel I was converting to. To me, that was the beauty of it. That all the misinformation and men mingling with scripture and so on was so out of control that the time was right to reestablish the Church on the earth - and here a relatively short time later we find ourselves within the Church disagreeing about things that I believe the Lord, in His wisdom, would no allow to happen to His true Church. But that's just me and my experience.

[Mormon Questioner]

Well, since the "historical cat" was never IN the bag in the first place, I'm not sure your statement that it is "out" is all that meaningful.

Well according to Elder Packer, anything that was out of the bag that was not faith promoting should be allowed to disappear down the memory hole.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInf...amp;ProdID=1145

"I have on occasion been disappointed when I have read statements that tend to belittle or degrade the Church or past leaders of the Church in writings of those who are supposed to be worthy members of the Church. When I have commented on my disappointment to see that in print, the answer has been. "It was printed before, and it's available, and therefore I saw no reason not to publish it again."

You do not do well to see that it is disseminated."

and further on

"Don't perpetuate the unworthy, the unsavory, or the sensational.

Some things that are in print go out of print, and the old statement "good riddance to bad rubbish" might apply."

then again you have Elder Oaks (sorry for misspelling his name earlier)

"Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesnâ??t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that â??the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.â? A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as â??contempt for the truth.â? (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: â??To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.â? (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is â??a time to speak,â? and there is also â??a time to keep silence.â? (Eccl. 3:7.)"

These two talks are specific examples of direct instruction to the church educators and historians to avoid the non-faithpromoting. According to Elder Packer if it is "unworthy" then it should not be quoted and let go out of print.

I don't understand how I am misrepresenting what they are saying. The truth is at least in these two talks, they are specifically asking our historians and educators to only promote the positive, and ignore the negative. And then we end up with discussions like this where people insist that the church is not hiding anything..... well maybe it has been unsuccessful, but it was definitely trying to promote an agenda of faith promoting history only.

I don't know what that all means. Do you require that every question must be answered in order to believe anything? If so, at least in religion, where is your faith that something is right? There are many who think and believe what you write but they seem always to be unhappy with whatever answer they are given to any question. I have to think they are not looking for truth in religion but absolution for something they did.

You can think what you want, and this is a common theme amongst true believing LDS, that people who leave are just looking for reasons to excuse sin. You won't believe me, but I can tell you that it was not true for me, or many of those that I know.

I wanted to believe it was all true, but I am also a skeptical person. I think too much. And if the evidence (to me and I recognize it doesn't for many of you) shows overwhelmingly that the church story is not true, then I have to live with that. No amount of wishing it was true will help. I can wish that Santa Claus was real, but it won't make a difference. I could try and have faith that he does, but it isn't going to make him any more real.

I don't need answers to everything, I just need good plausible answers to most things. I can accept that there are things that are not answerable in this life. However over 10 years of attending this board and studying apologetics, I have been underwhelmed by the answers given here. They are generally a possible answer, not the probable one. They were generally enough when I had fewer issues, but as I kept studying and researching, you can only have so many possible but improbable answers.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would perhaps put the following on the side of the scale against Joseph Smith.

Have you yourself read E. T. A. Hofmann's The Golden Pot (Der goldne Topf)?

If you haven't, you should. I've read it both in English and auf Deutsch, and I think it's absolutely astonishing that anybody who knows it at all well could imagine that it served in any way as the inspiration for Joseph Smith's account of Moroni and the Hill Cumorah.

For critiques of Grant Palmer's book from various vantage points, see

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...ewed_author=510.

At least two of these deal specifically with the alleged parallels in the Joseph Smith story to Der goldne Topf.

Here's what I myself wrote about Palmer in my "Editor's Introduction: Of "Galileo Events," Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and its History," in FARMS Review 15/2 (2003):

Similarly, Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, has been ceded a measure of undeserved authority by some readers, not because it presents much that is truly new, but because of its author's claimed status as, precisely, an "insider," a faithful member of the Church and long-term veteran of the Church Educational System, whose honest historical writing can be faulted for no bias except, perhaps, a nostalgic prejudice in favor of traditional Latter-day Saint understandings. Its negative conclusions, accordingly, are thought to carry all the more punch. An official statement issued on 28 January 2004 by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University rejects any suggestion that Grant Palmer speaks for them or reflects their position.91 Davis Bitton, Steven Harper, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, moreover, demonstrate that Palmer's book rests on a highly selective use of sources, indicating that Palmer either did not know the literature he claims to be representing or else that he chose, for reasons best explained by him, to suppress mention of significant portions of it. Further, Ashurst-McGee and Louis Midgley illustrate Palmer's appalling distortion of perhaps his most striking and "original" piece of evidence. I enthusiastically endorse Ashurst-McGee's encouragement of any who may be interested in the claims advanced by the fifth chapter of Palmer's book, entitled "Moroni and the Golden Pot," to obtain a copy of Hoffmann's story and to read it for themselves.92 It is simply inconceivable to me that anyone who has actually read "The Golden Pot" can seriously believe it to have been a source or even an inspiration for Joseph Smith's account of his experiences with Moroni. On the other hand, I am virtually certain that Palmer's interest in this bizarre story was originally inspired by the salamandrine tales of Mark Hofmann. Professor Midgley also shows that Palmer's CES career and the orthodoxy that it ought to imply have been hyped out of all proportion to reality and that, unfortunately, Palmer's relatively recent retirement from employment by the church does not demonstrate that he abandoned his orthodox Latter-day Saint beliefs only recently.93

Palmer attempts to convince his readers that the foundational events of Mormonism did not literally occur in the world of physical reality and that Latter-day Saint history has been systematically falsified in order to make it seem that they did. For instance, Palmer alleges that the familiar accounts of priesthood restoration by angelic ministers were cobbled together by Joseph Smith in order to fend off challenges to his leadership in Kirtland, Ohio, during late 1834 and early 1835.94 The first unclear reference to angelic involvement, Palmer says, can be dated to November 1832, but it is not until February 1835 that Peter, James, and John are identified as having bestowed authority upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. In order to bolster his case, Palmer relies heavily upon late reminiscences, a reliance that leaves one deeply puzzled regarding his principle of selection. He fails, for example, to mention Parley Pratt's first encounter with Hyrum Smith, in Palmyra, New York, during late August of 1830. Hyrum, Pratt recalls, told him of "the commission of his brother Joseph, and others, by revelation and the ministering of angels, by which the apostleship and authority had been again restored to the earth."95 (As Palmer himself notes, on pages 219â??20 of his book, the terms elder and apostle were used almost interchangeably in those earliest days of church history, so that Pratt's summary seems to point quite unequivocally to a discussion in 1830 of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood by angels.)

Nor, oddly, does Palmer mention Philo Dibble's memory of Joseph Smith standing up in a meeting in a barn on Sunday, 8 July 1832â??just after Sidney Rigdon had upset the Saints by suggesting that the keys of authority had been taken away from the churchâ??and testifying: "No power can pluck those keys from me, except the power that gave them to me; that was Peter, James, and John."96 These are not obscure sources. I ran across both of them by pure serendipity on a single recent Saturday morning while doing a bit of desultory reading entirely unrelated to either Grant Palmer or the restoration of the priesthood. One should be able to expect at least that level of research, it seems to me, from a revisionist book written by one who claims to be both an "insider" and a conscientious, truth-seeking historian.

At the same time he is systematically attempting to demolish the foundations of uniquely Mormon belief, however, Palmer exhorts us to place our faith in Jesus. But he seems to be operating by a double standard: arguments that are perfectly analogous to those that he marshals against the historic faith of the Latter-day Saints can be and have been mounted against fundamental Christian beliefs. In an argument eerily parallel to that of Palmer, for example, John Dominic Crossan claims that Jesus' body was abandoned by his disciples and that it was dragged away by dogs and left to rot. The New Testament resurrection narratives, according to Crossan, represent no more than a relatively late attempt to put a positive spin on a very disheartening story. Moreover, he declares, those narratives were constructed in order to buttress one of numerous competing claims to authority in the young Christian movement.97

Palmer likewise argues that the experiences of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were merely subjective, purely mental, and, accordingly, that they are devoid of value as evidence for the existence of genuinely physical plates.98 It was only considerably later, Palmer claims, that "the Church" transformed the dreamy, harmless, and insubstantial visions of Joseph's naive witnesses into real-world experiences. In a very similar vein, liberal and agnostic scholars of the early Christian movement have argued that the first disciples believed in a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. Consequently, the postcrucifixion encounters of the apostles and others with the Risen Lord were nothing more than extraordinarily vivid (but otherwise subjective and rather commonplace) religious experiences, not genuine meetings with a person who had been bodily raised from the dead.99

Is Palmer unaware that the simple faith in Jesus that he recommends as an alternative to long-held Latter-day Saint beliefs is vulnerable to the same kinds of attacks he favors against Mormonism? Possibly not. Are his advisors and his handlers at Signature Books innocent of that fact? I doubt it very much.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=499

[ERayR]

I would perhaps put the following on the side of the scale against Joseph Smith.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's3.htm

There are plenty of others I could as well, but this is a start. I do, however, respect the conclusion you have come to and that many others who have studied it out and stayed in the Church have done as well. It does just get exhausting hearing from others, not necessarily you, that we somehow didn't have a strong enough testimony, didn't study enough, didn't pray about it in the right context, etc. The problem is I already did all that when I made the decision at 19 to change gears and join the Church. At 45 I didn't think I'd have to deal with a paradigm such as the one that has presented itself over the last 2 years to myself and my family. Honestly, I could study for years all the contradictions and apologetics that exist and still not come to the conclusion and feelings I did when I believed it was such a simple gospel I was converting to. To me, that was the beauty of it. That all the misinformation and men mingling with scripture and so on was so out of control that the time was right to reestablish the Church on the earth - and here a relatively short time later we find ourselves within the Church disagreeing about things that I believe the Lord, in His wisdom, would no allow to happen to His true Church. But that's just me and my experience.

I am not trying to be mean spirited but the question that comes to my mind is did you think that once saved always saved? My understanding of the LDS paradigm is one of constant study and continious learning. One is supposed to build on what you have learned and experienced and on the testimony felt. If you try to just sit on it you will find yourself left behind and what you had will be withering (parable of the talents).

[Free Agent]

Have you yourself read E. T. A. Hofmann's The Golden Pot (Der goldne Topf)?

If you haven't, you should. I've read it both in English and auf Deutsch, and I think it's absolutely astonishing that anybody who knows it at all well could imagine that it served in any way as the inspiration for Joseph Smith's account of Moroni and the Hill Cumorah.

For critiques of Grant Palmer's book from various vantage points, see

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...ewed_author=510.

At least two of these deal specifically with the alleged parallels in the Joseph Smith story to Der goldne Topf.

My reply in bold - sorry, the quote feature didn't work for me.

No, I have not read it. I'll add that to the ever growing list. Like I said, I could research this until the end of my life I bet. There is rebuttal for everything I'm finding. I know though when I listened to Grant Palmer on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories he has no axe to grind. And while I appreciate your links to FARMS reviews of his book, I don't view them as objective. I can only go with what my gut tells me at this point while I continue to read the endless literature existing on this topic.

[ttribe]

And while I appreciate your links to FARMS reviews of his book, I don't view them as objective. I can only go with what my gut tells me at this point while I continue to read the endless literature existing on this topic.

What does pass the "objective" test for you?

[BCSpace]

I'm still trying to figure out what wart is supposed to make me doubt the Church.

[Free Agent]

I am not trying to be mean spirited but the question that comes to my mind is did you think that once saved always saved? My understanding of the LDS paradigm is one of constant study and continious learning. One is supposed to build on what you have learned and experienced and on the testimony felt. If you try to just sit on it you will find yourself left behind and what you had will be withering (parable of the talents).

What makes you think I wasn't building my testimony by reading out of other good books, albeit not dealing with anything of an apologetic nature? I continually worked on my testimony, and as I said in a post on another thread, maybe when I read Sheri Dew, Mary Ellen Edmunds, George Durrant, etc I should have wandered to the history aisle. There's only so much time in a day, and I did not think I was always more concerned with building myself spiritually, not academically. And I didn't take what you said as mean spirited at all.

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I have not read it.

I'm not surprised.

Even though you yourself suggested it as one of your prime evidences against the claims of Mormonism.

I'll add that to the ever growing list. Like I said, I could research this until the end of my life I bet.

The Golden Pot is widely available. And it's not very long. There's even a supercheap Dover paperback edition. I think it cost me $1.00, new.

There is rebuttal for everything I'm finding.

Palmer's Golden Pot theory was especially easy. I'll be completely blunt: I think it lacks even the slightest trace of merit. I don't know a single serious student of early Mormonism, believer or not, who buys it.

I know though when I listened to Grant Palmer on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories he has no axe to grind. And while I appreciate your links to FARMS reviews of his book, I don't view them as objective.

So you're not going to read them?

Fascinating.

Grant Palmer is objectivity incarnate, but the FARMS reviewers -- Davis Bitton (Ph.D. Princeton, director of graduate studies in history at the University of Utah), Mark Ashurst-McGee (Ph.D. candidate, Arizona), Louis Midgley (Ph.D., Brown), Steven Harper (Ph.D., Lehigh University), James Allen (Ph.D., USC; Lemuel Hardison Redd Professor of American History at BYU), and the entire staff of the Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History are so crippled by bias that they can be dismissed without a reading?

I find that truly unbelievable.

I can only go with what my gut tells me at this point while I continue to read the endless literature existing on this topic.

Well, if you insist on taking writers like Grant Palmer at face value while refusing to read criticism of his case, there's not much suspense about which conclusion you'll reach.

[Daniel Peterson]

I need to say, again, that I find the double standard -- Grant Palmer, paragon of objectivity, to be taken at face value v. FARMS reviewers, too untrustworthy in their biases to even bother reading -- positively astonishing. Really stunning. I'm speechless. And that doesn't happen often.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Grant Palmer has axes to grind.

[Deborah]

You know if you really want to find something against the church it's not hard to do. I find it amusing how people like to name all these sources and then you either find out they never even read them or they haven't bothered to look at the critiques of such sources. People gravitate toward that which they want to believe. I just happen to choose to believe in the church's claims. I'm with BCSpace in wanting to know what evidence the critics think is so overwhelming that I should reject the doctrine and teachings of the church and somehow re-frame the spiritual testimony I have.

polygamy-I actually accepted this back in college when I had a dear friend whose wife died and he was struggling with the problem of women who didn't want to be number 2 wife even when the first one was deceased.

14 year olds married-please get real. 14 in the 1800's is not comparable to 14 in todays society which promotes extended childhood.

Blacks and the Priesthood- a moot point now, but even before the ban was lifted I knew black members of the church whose faith was very strong; and the story of the blacks in Africa who found the church before the revelation should put any critics to shame.

BOA- just read the text. I don't care if the prophet dreamed the whole thing; it's an amazing and beautiful scripture. And the arguments about the fascimile and scraps left is just too questionable to give any credulity.

The BOM-an amazing work, a prophetic statement of our time. I am astounded when I read some of the passages and see our day. The sermons on the Atonement are profound and how anyone can read those and not get a thrill just blows my mind. Plus the idea that God actually spoke to other people is so reasonable that I never questioned it.

[Daniel Peterson]

What makes you think I wasn't building my testimony by reading out of other good books, albeit not dealing with anything of an apologetic nature? I continually worked on my testimony, and as I said in a post on another thread, maybe when I read Sheri Dew, Mary Ellen Edmunds, George Durrant, etc I should have wandered to the history aisle. There's only so much time in a day, and I did not think I was always more concerned with building myself spiritually, not academically. And I didn't take what you said as mean spirited at all.

So you read no Mormon history.

Then you discovered critical revisionist accounts of Mormon history -- e.g., Grant Palmer [!] -- and you accepted them without much question.

And you will not read responses to them.

Is that roughly accurate?

[Pahoran]

Have you yourself read E. T. A. Hofmann's The Golden Pot (Der goldne Topf)?

If you haven't, you should. I've read it both in English and auf Deutsch, and I think it's absolutely astonishing that anybody who knows it at all well could imagine that it served in any way as the inspiration for Joseph Smith's account of Moroni and the Hill Cumorah.

I second that. This argument is overwhelmingly convincing to those who have read neither work, but merely relied upon Mister Palmer's carefully constructed thesis.

Which still has, as (I believe) Bill Hamblin once said of another book, a large salamander-shaped hole running through the middle of it.

Among its many other problems.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

Not even slightly.

Whoa! Dan, don't elaborate so much. Keep it simple. LOL

Come on. Why do you think (or know or believe) the church is true (evidentially) and how would you address some of my concerns (you have certainly heard them)? Be generous and pick my best stuff. Is there nothing I have offered that has the slightest weight? Admittedly, you might have to go back a while-my best questions were asked long ago but I am sure you remember. I got tired of getting no answers or pat answers and insults.

Pull out the scales and stack things up on both sides.

[e=mc2]

Whoa! Dan, don't elaborate so much. Keep it simple. LOL

Come on. Why do you think (or know or believe) the church is true (evidentially) and how would you address some of my concerns (you have certainly heard them)? Be generous and pick my best stuff. Is there nothing I have offered that has the slightest weight? Admittedly, you might have to go back a while-my best questions were asked long ago but I am sure you remember. I got tired of getting no answers or pat answers and insults.

Pull out the scales and stack things up on both sides.

My good holy loving hell dude, he has been doing so for over 20 years.... years(!), and has well over 20,000 pages written, published, and processed on precisely this. and yes, I really have actually read what he writes, and continue to do so.......truly.

[ttribe]

My good holy loving hell dude, he has been doing so for over 20 years.... years(!), and has well over 20,000 pages written, published, and processed on precisely this. and yes, I really have actually read what he writes, and continue to do so.......truly.

But that's only a "pea" compared to the "mountain" that Dr. Tarski has on his side of the argument...don't forget that.