Bob Bennett's new BoM Story Reviewed

[ttribe]

Here are some possible questions to review if a financial motive is a possibility.

1. Did Joseph engage in alternative employment endeavors/schemes? check

2. Have other people in history gone into the religion business with a financial motive? check

3. Did Joseph ask anyone for money? check

4. Did Joseph use money collected through the church to pay for his living expenses and lifestyle? check

It's there. I don't believe it was the primary motive. But it's there as an option.

Hmmm...was it worth it?

[Uncertain]

Am I reading this correct? If the slit on evidence is even, then it's an "excellent reason to reject strong belief"? Seriously? You don't see problems with this?

Hi ttribe,

I supported this statement in post #6

"I do have a disagreement with Bennett's advice that either critic or believer must take a leap of faith. If the evidence was really 50/50 that is entirely inconclusive than both the believer and the critic are unjustified. If the evidence is truly ambiguous and no position is strongly supported one way or another the logical position is to take no strong position that is to be entirely agnostic with regards to BOM historicity. Any other position would not be supported by the evidence because the evidence is ambiguous. The correct action would not be a "leap of faith" towards skepticism or belief but take no strong position either way and both believers and critics are unjustified."

Do you think it wise to form strong opinions on the basis of inconclusive and ambiguous evidence?

It is also supported by Analytic's argument from the burden of proof outlined in this thread.

So no at this point in time I don't see a problem with my statement if you see some flaw I have missed please bring it to my attention.

Hey, as a believer, let me be the first to thank you for taking a neutral position, and not engage in presuppositions, on what I think.

Certainly I could be wrong, intuitively I find it unlikely strong belief would flourish when a person feels the evidence for that belief is ambiguous and inconclusive. If you feel the evidence is ambiguous and yet still have a strong belief than at least in your case I am mistaken. Maybe I am mistaken in all cases it doesn't seem like a major issue one way or another.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[robuchan]

John, this argument is embarrassingly beneath you.

You did this to me in this thread as well. It's insulting and it weakens your case to argue that lay people can't have informed and valuable opinions on LDS historical issues.

[ttribe]

You did this to me in this thread as well. It's insulting and it weakens your case to argue that lay people can't have informed and valuable opinions on LDS historical issues.

Read John's statement again. The fact is he knows full well what the fundamental difference is between the two items he just compared. Leaving that fundamental difference out makes the argument silly.

What did I do to insult you?

[TOmNossor]

I thought that I might comment a little (it seems mostly for myself as I have now written much and â?¦).

To begin with, I am not sure I am ready to grant that the evidence is just 50/50 like Bennett offers. I would say that as evidence of the supernatural, the BOM is among the most compelling EXTERNAL thing I have come across. If I adopt a strong skepticism against the supernatural, I might get to the 50/50 Bennett talks about.

If I adopt a skeptics methodology that is as follows (I think this is from EA which stood for something â??E. Allusion- but I cannot remember exactly what).

1. The principle of parsimony is to be used to determine truth.

2. God (in some believers minds) is the most transcendent, inexplicable, â?¦ being/thing in existence and as such is the LEAST parsimonious explanation for anything.

3. Therefore, any explanation that does not invoke God is to be viewed as more parsimonious and more rational than any explanation that invokes God.

The above is certainly a conclusion determining methodology, but it does not lead one to be fooled too often and can generally be used in day to day life. With this methodology, I do not think the BOM makes it to 50/50. You just CANNOT possibly have enough evidence of Godâ??s involvement to make it even 50/50 that â??God did it.â? But, I would suggest conclusion determining methodologies can be used to make a point, however are not as useful in deciding genuinely undecided questions. Also, I think premise #2 is quite challengeable in that at least in the CoJCoLDS God is not near so radically transcendent as He is in say a Greek Philosophy paradigm.

Now, if we leave the realm of naturalistic skepticism, I think there is a lot to be said for the BOM. If you look at the threshold of EXTERNAL evidence that leads you to believe that â??there is a Godâ? and from the position â??there is a Godâ? ask if the BOM is of naturalistic origins, I think the BOM is far more likely to be supernatural than human produced (and probably clears whatever threshold you set to originally determine â??there is a God.â?) These questions are tough. How sharp of a hit is Nahom? How many fluffy miss/hit things standing next to Nahom make it into the â??even a blind guy hits the target once in a while?â? Are there really no good explanations for the phenomena of the witnesses, or have the best and the brightest simply not found a reasonable (IMO) one yet? Still, if you believe Christ was the Savior of the world because the Bible says so, the apostles acted in certain ways, the tomb was empty, or â?¦ then I think the existence of the BOM and its EXTERNAL evidence is compelling.

Enough on EXTERNAL evidence. By which I mean evidence that can be shared and evaluated by others. The engineer in me loves a good equations, but the CoJCoLDS was not built upon such things. Perhaps Ray is correct we occasionally focus on this too much in places like these.

I have something that you cannot probe, but it is real. It is as real as my desire to have chocolate now. I will not give in to this desire and you will not see it, but I KNOW it is real. I can take my INTERNAL evidence, my Spiritual witness and I can test it. Did it conform to what I expected such that I could have made it up? For me the most powerful INTERNAL evidences have not conformed to my pre-conceptions at all. I was actually surprised by God in some interesting ways. But even if and when this component is/was absent, was the touch (touches) with the divine reducible to feelings or wishful thinking? I still say no.

So when John Larson says, â??feelingsâ? I know he is not talking about me. Perhaps about him, or others or â?¦, but not me. I can no more prove this than I can prove that I would like some chocolate, but it is true.

I do not necessarily think you should believe because I speak of my INTERNAL evidence, but you wrong when you say that I am not following EVIDENCE. Much of my life is governed by things that occur INTERNAL to my being and are presently (and possible forever) un-probable by science.

So, for me the questions go like this.

1) Is there a God? Yes.

a. I know that there is a God because I have come in contact with Him (Internal).

b. Some of the traditional theistic arguments for Godâ??s existence IMO are not without value. The â??fine tuning argumentâ? and the argument from â??abiogenesisâ? are not meritless IMO (External).

c. The existence of the BOM and its story about some guy from Jerusalem who died appearing in what seems best placed in the Americaâ??s. The BOM has enough strength in it that it is worth mentioning as part of the question â??Is there God?â? (External)

2) Is Christianity of God? Yes.

a. Having been taught of the redemptive work of Christ, I have experienced this redemption, this rescue, this lifting-up, â?¦ My experience of God has included Christâ??s redemptive work in my life. (Internal).

b. I think some of the Evidence that Demands a Verdict is worthwhile. It has been a long time, but the â??empty tombâ? and the â??martyr apostlesâ? seem to come to mind. (External)

c. If the BOM is ancient the Christ was a God-man of some sort.

3) Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of God? Yes.

a. My Internal evidence (Internal).

b. The BOM textual evidence. Things like Nahom, Lehiâ??s journey, some of Brant Gardnerâ??s work, and â?¦ (External)

c. The BOM coming forth and the early CoJCoLDS. Things like the BOM witnesses and some of the early miracles of the restoration attested to by multiple folks. (External)

Now, I think 3b (&3c) are more powerful than 2b. I generally believe that 1a is a stronger reason to believe there is a God than 1b.

Charity, TOm

[robuchan]

Hmmm...was it worth it?

I don't get this logic. Why does that even matter? How do you determine if an original motive was financial based on the financial success of the endeavor? If your posting on the MAD board drives more people away from the church than to it, is that somehow significant to what your motives were when you decided to post on the MAD board?

[ttribe]

Hi ttribe,

I supported this statement in post #6

"I do have a disagreement with Bennett's advice that either critic or believer must take a leap of faith. If the evidence was really 50/50 that is entirely inconclusive than both the believer and the critic are unjustified. If the evidence is truly ambiguous and no position is strongly supported one way or another the logical position is to take no strong position that is to be entirely agnostic with regards to BOM historicity. Any other position would not be supported by the evidence because the evidence is ambiguous. The correct action would not be a "leap of faith" towards skepticism or belief but take no strong position either way and both believers and critics are unjustified."

Do you think it wise to form strong opinions on the basis of inconclusive and ambiguous evidence?

Perhaps it would be necessary to identify what you and I can agree on as evidence.

It is also supported by Analytic's argument from the burden of proof outlined in this thread.

So no at this point in time I don't see a problem with my statement if you see some flaw I have missed please bring it to my attention.

If there is a God, and He requires faith in him, why would you presuppose that each of His statements could be proven (not just evidenced) using tangible (which is what I read when you say "inconclusive") evidence?

Certainly I could be wrong, intuitively I find it unlikely strong belief would flourish when a person feels the evidence for that belief is ambiguous and inconclusive. If you feel the evidence is ambiguous and yet still have a strong belief than at least in your case I am mistaken. Maybe I am mistaken in all cases it doesn't seem like a major issue one way or another.

I simply found the statement presumptuous.

[robuchan]

Read John's statement again. The fact is he knows full well what the fundamental difference is between the two items he just compared. Leaving that fundamental difference out makes the argument silly.

What did I do to insult you?

OK, my bad. I did read it wrong. I thought you told him the argument was over his head not beneath him. You told me I wasn't qualified to discuss an issue earlier in this thread. But I only felt like acknowledging it when I thought it was a theme for you, which I jumped the gun on. My apologies.

[ttribe]

I don't get this logic. Why does that even matter?

The time over which the alleged fraud took place plays into answering this question.

How do you determine if an original motive was financial based on the financial success of the endeavor?

Because it substantially impacts one's resolve to continue to perpetuate the fraud.

If your posting on the MAD board drives more people away from the church than to it, is that somehow significant to what your motives were when you decided to post on the MAD board?

Is that an accusation?

[ttribe]

OK, my bad. I did read it wrong. I thought you told him the argument was over his head not beneath him. You told me I wasn't qualified to discuss an issue earlier in this thread. But I only felt like acknowledging it when I thought it was a theme for you, which I jumped the gun on. My apologies.

No worries on jumping the gun. BTW, I wasn't trying to insult you with my "infant baptism" comment. I was trying to point out that your assertion seemed to be based on opinion. That's all.

[Analytics]

Am I reading this correct? If the slit on evidence is even, then it's an "excellent reason to reject strong belief"? Seriously? You don't see problems with this?

It's a question of who has the burden of proof--of what one ought to believe, given the evidence that is available.

For example, if somebody is on trial for murder, and there isnâ??t clear evidence of innocent or of guilt, can we correctly say thatâ??s an excellent reason not to convict?

Or say somebody claims to have a really great investment opportunity, guaranteed to make 35% per year. If the evidence is inconclusive about whether or not his claims are legitimate, can we correctly say that that is an excellent reason not to invest your money with him?

In general one side will always have the burden of proof and the other one won'tâ??the problem should be deliberately constructed so that there is a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. If there isn't strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. the evidence is a toss-up), then if you reject the null hypothesis anyway you are taking a leap of faith, and if you fail to reject the null hypothesis you aren't taking a leap of faith, but rather are being duly skeptical.

[TOmNossor]

Certainly I could be wrong, intuitively I find it unlikely strong belief would flourish when a person feels the evidence for that belief is ambiguous and inconclusive. If you feel the evidence is ambiguous and yet still have a strong belief than at least in your case I am mistaken. Maybe I am mistaken in all cases it doesn't seem like a major issue one way or another.

My perception is that when believers speak of 50/50, they mean that the externally available evidence points to some 50/50 split. Most LDS claim to possess internal evidence that only they can access (Spiritual Witness) that tilts the scales radically towards belief. In apologetics we typically focus on external evidence because we cannot share what is internal to us as convincingly as we might wish.

So, while I didnâ??t embrace the 50/50 positions (especially coming at it from a place were I already believed God existed), I think that might explain why there is extraordinary commitment without radically compelling EXTERNAL evidence.

Charity, TOm

[robuchan]

The time over which the alleged fraud took place plays into answering this question.

Because it substantially impacts one's resolve to continue to perpetuate the fraud.

Is that an accusation?

Motives can change. I can easily see a possibility that an original motive could have been financial, while the motivation to endure and stay with it years later could be something totally different. We're talking about the motive to create the Book of Mormon specifically.

[Brant Gardner]

For example, if somebody is on trial for murder, and there isn't clear evidence of innocent or of guilt, can we correctly say that's an excellent reason not to convict?

It depends upon which belief system you have decided to adopt. If you are speaking of US principles, yes. In other countries, no. I was speaking with a lawyer friend of mine recently who described the very different assumptions of French courts (and I was reading a while ago where Daniel Boorstin was describing the early American shift away from a British assumption to a new one).

Who has the burden of proof? The interested person. In the case of religion, it is always personal. When you suggest that one requires extraordinary proof, who gets to define that? Who gets to suggest that the spiritual witness many have received doesn't fit that definition?

[ttribe]

It's a question of who has the burden of proof--of what one ought to believe, given the evidence that is available.

For example, if somebody is on trial for murder, and there isnâ??t clear evidence of innocent or of guilt, can we correctly say thatâ??s an excellent reason not to convict?

Are we holding this question to the level of a criminal trial - beyond a reasonable doubt? Are we holding it to the level of a civil trial - preponderance of the evidence? Both are highly subjective, man-made constructs, BTW.

Or say somebody claims to have a really great investment opportunity, guaranteed to make 35% per year. If the evidence is inconclusive about whether or not his claims are legitimate, can we correctly say that that is an excellent reason not to invest your money with him?

Given my fraud investigation background, the wording in this statement moves me off neutral too quickly to make the example useful for our discussion. Sorry...occupational hazard.

In general one side will always have the burden of proof and the other one won'tâ??the problem should be deliberately constructed so that there is a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. If there isn't strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. the evidence is a toss-up), then if you reject the null hypothesis anyway you are taking a leap of faith, and if you fail to reject the null hypothesis you aren't taking a leap of faith, but rather are being duly skeptical.

Well, would you agree that your ability to reject the null hypothesis is only as good as the quality of your hypothesis formation and your identification of "acceptable" evidence?

[ttribe]

Motives can change. I can easily see a possibility that an original motive could have been financial, while the motivation to endure and stay with it years later could be something totally different. We're talking about the motive to create the Book of Mormon specifically.

Motives can change. But, the question still has to be asked - was it worth it? Given the time involved here, each alleged motive has to be evaluated in that light else one cannot explain why JS didn't quit.

[robuchan]

Motives can change. But, the question still has to be asked - was it worth it? Given the time involved here, each alleged motive has to be evaluated in that light else one cannot explain why JS didn't quit.

That's pretty simple, isn't it? Cynical view: motive changed from money to power. Sympathetic view: motive changed from money to pious fraud.

Still though, I think a case could be made that a financial motive could be a possibility all the way to the end. He did live pretty comfortably in Nauvoo, and the way the church was growing, had he lived he could have spent his last 40 years very wealthy.

[Uncertain]

Perhaps it would be necessary to identify what you and I can agree on as evidence.

Hi ttribe,

Well I am not sure this is relevant. I was responding to Senator Bennett's claim the evidence for and against the BOM is even. I was attempting to point out what the logical repercussions of such an event would be. In other words if taken as a given that the evidence is inconclusive what logically follows. Whether or not the evidence truly is even will likely be highly subjective and is something I did not address.

If there is a God, and He requires faith in him, why would you presuppose that each of His statements could be proven (not just evidenced) using tangible (which is what I read when you say "inconclusive") evidence?

Well this is something of a thread jack but I for one do not demand God "prove" anything. I do think if he is going to hold us accountable for what we believe he should provide enough evidence that a reasonable non biased person would arrive at the correct conclusion (i.e. whatever belief God is judging us on). Since this does not appear to be the case I for one do not think God judges us on what we believe which is one of the reasons I am a religious pluralist.

I simply found the statement presumptuous.

Fair enough I could see how it can be taken that way.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ttribe]

That's pretty simple, isn't it? Cynical view: motive changed from money to power. Sympathetic view: motive changed from money to pious fraud.

Still though, I think a case could be made that a financial motive could be a possibility all the way to the end. He did live pretty comfortably in Nauvoo, and the way the church was growing, had he lived he could have spent his last 40 years very wealthy.

Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he was in Kirtland covered in tar and feathers, or when his infant child died? Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he sat in the squalor of Liberty Jail? Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he was threatened with a firing squad in MO? In my experience, the vast majority of fraudsters would never have continued under these conditions.

[Analytics]

Are we holding this question to the level of a criminal trial - beyond a reasonable doubt? Are we holding it to the level of a civil trial - preponderance of the evidence? Both are highly subjective, man-made constructs, BTW.

You can use whatever burden of proof you want--that's beyond the scope of my point.

Well, would you agree that your ability to reject the null hypothesis is only as good as the quality of your hypothesis formation and your identification of "acceptable" evidence?

I agree with that, but letâ??s remember the context of this. The very first thing I said was that for the sake of argument, letâ??s assume that the evidence is a toss-up.

My point really shouldnâ??t be that controversialâ??if an investigator examines the evidence, finds it a toss-up, and declares â??Iâ??m not convincedâ?, and chooses the naturalistic explanation, you shouldnâ??t describe his course of action as â??taking a leap of faithâ?. You should describe it as being reasonably skeptical.

[ttribe]

You can use whatever burden of proof you want--that's beyond the scope of my point.

You brought into play...if it's beyond the scope, I wonder why you did.

I agree with that, but lets remember the context of this. The very first thing I said was that for the sake of argument, lets assume that the evidence is a toss-up.

My point really shouldnt be that controversialif an investigator examines the evidence, finds it a toss-up, and declares Im not convinced, and chooses the naturalistic explanation, you shouldnt describe his course of action as taking a leap of faith. You should describe it as being reasonably skeptical.

Having not read Sen. Bennett's book, I can't comment on how he used the phrase, but in my mind, I would say that there is a difference between neutrality and outright rejection in the face of evidence.

[robuchan]

Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he was in Kirtland covered in tar and feathers, or when his infant child died? Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he sat in the squalor of Liberty Jail? Could he have foreseen this "comfort" when he was threatened with a firing squad in MO? In my experience, the vast majority of fraudsters would never have continued under these conditions.

No one's ever endured hardships for a financial motive? Back up and look at it from 50,000 ft.

[Uncertain]

My perception is that when believers speak of 50/50, they mean that the externally available evidence points to some 50/50 split. Most LDS claim to possess internal evidence that only they can access (Spiritual Witness) that tilts the scales radically towards belief. In apologetics we typically focus on external evidence because we cannot share what is internal to us as convincingly as we might wish.

So, while I didnâ??t embrace the 50/50 positions (especially coming at it from a place were I already believed God existed), I think that might explain why there is extraordinary commitment without radically compelling EXTERNAL evidence.

Charity, TOm

Hi Tom,

I enjoyed your first post. I also think how someone weighs the evidence is strongly dependent on the prior probabilities a person brings to the table. If for example they think the probability of God existing is very low this will necessarily weigh how they view the external evidence for the BOM. I think it is also strongly dependent on environmental factors. Which is another of the reasons I have a problem with the idea of a "one true church".

In any case with regards to this post I think you make a good point. Most LDS don't view the evidence as even because they include a spiritual witness as part of that evidence. Which is fine, however it does presuppose that personal spiritual experiences are a reliable means to obtain universal religious truths. I don't know if you have followed any of the debates on LDS epistemology on this board. But I for one think there are some very good arguments against using a personal spiritual experience as strong evidence for a particular universal truth claim. Primarily the lack of intersubjectivity. That is lots of people have personal spiritual experiences supporting one universal claim or another frequently these claims contradict each other. Lacking some reliable and objective way to determine which personal spiritual experiences are teaching "truth" and which personal spiritual experiences are not. Using a personal spiritual experience as strong evidence for a particular religious claim seems unwarranted.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ttribe]

No one's ever endured hardships for a financial motive? Back up and look at it from 50,000 ft.

Not sure if your 50,000ft. comment was an insult or not, but it's feeling that way. I am taking the "big picture" approach, which is why I'm suggesting that one has to consider the sum total of the experiences in levying the charge of fraud in this case. Again, I will state, in my experience, fraudsters DO NOT (speaking generally) endure significant hardship and threat of harm for extended periods of time in order to preserve their fraud. JS may have been unique (perhaps the only one to have done it), but that factor should then impact one's conclusions as well in terms of probability.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A lot of people don't like regular man's work and would like to find a way out of it. Nothing against Joseph on that.

OK, but you have failed to demonstrate that your comment even remotely applies to Joseph Smith, and in fact have been presented with substantive counter-evidence.

And I'm sure he didn't sit around on his butt all day every day his last 14 years of his life, but he certainly had an easier life when it comes to hard labor as say his father did.

And how do we know this? And why would it even be relevant?

But really that's irrelevant as we're looking for a motive in his teenage years not determining if it was successful or not. It would be a motive for anyone. I wouldn't mind getting rich and not having to work 8-5. It's slightly more applicable to Joseph than average person due to his history of attempting to make money with the treasure seeking. But even without that, it would still be a possible motive.

Ah, then you have misguided ideas about money-digging as well, then. You present it here as something of a lazy man's pursuit. That is simply historically inaccurate.

Others see it.

I have an acquaintance who tells me that he is in the process of translating the Bible himself, and discovered a miraculous steam-powered city described in the book of Ezekiel, and that the US Government and others do not want us to discover the description because it will upset the royalties they receive from oil magnates in the Middle East. What I am saying is that we, you and me, can bring governing assumptions to a text that help dictate what we see therein. Kevin Christensen has beautifully laid out the implications of what I am talking about in his Paradigms Crossed article. He shows how parallels and so forth can be analyzed and accounted for, and shows how the analysis of folks like Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel pales in comparison with an ancient reading, in rather impressive ways. I recommend that article it's a good one. And there are more.