Van Hale - Book Of Mormon Historicity

[webbles]

On John Clarke's notion that "Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830," I'd have to strongly disagree. Since 1830, and until just a few decades ago, the Book of Mormon was understood to be a history of the origins of Native Americans, who (together with Polynesians) were the ancestors of the Lamanites. Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

It's absurd to say that "all the accommodations have been made on the archaeology side." Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

I guess it would depend on if 60 years is a few decades or not, but in The Improvement Era of 1950, Elder Widstoe mentions a controversy over the location of the historical Hill Cumorah (Is-Book-of-Mormon-Geography-Known.pdf).

[webbles]

I would expect prophets to know this, about the keystone of their religion!

I don't see why knowledge of the historical facts of the Book of Mormon is important for prophets (or laymembers) to know. I would think knowledge of the spiritual parts is far more important and is the actual keystone part.

[Dcharle]

Fundamental facts about the book are not important?

[webbles]

Fundamental facts about the book are not important?

To me, the most important parts of the Book of Mormon deal with how to return back to God. Worrying about the culture, calendar, location, food, animals, etc is nice (and I do enjoy worrying about it) but they really have nothing to do with helping me return back to God. So yes, they are not important.

[Dcharle]

Hmmm, that's a seperation that I'm not willing to make. To me the two are intrinsically connected.

[Cobalt-70]

I guess it would depend on if 60 years is a few decades or not, but in The Improvement Era of 1950, Elder Widstoe mentions a controversy over the location of the historical Hill Cumorah (Is-Book-of-Mormon-Geography-Known.pdf).

He doesn't mention a controversy. He just expresses doubts. Besides, this has never really been what you might call a "controversy." It's more like a polite dispute about whose creative reading of the Book of Mormon text is least falsifiable.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[webbles]

He doesn't mention a controversy. He just expresses doubts. Besides, this has never really been what you might call a "controversy." It's more like a polite dispute about whose creative reading of the Book of Mormon text is least falsifiable.

He actually does mention controversy.

There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah -- not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place.

And I was just using this to point out that the idea of the Cumorah not being in New York is older than a few decades.

[webbles]

Hmmm, that's a seperation that I'm not willing to make. To me the two are intrinsically connected.

For me, it is similar to how I deal with historical or archeological issues in the Bible. The spiritual knowledge is the most important part.

[Dcharle]

The problem with that line of thinking in my estimation is the claim the Smith made for the BoM, the most correct book on earth. The Mormon church does not have the same high standard for the Bible. To say its the most correct book yet things that are verifiable like its historicity are clearly false it becoms very problematic.

[Kevin Christensen]

Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

In a critical thinking class at SJSU, I was introduced to the expression, "To a mouse, cheese is cheese: that is why mousestraps work." The point is, context can make a huge difference. Regarding the parable of the Sower, Jesus remarked, "Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?"(Mark 4:13). The most obvious message of the parable of the sower is that the same seeds (words) can produce vastly different yields depending on the soil in which they are planted.

"Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," says Jesus. What is the literal and original meaning of that? What is the best and most illuminating context? Or does any attempt to read closer, contextualize more carefully, to remove motes from our own eyes,, necessarily involve a betrayal of those first impressions which the history of mankind and science so fully demonstrate are always correct at first impression?

And there is the issue of falsification expressed,which is at least sixty years out of date:

Paradigms cannot be verified for two reasons:

1. Future discoveries may conflict with present theory.

2. Another theory may explain present evidence equally well.

And regarding falsification, in Paradigms Crossed I noted:

In practice, as Ian Barbour observes, paradigms resist falsification because "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." Some adjustments to such auxiliary hypotheses strengthen the overall paradigm. For example, Kepler adjusted the assumptions of the Copernican theory of planetary motion by arguing for elliptical orbits rather than circular orbits. The rival Ptolemaic theory explained otherwise anomalous planetary motions by surmising epicycles. While the assumption of epicycles preserved the usefulness of the Ptolemaic theory for several generations, comparison with Kepler's assumptions makes it plain that not all adjustments are created equal. Whereas Kepler's adjustments led to his generally applicable laws of motion, the ad hoc notion of epicycles applied only to particular problems and had little justification other than necessity. The course of the Copernican Revolution shows that the "accumulation of anomalies" or of "ad hoc modifications having no independent theoretical basis cannot be tolerated indefinitely. An accepted theory is overthrown not primarily by discordant data but by an alternative theory."¹⁶⁰

And the mode of reading that Cobalt invokes:

Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

This sentence involves a great deal of exaggeration, helped by the simple expedience of not having provided references. But in consideration of the basic principle, I wrote in "Truth and Method"

Is it possible to tie the meaning of words, particularly translated words, to a single cultural background? Frankly, no. When I went to England in 1973, I quickly learned that while many things are what they appear to be, the words for those things were sometimes not what I first thought. The roads looked the same, but I had to look a different direction when crossing them. Cars were much smaller and not only had the steering wheel on the opposite side but had boots and bonnets instead of trunks and hoods. There were no trucks, but there were lorries, no elevators but lifts. There were no french fries, but there were chips (which were also similar to fried potatoes). They had something like potato chips, but only if I asked for crisps. There were no cookies; what they called biscuits resembled cookies but were different from what I thought of as biscuits. And what was it to be cheeky? That sticks in my mind because I had to learn the concept of cheeky from within the culture because it could not be translated precisely from their English to mine.

The point is that what Vogel and Metcalfe call "ad hoc," Sorenson and Gardner base on a general principle that cultural contexts can make a difference in meaning.¹⁶² Some concepts travel across cultures more easily than others, but cultural context raises issues that apply to all translations across all cultures. Their insistence that a nineteenth-century context suffices, and that an appeal to the "plain meaning" is all that is necessary to understand the text, is itself an ad hoc defense because it cannot be generally applied to critical study of any translation of any purported ancient document or, for that matter, to the study of any culture by any outsider.

Then we get down to the helpfulness of an insistence on perfection, since against an expectation of perfection, only imperfection is decisive, but it happens that ONLY imperfection is decisive.

This cannot be excused away by the weakness of prophets – I would expect prophets to know this, about the keystone of their religion!

How about testing this expectation, checking this eye for motes? Or does the principle of testability and falsification not apply to critics?

In D&C 1, God tries to set realistic expectations of LDS leadership:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might brepent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Which makes it very clear that the following complaint also demonstrates the problem:

The problem with that line of thinking in my estimation is the claim the Smith made for the BoM, the most correct book on earth. The Mormon church does not have the same high standard for the Bible. To say its the most correct book yet things that are verifiable like its historicity are clearly false it becoms very problematic.

Problematic indeed.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Dcharle]

This is the second time you have spoke about "context" which is exactly the point we critics of Mormoism are trying to make. When you step back and view the actual church history, not the whitewash version that is spoon feed the typical Chapel Mormon, it becomes very clear what Mormonism is, another man made organization. When we put Smith and his vision into context we see that there were many early Pius people who lived on the frontier who had such miraculous dreams and visions:

Norris Stearns, 1815

"I saw two spirits, which I knew at the first sight. But if I had the tongue of an Angel I could not describe their glory, for they brought the joys of heaven with them. One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a cloud. In looking steadfastly to discern features, I could see none, but a small glimpse would appear in some other place. Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man---His face was not ablaze, but had the countenance of fire, being bright and shining. His Father's will appeared to be his! All was condescension, peace, and love."

Context is important...

[Kevin Christensen]

This is the second time you have spoke about "context" which is exactly the point we critics of Mormoism are trying to make. When you step back and view the actual church history, not the whitewash version that is spoon feed the typical Chapel Mormon, it becomes very clear what Mormonism is, another man made organization. When we put Smith and his vision into context we see that there were many early Pius people who lived on the frontier who had such miraculous dreams and visions:

Norris Stearns, 1815

"I saw two spirits, which I knew at the first sight. But if I had the tongue of an Angel I could not describe their glory, for they brought the joys of heaven with them. One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a cloud. In looking steadfastly to discern features, I could see none, but a small glimpse would appear in some other place. Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man---His face was not ablaze, but had the countenance of fire, being bright and shining. His Father's will appeared to be his! All was condescension, peace, and love."

Context is important...

And why exactly does the notion that other people besides Joseph Smith had visions demonstrate that Mormonism is man-made? I contexutualize such accounts (gathered in, for example, Richard Bushman's BYU Studies essay on "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith, or Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys, which attempts a cross cultural approach to NDE stories) based on the notion expressed in Alma 29 and elsewhere that "God gives unto all people all that he sees fit for them to have" that, is, that the LDS truth claims do not depend at all on the notion of exclusive revelation or exclusive truth, or perfect and final knowledge that we have already on the shelf contained in a pre-digested Big Book of What to Think.

Context is crucially important. Viewing Joseph Smith's accounts or productions against the context of utterly false expectations does affect one's subjective experience of them. The cure for that problem is to check one's own eye for motes, and to remove them, so that it then becomes possible to see clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 9, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Cobalt-70]

"Whereas Kepler's adjustments led to his generally applicable laws of motion, the ad hoc notion of epicycles applied only to particular problems and had little justification other than necessity. The course of the Copernican Revolution shows that the "accumulation of anomalies" or of "ad hoc modifications having no independent theoretical basis cannot be tolerated indefinitely. An accepted theory is overthrown not primarily by discordant data but by an alternative theory."

So in this analogy, I would place the apologists in the role of the Ptolemaists who continually added ad hoc epicycles to their theory in order to make it work. No horses in the Americas? We'll say they were tapirs. No sheep? We'll say they were llamas. No swords? We'll say they were mahuatls, and their "tips" were the tips of the little shards. No steel? We'll say that steel was actually copper. No DNA? We'll shrink the size of the Lamanite population such that they left no genetic trace, and abandon the idea that Native Americans and Polynesians are Lamanites. Epicycles within epicycles.

Kepler's theory was superior to the Ptolemaic theory because it was more universal and did not require as much ad hoc "fitting" to the data. It doesn't really matter that Kepler's theory was not technically falsifiable vis-a-vis the Ptolemaic theory. The issue is that once you get into an epicycles within epicycles mode of explaining the data, as apologists have been doing for 50 years, you are not doing good science. You are, rather, working to preserve your paradigm at all costs.

[volgadon]

Even better, you can come up with a silly little term like "battle saws" the better to be dismissive with.

[Kevin Christensen]

So in this analogy, I would place the apologists in the role of the Ptolemaists who continually added ad hoc epicycles to their theory in order to make it work. No horses in the Americas? We'll say they were tapirs.

CFR references. I think there is a significant difference between suggesting the possibilities generally inherent in cross cultural/cross temporal translation and in arbitrarily changing the meaning of a word just to make things work. For the record, Sorenson never declares that Book of Mormon horses were tapirs. He says possibly. He also provides evidence for horse bones. Another possibility. He's suggesting a few possibilities, based on generally applicable evidence, not applying arbitrary ad hoc band aids as the only way of a corner. You have misrepresented the situation. Please don't.

I recently pointed out that one of the talks at the BFAF conference in a few days is titled "Hard Evidence of Horses in America."

http://www.bmaf.org/

What makes an ad hoc adjustment ad hoc is that there is no independent theoretical justification, other than necessity. That was the problem of epicycles. And Kepler was not attacking the Ptolemaic theory, but rather was adjusting Copernican theory, to the frustration of his own prefered concepts.

You still utterly miss the point that between different langages and cultures and times and places, there are always differences in meanings that cause difficulties in translation. Translation always involves compromises. This is not an ad hoc supposition invented to save the Book of Mormon, but a valid general principle that always applies to any translation across language and time and culture. I found that it even applied to American English compared to English English. If you want to tell a Liverpudlian that boots only go on feet, that bonnets only go on heads, that a lift is something that goes in the boot to make you taller, you might learn that objects do not emit names that are as constant to all observers just as the speed of light is constant in relativity. As a general principle of reality, names are malleable social conventions. Not constants for all observers.

No sheep? We'll say they were llamas. No swords? We'll say they were mahuatls, and their "tips" were the tips of the little shards. No steel? We'll say that steel was actually copper. No DNA? We'll shrink the size of the Lamanite population such that they left no genetic trace, and abandon the idea that Native Americans and Polynesians are Lamanites. Epicycles within epicycles.

Kepler's theory was superior to the Ptolemaic theory because it was more universal and did not require as much ad hoc "fitting" to the data. It doesn't really matter that Kepler's theory was not technically falsifiable vis-a-vis the Ptolemaic theory. The issue is that once you get into an epicycles within epicycles mode of explaining the data, as apologists have been doing for 50 years, you are not doing good science. You are, rather, working to preserve your paradigm at all costs.

Kuhn explains that students of science are taught first work through standard examples, and then to learn to see various situations as "like" each other. What we have here is not the practice of science or of valid scholarship, but of rhetoric, in which you have encouraged us to see Book of Mormon apologists practicing ad hoc fitting to the data. You assert that is what we do, but have missed the essential point of what is and what is not ad hoc. The metaphor asserts an ad hoc practice, but the reality is based on general principles, and is therefore, not ad hoc.

"There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant." (E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity CWHN vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo, Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) 1987, page 194, note 2.)

As a general principle, a small group of immigrants do not typically overwhelm the DNA of millions of pre-existing indigenous peoples. The general principle goes the other way. The science goes the other way.

And what is conspicuously missing in this summary of what LDS apologists do is any accounting for things not so easily dismissed. Things like the the Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or Lehi in the Desert, or Epic Milieu in Ether, or details of the geological activity in 3 Nephi, or the allegory of the Olive Tree, or Alma's conversion compared to NDE research, or Lehi's qasida, Nahom, and the details of Bountiful, the eye-witness details of New World geography that Larry has been pointing out, the Ancient Israelite Festivals, the survivor witness details, the First Temple Judaism, and literally hundreds of other meaningful details. What cannot be dismissed by waving a metaphor about ad hoc band aids does not even show up in the discussion.

Thomas Kuhn observes, “It makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two actual and competing theories fits the facts better.” The more facts accounted for, the better. The more comprehensive and coherent, the better. The more fruitful, the approach, the better. The more accurate the key predictions, the better. The greater the ability to general testable puzzles, the better. The more simple and aesthetically pleasing, the better. And the greater the future promise the better.

I've never seen a critical approach that accounts for very much. They do not strike me as better. Sarcastic and dismissive, yes, but short on explaining much of what we have found.

What I've been watching the best LDS apologists do over the past 40 years has not been an "at all costs" approach, but an attempt to apply the best tools, and best information, and the most telling contexts, to account for text we have in the best way.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[webbles]

The problem with that line of thinking in my estimation is the claim the Smith made for the BoM, the most correct book on earth. The Mormon church does not have the same high standard for the Bible. To say its the most correct book yet things that are verifiable like its historicity are clearly false it becoms very problematic.

To say its the "most correct book" and learn that it has been modified (something like 3000 times, right?) since it was originally translated, published, etc is also problematic to that statement. Why bother worrying about historical details if you are going to take the most literal interpretation of the phrase "most correct book". I don't see how you can be that literal when the Book of Mormon itself states that there are imperfections in it (Morman 8:12 is one example).

Edited October 10, 2012 by webbles

[Cobalt-70]

CFR references. I think there is a significant difference between suggesting the possibilities generally inherent in cross cultural/cross temporal translation and in arbitrarily changing the meaning of a word just to make things work. For the record, Sorenson never declares that Book of Mormon horses were tapirs. He says possibly. He also provides evidence for horse bones. Another possibility. He's suggesting a few possibilities, based on generally applicable evidence, not applying arbitrary ad hoc band aids as the only way of a corner. You have misrepresented the situation. Please don't.

You already provided a reference in answer to your own question. Other examples include this (Robert R. Bennett), and this (Matthew Roper).

As far as Sorenson is concerned, it's even worse that he suggested that Book of Mormon horses "could" be tapirs, without making a commitment. That way he has plausible deniability, in addition to nonfalsifiability. If the existing tower of epicycles don't fit your paradigm, so you merely suggest that an epicycle can be added, without committing one way or another, and then throw up your hands and disclaim the possibility of ever being able to distinguish between Ptolemy and Kepler from the data. You are basically giving up on trying to fit the data with any theory. It is pure faith, theory be damn3d.

I recently pointed out that one of the talks at the BFAF conference in a few days is titled "Hard Evidence of Horses in America."

http://www.bmaf.org/

How much do you want to bet that this "evidence" consists of one of the following?:

(1) horse teeth from Pleistocene horses found in the Yucatan, which were not specifically dated by the archaeologists who found them.

(2) remains of horses that might be from the Spanish conquest era, but were not dated to the Book of Mormon era by stratigraphy and carbon dating by the standards of modern archaeology.

(3) "evidence" suggesting that there might have been horses in Book of Mormon times, not that there were horses. (I.E., proof of alleged non-impossibility--the way you might prove that unicorns might have existed, because you can't rule them out--rather than real evidence that they actually existed.)

(4) The "evidence" consists of blurry stone-cut images that seem "horse-like" to apologists who suffer from confirmation bias, but could also be pretty much any other four-legged animal, such as a tapir or a puma.

You still utterly miss the point that between different langages and cultures and times and places, there are always differences in meanings that cause difficulties in translation. Translation always involves compromises.

But "translation" as we know it was not what Joseph Smith did. Nobody, even apologists, claims that it was. By the best evidence we have based on what Smith apparently told Joseph Knight and David Whitmer, Smith saw English words on the surface of the seer stone, and dictated them. He didn't actually know "Reformed Egyptian"--even if such a language existed, it would have been gibberish to him. He didn't even have an opportunity to make compromises with respect to this hypothetical language. Indeed, he demonstrated an ability to dictate made-up foreign-sounding words, like "cumom" and "curelom." So there is no reason why he could not have dictated the Reformed Egyptian word for "tapir" rather than screwing with us by calling it a "horse."

As a general principle, a small group of immigrants do not typically overwhelm the DNA of millions of pre-existing indigenous peoples.

You have demonstrated epicycles at work. The very existence of this overwhelming group of pre-existing indigenous peoples, not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, is one gigantic epicycle created in the mid-20th century.

And what is conspicuously missing in this summary of what LDS apologists do is any accounting for things not so easily dismissed. Things like...the geological activity in 3 Nephi...cannot be dismissed by waving a metaphor about ad hoc band aids does not even show up in the discussion.

What? You mean all the sunken cities, the new mountains, and the whole face of the land being changed in a cataclysm dated exactly 33 AD?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Robert F. Smith]

On John Clarke's notion that "Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830," I'd have to strongly disagree. Since 1830, and until just a few decades ago, the Book of Mormon was understood to be a history of the origins of Native Americans, who (together with Polynesians) were the descendants of the Lamanites. Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

It's absurd to say that "all the accommodations have been made on the archaeology side." Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

What is really disappointing in this brief and false listing is that you have been on this board long enough to know that most of what you have just said is false. It would be nice if you wanted to have a sincere and meaningful exchange, but that assumes that you would actually take into account real evidence, and not continue the formulaic denunciations (propaganda) as though they had validity.

What do you see as the "original and literal reading" of the Book of Mormon? And, in what way does this theory of yours operate "to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record"? Is it that the only way you'll be satisfied is if the Mormons all cry "uncle" and deny their faith, or are you at all interested in discussing science and objective historical evidence? The difference is one of being a blatant anti-Mormon or being an interested scholar. Which are you?

[Robert F. Smith]

To say its the "most correct book" and learn that it has been modified (something like 3000 times, right?) since it was originally translated, published, etc is also problematic to that statement. Why bother worrying about historical details if you are going to take the most literal interpretation of the phrase "most correct book". I don't see how you can be that literal when the Book of Mormon itself states that there are imperfections in it (Morman 8:12 is one example).

I suppose that one might ask how we are to take the meaning of "correct" in that context. You seem to take it as "inerrant, infallible," which is understandable in some theological traditions, but is certainly not the only meaning of the word. Why do you foreclose any other meaning? Particularly since Mormons do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture.

Also, do you really expect everyone to imagine that thousands of grammatical alterations over time are so significant? After all, thousands of such changes have been made to the King James Version of the Bible since it first came off the press in 1611, fully five centuries ago.

As to Mormon 8:12, a human record should be expected to have imperfections. Humans are not perfect. I hope that doesn't shock you, but you demonstrated that fact when you misspelled the name of Mormon.

[Cobalt-70]

What is really disappointing in this brief and false listing is that you have been on this board long enough to know that most of what you have just said is false. It would be nice if you wanted to have a sincere and meaningful exchange, but that assumes that you would actually take into account real evidence, and not continue the formulaic denunciations (propaganda) as though they had validity.

What do you see as the "original and literal reading" of the Book of Mormon? And, in what way does this theory of yours operate "to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record"? Is it that the only way you'll be satisfied is if the Mormons all cry "uncle" and deny their faith, or are you at all interested in discussing science and objective historical evidence? The difference is one of being a blatant anti-Mormon or being an interested scholar. Which are you?

Why not engage the argument for a while first, as Kevin Christensen has done, rather than jumping directly to the ad hominem attacks?

[Kevin Christensen]

You already provided a reference in answer to your own question. Other examples include this (Robert R. Bennett), and this (Matthew Roper).

As far as Sorenson is concerned, it's even worse that he suggested that Book of Mormon horses "could" be tapirs, without making a commitment. That way he has plausible deniability, in addition to nonfalsifiability. If the existing tower of epicycles don't fit your paradigm, so you merely suggest that an epicycle can be added, without committing one way or another, and then throw up your hands and disclaim the possibility of ever being able to distinguish between Ptolemy and Kepler from the data. You are basically giving up on trying to fit the data with any theory. It is pure faith, theory be damn3d.

And you continue to miss the point. Roper's article demonstrates that the tapir suggestion has a valid theoretical basis. By definition ad hoc epicycles never did have an independent theoretical basis. Your argument is based on labeling and a pose of indignation. Substance, and theoretical justification for preferring your readings is lacking.

And of course, the way to distinguish Ptolemy from Kepler is in terms of these values, as I've been saying for decades:

ince no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines, and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems are more significant to have solved?^[1]

Probably the single most prevalent claim advanced by the proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis.^[2]

Claims of this sort are particularly likely to succeed if the new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor.^[3]

[P]articularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.^[4]

These are the arguments, rarely made entirely explicit, that appeal to the individual's sense of the appropriate or the aesthetic—the new theory is said to be “neater”, “more suitable,” or “simpler” than the old.^[5]

The issue is, which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise...A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.^[6]

First the new candidate must seem to resolve some generally outstanding problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.^[7]

There are also, however, values to be used in judging whole theories: they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle formulation and solution; where possible, they should be simple, self-consistent, plausible, compatible with other theories currently employed.^[8]

In matters like these, the resort to shared values, rather than to shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise.^[9]

^[1] Kuhn, 110.

^[2] Kuhn, 153.

^[3] Kuhn, 154

^[4] Ibid., 154.

^[5] Ibid., 155

^[6] Ibid., 157-8

^[7] Kuhn, 169

^[8] Kuhn, 185

^[9] Kuhn 186.

You are not providing a comprehensive and coherent explanation, and you are interpreting and misrepresenting the data, apparently unable to acknowledge that your own readings and conclusions depend on the unacknowledged assumptions of your paradigm. Over at the Millenial Star, Bruce Neilson quotes Popper in a relevant passage on Bacon:

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest. (Myth of the Framework, p. 84-85)

http://www.millennialstar.org/francis-bacon-vs-karl-popper-the-fallacy-of-observationalism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMillennialStar+%28Millennial+Star%29

Your readings are theory-laden in the same unreflective, self-unaware manner. Roper provides theoretical justification for his reading. As does Sorenson. Both strive to be comprehensive and both expose the theoretical justifications and assumptions they make. Like Bacon, you are insisting that the data speaks for itself to you, but that other people misread.

How much do you want to bet that this "evidence" consists of one of the following?: SNIP

Let's wait and see, and judge on evidence, rather than supposition.

You have demonstrated epicycles at work. The very existence of this overwhelming group of pre-existing indigenous peoples, not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, is one gigantic epicycle created in the mid-20th century.

See Roper's essay on "Nephi's Neighbors" which provides a comprehensive and coherent reading, rather than an unsupported blanket assertion:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

What? You mean all the sunken cities, the new mountains, and the whole face of the land being changed in a cataclysm dated exactly 33 AD?

Actually, yes. See Sorenson on the sunken city here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=22&num=4&id=238

And Kowallis here on the geology:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6500

The clear selectivity in accusing on a few points, when thousands of data points are relevant, weakens skeptical cases. Those who say, "Nothing to see here folks, move along," aren't explaining the Book of Mormon in a comprehensive and coherent fashion. They're trying to end discussion by claiming victory, as though all that is necessary is to prick a soap bubble. But it's not that simple.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[smac97]

I haven't read through all the posts in this thread, but the ones I have read have not mentioned Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and published by the FARMS.

Here are two trenchant points made in that book about this topic:

From Elder Dallin H. Oaks (p. 244): "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I don't see how folks like Van Hale can accommodate a "Mormon" point of view which either rejects the historicity of The Book of Mormon or else deems it irrelevant.

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2012 by smac97

[Cobalt-70]

From Elder Dallin H. Oaks (p. 244): "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."

With respect to Dallin Oaks, he's simply wrong on this point. It is more like the question of whether or not the biblical Job or Jonah lived. Nephi and Moroni did not die for our sins, nor did the fictional Job or Jonah. Yet these characters are valuable to our faith by what their stories and statements teach us.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

The Book of Mormon doesn't lie about its own historicity. I don't think Mr. Jackson quite understands the idea of fiction. When a fictional story says that such-and-such happened to so-and-so, that is not a lie. That is called "telling a story." As to Joseph Smith's statements about where he thought the text he saw in his magic stone came from? He was just mistaken. The text came from a combination of his own mind and the inspiration of God who catalyzed and guided his imagination. He wasn't lying--just understandably mistaken. Just like he was mistaken about his translation of the Book of Abraham papyri, but nevertheless he produced a remarkable work of scripture inspired by those papyri.

[Robert F. Smith]

With respect to Dallin Oaks, he's simply wrong on this point. It is more like the question of whether or not the biblical Job or Jonah lived. Nephi and Moroni did not die for our sins, nor did the fictional Job or Jonah. Yet these characters are valuable to our faith by what their stories and statements teach us.

Yeh, but did Jesus die for our sins? Or is that just a fairy tale?

The Book of Mormon doesn't lie about its own historicity. I don't think Mr. Jackson quite understands the idea of fiction. When a fictional story says that such-and-such happened to so-and-so, that is not a lie. That is called "telling a story." As to Joseph Smith's statements about where he thought the text he saw in his magic stone came from? He was just mistaken. The text came from a combination of his own mind and the inspiration of God who catalyzed and guided his imagination. He wasn't lying--just understandably mistaken. Just like he was mistaken about his translation of the Book of Abraham papyri, but nevertheless he produced a remarkable work of scripture inspired by those papyri.

Kent Jackson certainly is sophisticated enough to know the difference between various genres of literature, and certainly realizes that parables and Aesopian fables, and the like, have a valuable place in modeling moral and ethical issues. You seem also to have some vague understanding of that same principle, but the real thrust of Jackson's remarks seems to escape you. Why?

How is it that you don't comprehend the fundamental issue of claim versus reality in matters of vital and basic concern? For example, do you imagine that Jesus' atonement has value in the absence of an actual Resurrection? Do you agree with some that the Israelite Exodus was just a fairy tale, but that it teaches us good principles about freedom from slavery, and the like, which are important? Is it enough for Joseph Smith to have captured some verisimilitude in his novel (the Book of Mormon) and that is what makes it worthwhile "scripture"? Same for the Book of Abraham?

[Robert F. Smith]

Why not engage the argument for a while first, as Kevin Christensen has done, rather than jumping directly to the ad hominem attacks?

Actually, as you certainly know, that is exactly what I did "first," and your response on this board is typically selective amnesia. I really would like to see you carry on a meaningful conversation about substantive issues, rather than engage in blatant anti-Mormon propaganda. That requires sincere engagement on your part, which is conspicuous by its absence in your comments. I see no indication from you that you are willing to engage in scientific and objective discussion of historical evidences. Why are you so fearful of such high-minded and substantive discussion?