Poll Regarding Our View Of Where The Non-Spiritual Evidence Leads

[CV75]

I hear you and agree, again I had a purpose in this poll which was to me important.  The poll turned out different then I expected but I still learned something from this.  It was more about those answering then the answers if that makes sense.

What have you learned that is helpful?

[mfbukowski]

You forgot one option as well... quietly not taking part.

 

See mfbukoski's post on how to respectifully disagree with the poll.  

Or better yet, if you like my choice, just give me a rep point.  I'm kind of short on those.  That adds an option and makes me look great.  Once a salesman always a salesman.

Edited February 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is a link to the "Rorty Video" referenced above.  Rorty is an atheist and an important philosopher who believes that religious propositions have nothing to do with "evidence" historical or scientific.  Religion is speaking a different "language game" than science.

 

Saemo, and Palerider, this is especially for you.  Don't fall asleep now.  That irrational Bukowski did not make this all up himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

[Brian 2.0]

I respectfully abstain from the poll because I find its central premise erroneous.

 

If we were going on evidence of the kind required in the first place, there is no God.

 

So the whole question is contradictory.

 

Based on evidence alone how could an entity which does not exist "install" ANY organization of any kind as "correct"?

 

Religion has nothing to do with evidence.  DB please revisit that Rorty video.

 

How does the question/evidence require there is no god?  I'm not totally following you that step.

 

 

I like this poll because it's something I think about a great deal, but less on the question on "is the chruch true" and more on more specific issues where evidence comes into play more:  BOM historicity, global flood, etc.

 

When one of those topics come up, say BOM historicity, I find there are often two believer camps on how the secular/logical/rational arguements pan out... speaking from a probability level.

 

1)  Looking at all the evidence, I place the probabilty of the BOM being historical at UNDER 50%, but I believe this less probable option because of my spiritual witness that the BOM is historical.

 

2)  Looking at all the evidence, I place the probability of the BOM being historial at OVER 50%.

 

When discussing BOM historicity with someone, the disucssion is often quite different sometimes depending on which camp the believer is in.

[mfbukowski]

How does the question/evidence require there is no god?  I'm not totally following you that step.

The question presupposes that "evidence" is a valid way to determine what church God has sanctioned, or "what the church claims", ie: that it is sanctioned by God as the "one true church" or the "only true and living church on the earth".

 

As I see it the question is not about BOM historicity.  That is a complex question about the nature of history and the historical evidence for the BOM.  That is a scientific question not a religious one.

 

As a religious question, it doesn't matter if the BOM is historic or not.  Is the New Testament historically accurate?  The book of psalms?  Job? Revelation?  Was there a real exodus?  Flood?  Adam and Eve?

 

It makes no difference when we are talking about someone being crucified taking away your sins and then coming back to life.  What difference does it make if that can be "proven" historical?

 

None whatsoever.

 

There is no such thing as ANY "logical" church doctrine in any church in existence.  Period.  Not Buddhism, not Christianity, not Judaism, not New Age, not Wicca, not anything.  Period.

Edited February 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Is there a "What evidence?" choice. 

You don't even realize that as a theist you are cutting your own throat with that logic, oh you believer in Transubstantiation.

 

If you understood Rorty's point, you would understand that it strengthens ALL theistic arguments and puts us all on the same page against those who would destroy even the memory of God.

 

This is important stuff- too important for sectarian squabbles between Catholics and Mormons.  We need to be together on this one.  Rorty even mentions both of us by name in the video.

Edited February 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

You don't even realize that as a theist you are cutting your own throat with that logic, oh you believer in Transubstantiation.

 

If you understood Rorty's point, you would understand that it strengthens ALL theistic arguments and puts us all on the same page against those who would destroy even the memory of God.

 

This is important stuff- too important for sectarian squabbles between Catholics and Mormons.  We need to be together on this one.  Rorty even mentions both of us by name in the video.

 

Ok, even though you brought up Rorty, I'll still give a rep

 

Actually, as you said in another post, we are more in agreement than not.  I just like giving you a hard time

[saemo]

You don't even realize that as a theist you are cutting your own throat with that logic, oh you believer in Transubstantiation.

 

If you understood Rorty's point, you would understand that it strengthens ALL theistic arguments and puts us all on the same page against those who would destroy even the memory of God.

 

This is important stuff- too important for sectarian squabbles between Catholics and Mormons.  We need to be together on this one.  Rorty even mentions both of us by name in the video.

Are you in the right thread? I responded to a poll. Not a video by someone named Rorty (whoever in the heck that is).

[hagoth7]

I will say I fully expected the answers to be heavily in options 2-5 and yet it fell on the extremes.  I really find options 6&7 to be interesting.  I would love for people who voted in that manner if they are willing, to explain how they see the case so strong. 

I voted 6. I included consideration of evidence from Nephites in Europe and 1844 in Prophecy which provides extensive evidence that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are precisely what they claim to be. But few people are familiar with that evidence.

[DBMormon]

I voted 6. I included consideration of evidence from Nephites in Europe and 1844 in Prophecy which provides extensive evidence that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are precisely what they claim to be. But few people are familiar with that evidence.

links to evidence you cite please I would be interested.

[hagoth7]

links to evidence you cite please I would be interested.

I apologize that my former website is down due to being a poor college student. It will come back up once I'm gainfully employed again. But if you forward me an email I could send you pdf's.

[DBMormon]

I apologize that my former website is down due to being a poor college student. It will come back up once I'm gainfully employed again. But if you forward me an email I could send you pdf's.

my email is in my signature line at the bottom of my posts

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You forgot one option as well... quietly not taking part.

 

See mfbukoski's post on how to respectifully disagree with the poll.  

Some one forgot or was not around when a certain poster who always requested that option no matter what poll was. It was a long standing joke.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[hagoth7]

my email is in my signature line at the bottom of my posts

pdf's sent

[mfbukowski]

Ok, even though you brought up Rorty, I'll still give a rep

 

Actually, as you said in another post, we are more in agreement than not.  I just like giving you a hard time

Yeah I know sorry about that.  But heck, it's Valentine's day anyway!  

[mfbukowski]

Are you in the right thread? I responded to a poll. Not a video by someone named Rorty (whoever in the heck that is).

Sigh.

[Brian 2.0]

Some one forgot or was not around when a certain poster who always requested that option no matter what poll was. It was a long standing joke.

I guess I wasn't around. My bad if it was a joke. I thought it was out of character for you to be so dismissive. Looks like I was right!

[Robert F. Smith]

I will say again that I think that stone in the hat story to be quite improbable.   David Whitmer talks about it but he wasn't a witness.  I just don't see a flowing manuscript, with few corrections, to come from a guy with his face in a hat the entire time.   I work with stenographers all the time and they have a 5 % error rate when they are staring at my lips four feet away.  And I stop for corrections. Cowdery wasn't a stenographer.  

I don't follow you here, Bob.  I don't see why the hat would pose any difficulties in dictation to any of his scribes.  Certainly Royal Skousen's research shows inductively what actually took place.

I recommend that you mull over the recent article (Dec 2013?) presented on lds.org at http://www.lds.org/topics/book‑of‑mormon‑translation?lang=eng .

That and my own materials on the hat are presented below:

 

FACE IN THE HAT

--from http://www.lds.org/topics/book‑of‑mormon‑translation?lang=eng. 

Most of the accounts speak of Joseph=s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.²⁶

Joseph=s wife Emma explained that she Afrequently wrote day after day@ at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph Asitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.@²⁸

Citing [ALast Testimony of Sister Emma,@ Saints= Herald 26 (Oct. 1, 1879), 289B90. Some outside reports describe the spectacles being placed in the hat during the translation process. A Palmyra newspaper published the earliest known account of the translation in August 1829: Jonathan Hadley, a Palmyra printer who may have spoken with Joseph Smith about translation, claimed that the plates were found with a Ahuge pair of Spectacles,@ and that Aby placing the Spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.@ (AGolden Bible,@ Palmyra Freeman, Aug. 11, 1829, [2].) In the winter of 1831, a Shaker in Union Village, Ohio, spoke of Atwo transparent stones in the form of spectacles@ through which the translator Alooked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.@ (Christian Goodwillie, AShaker Richard McNemar: The Earliest Book of Mormon Reviewer,@ Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 [spring 2011]: 143.)]

------------------------------------------------

Joseph Knight Sr:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters.  Then he would tell the writer and he would write it.  Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.  But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous.  Thus was the hol translated. -- BYU Studies, 17:35.

 

William B. Smith, book and interview:

The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God. -- William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 11-12.

In answer to our question, William informed us that he had, himself, by Joseph=s direction, put the Urim and Thummim before his eyes, but could see nothing, as he did not have the gift of a Seer.  He also informed us that the instruments were too wide for his eyes, as also for Joseph=s, and must have been used by much larger men.  The instrument caused a strain on Joseph=s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part. -- July 4, 1891, interview, The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7.

 

David Whitmer interviews:

In the spring of 1829, even Harmony became too hot for Joseph, and he sent to New York for succor.  David Whitmer started out in a wagon, drove 160 miles to Harmony, took Smith and Cowdery as passengers, and conveyed them thence to his father=s house, where they remained in retirement until September, completing the translation.  During all these months David had free access to their room, and was

AN EYE-WITNESS TO THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE.

The plates were not before Joseph while he tranalated, but seem to have been removed by the custodian angel.  The method pursued was commonplace but nevertheless effective.  Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph placed the hat over his face, and with prophetic eyes read the invisible symbols syllable by syllable and word by word, while Cowdery or Harris acted as recorders.-- AThe Golden Tables,@ The Chicago Times, 20 (Saturday Morning, August 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4.

Smith bragged to neighbors, and replaced only by a different shape Urim & Thummim and received direct revelation through it with his face in a hat with the stone.-- AAn Old Mormons Closing Hours,@ The Chicago Tribune, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 4.

 

Martin Harris, interview:

I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him B I said, ATake your stone;@ I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him.  He had it in his pocket.  He took it and placed it in his hat B the old white hat B and placed his face in his hat.  I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick, and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me.  I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.-- Tiffany=s Monthly, 1859, p. 165.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I respectfully abstain from the poll because I find its central premise erroneous.

 

If we were going on evidence of the kind required in the first place, there is no God.

 

So the whole question is contradictory.

 

Based on evidence alone how could an entity which does not exist "install" ANY organization of any kind as "correct"?

 

Religion has nothing to do with evidence.  DB please revisit that Rorty video.

But as a practical matter, as Neal A. Maxwell used to note by quoting Austin Farrer:

 

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer on C. S. Lewis)

 

That is why organizations such as FARMS and FAIRMORMON can play such a useful role.  Not that they have all the answers, but that they keep  the discussion going on so as to allow a high level playing field.  That gives all parties time to reflect.

[Calm]

I think Bob sees the hat as likely muffling Joseph's voice making it hard to hear in addition to the direction (it is harder to understand someone turned partly away from you than it is someone looking straight at you) I definitely could see that as a potential problem, but if he was sitting right next to the scribe and raised his voice to compensate, I don't think it would be an issue myself (I have tested how looking in a men's hat with a typical rim would affect quality of speech, didn't seem to make much difference close up).

He would have to either have a hat with a loose weave or not press his full face into the hat (perhaps just his eyes and nose could be covered) or not press his face closely into the hat but rather hold it close with a small space, otherwise he couldn't breathe very well. Since he would have to make adjustments for breathing, those same adjustments would remove most of the muffling possibilities.

In my experiment there was a definite difference between a felt hat with a thick, soft and flexible brim (my winter hat...my dad gave me a massive skull along with my other siblings, poor mom...all my hats are extra large men's) and a straw hat with a rigid brim (summer hat). Anyone know an authoritative source on the type of hat?

PS: a white hat would more likely be some sort of lightweight summer hat, I would think.

Edited February 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

BOM anachronisms

Book of Abraham

Priesthood ban

Thanks, Rivers.

I'll put that in my database.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think Bob sees the hat as likely muffling Joseph's voice making it hard to hear in addition to the direction (it is harder to understand someone turned partly away from you than it is someone looking straight at you) I definitely could see that as a potential problem, but if he was sitting right next to the scribe and raised his voice to compensate, I don't think it would be an issue myself (I have tested how looking in a men's hat with a typical rim would affect quality of speech, didn't seem to make much difference close up).

He would have to either have a hat with a loose weave or not press his full face into the hat (perhaps just his eyes and nose could be covered) or not press his face closely into the hat but rather hold it close with a small space, otherwise he couldn't breathe very well. Since he would have to make adjustments for breathing, those same adjustments would remove most of the muffling possibilities.

You may be correct.

The descriptions seem to have Joseph and his scribe at the same table immediately opposite one another.  Also, the old white hat Harris describes is probably not the small modern variety, but rather large and deep.  Bob Crockett and I probably ought to test out some large Stetson's, and we could each take turns dictating from a Smartphone or iPod in the hat.  If one of us suffocates, then all bets are off.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................  

 

It makes no difference when we are talking about someone being crucified taking away your sins and then coming back to life.  What difference does it make if that can be "proven" historical?

 

None whatsoever.

 

There is no such thing as ANY "logical" church doctrine in any church in existence.  Period.  Not Buddhism, not Christianity, not Judaism, not New Age, not Wicca, not anything.  Period.

Does that extend to any organization of any kind?  Say to the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the Dept of Physics at the Sorbonne, the Dept of Mathematics at the Free University of Berlin, etc., or only to organizations judged to be based on irrational considerations?

 

Some doctrines are arguably more logical than others.  One of the reasons why scientists often perceive religion as outside their orbit or bailiwick is that religious beliefs are not normally subject to logical, scientific inquiry, and indeed are not even testable or falsifiable.  Could you narrow your statement somewhat?

 

Do you consider Mormon doctrine irrational?  Or humanistic?  Logical?

[3DOP]

I thought that many LDS believe that disregarding spiritual evidence, they wouldn't believe in God. I am sure I have heard that. If that is your position, how could you say the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in any church? Not picking a fight, if you think the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God, I agree.

 

Rory

[Robert F. Smith]

I thought that many LDS believe that disregarding spiritual evidence, they wouldn't believe in God. I am sure I have heard that. If that is your position, how could you say the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in any church? Not picking a fight, if you think the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God, I agree.

 

Rory

I am an equal opportunity believer in either or both for my fellow religionists, of whatever kind, Rory.  Some claim that faith itself is a gift.

 

However, I'd like to hear mfbukowski speak to that issue.

Bob