The Problem Of Historicity

[mfbukowski]

Edit:  I am adding something which I wrote in post 44 which should have probably been the opening line of the OP:

The whole point of this thread really is that I think it is silly for us to take up the critic's point of view and assumptions and then play their little game, which is what we are doing by playing the history game.

If we could show them that they are missing the point, our position would be much stronger.

We don't know how philosophically strong our position is. Many atheists see this, but they aren't going to help us figure it out.

 

What I refer to as the "history game" is the belief that if we could only find the right historical information, we could "prove Mormonism".

 

Critics use this against us all the time to show that Mormonism is "false" because their personal understanding of "history" does not live up to their perceptions of the "truth claims" of the church.

 

I want to attack those types of claims against us, head on.  But the real problem is that we buy into their argument and we end up playing the "It's not historical" - "Yes it is"- "No it's not" game which never ends.- End of edit.

 

As someone of a philosophical bent, there is something I have not really understood about Mormonism.  Sorry, this is gonna be kinda long, so if you don't want to get into it, don't bother.

 

I brought this up at the Fair Conference to a few who would know the answers, who will remain unnamed, but their answers still bother me and did not convince me that they were right, although they were good answers.

 

I look at philosophical arguments by first examining the main thesis of the argument- the assumptions, if you will, and then from that, what supports the rest of the argument.

 

The main thesis of Mormonism as I understand it, is that God exists in a bodily form like a Man, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to atone for our sins, that we accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as restoring the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

 

We accept other details about the Plan of Salvation as well, as defined in the Articles of Faith and in other places, about pre-earth life, some things about the nature of intelligences, the nature of matter, and the nature of the afterlife, including the amazing assertion that we can become like God himself if indeed we follow the true path.

 

We accept that the Bible represents one Testimony (Testament, Witness) of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon as another.  We have other "Standard Works" which are canonized and are accepted as divine revelations.

 

We accept the Proclamation on the Family as a statement about gender and family values and how they are grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it and accept it to be "true".

 

We accept all this completely on faith because there is no possible way any of this can be "proven" by logic, or any other means.

 

On a personal level, knowing fully through my training, the implications of saying that "I know that "x" is true"  I feel I can say with full assurance that "I know the church is true".

 

Some have problems with saying those words without hedging, but my spiritual experiences have convinced me that I can say that with some boldness.

 

Here's my problem:

 

The existence of God cannot be proven in any way.  There is no historical evidence for the existence of God.

 

There is no possible evidence that this invisible, ephemeral being we call "God" IF indeed "He" exists, is capable of having, or in fact did have a "son" who came to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  In fact most people in the world find the assertion, well, let's just say unbelievable.

 

Just as unbelievable are all the details about this alleged divine-human person, including the odd notion that his death could somehow take away all the bad things we have done in this world and make it all as if they had never happened if we only believe in him and do our best to not do them again.

 

The layers of what can be seen as nonsense keep getting deeper.

 

Not only do we not have evidence for God, or his Son, or the Atonement, we now add to it the idea that ANYONE can have a "true knowledge" of any of this, much less humans called "prophets".

 

Then we have the problem of how these alleged "prophets" received their knowledge of this unbelievable God and his unbelievable Son and their mission.  There is no possible historical evidence which can show any of this to be true.

 

Even if we jumped into a time machine and took a video of the alleged crucifixion of the alleged person Jesus of Nazareth and his alleged agony in Gethsemane, it would still not prove that these alleged activities could in any way remove the alleged "spiritual" effects of our doing "bad things" called alleged "sins" now 2000 years later.

 

Hopefully by this point you get the idea.  Again, I want to say that I am a TBM in every way and have answered all these questions to my satisfaction.

 

Why are we not concerned about the rationality of believing all these apparently irrational beliefs?

 

What are we concerned about really?  Whether or not the names of some gods were correctly translated on an obscure Egyptian papyrus?

 

Are you serious?

 

We are concerned about historical evidence that some Ugaritic inscription somehow "parallels" our beliefs and therefore the beliefs are "true"?

 

That if Joseph "mistranslated" Egyptian, that therefore God does not exist?

 

That because we have no plates for the Book of Mormon and that we have not found a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" then all the incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon should be thrown out?

 

Why in heaven's name do we gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutia?

 

Just askin'.

Edited August 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

As someone of a philosophical bent, there is something I have not really understood about Mormonism.  Sorry, this is gonna be kinda long, so if you don't want to get into it, don't bother.

 

I brought this up at the Fair Conference to a few who would know the answers, who will remain unnamed, but their answers still bother me and did not convince me that they were right, although they were good answers.

 

I look at philosophical arguments by first examining the main thesis of the argument- the assumptions, if you will, and then from that, what supports the rest of the argument.

 

The main thesis of Mormonism as I understand it, is that God exists in a bodily form like a Man, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to atone for our sins, that we accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as restoring the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

 

We accept other details about the Plan of Salvation as well, as defined in the Articles of Faith and in other places, about pre-earth life, some things about the nature of intelligences, the nature of matter, and the nature of the afterlife, including the amazing assertion that we can become like God himself if indeed we follow the true path.

 

We accept that the Bible represents one Testimony (Testament, Witness) of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon as another.  We have other "Standard Works" which are canonized and are accepted as divine revelations.

 

We accept the Proclamation on the Family as a statement about gender and family values and how they are grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it and accept it to be "true".

 

We accept all this completely on faith because there is no possible way any of this can be "proven" by logic, or any other means.

 

On a personal level, knowing fully through my training, the implications of saying that "I know that "x" is true"  I feel I can say with full assurance that "I know the church is true".

 

Some have problems with saying those words without hedging, but my spiritual experiences have convinced me that I can say that with some boldness.

 

Here's my problem:

 

The existence of God cannot be proven in any way.  There is no historical evidence for the existence of God.

 

There is no possible evidence that this invisible, ephemeral being we call "God" IF indeed "He" exists, is capable of having, or in fact did have a "son" who came to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  In fact most people in the world find the assertion, well, let's just say unbelievable.

 

Just as unbelievable are all the details about this alleged divine-human person, including the odd notion that his death could somehow take away all the bad things we have done in this world and make it all as if they had never happened if we only believe in him and do our best to not do them again.

 

The layers of what can be seen as nonsense keep getting deeper.

 

Not only do we not have evidence for God, or his Son, or the Atonement, we now add to it the idea that ANYONE can have a "true knowledge" of any of this, much less humans called "prophets".

 

Then we have the problem of how these alleged "prophets" received their knowledge of this unbelievable God and his unbelievable Son and their mission.  There is no possible historical evidence which can show any of this to be true.

 

Even if we jumped into a time machine and took a video of the alleged crucifixion of the alleged person Jesus of Nazareth and his alleged agony in Gethsemane, it would still not prove that these alleged activities could in any way remove the alleged "spiritual" effects of our doing "bad things" called alleged "sins" now 2000 years later.

 

Hopefully by this point you get the idea.  Again, I want to say that I am a TBM in every way and have answered all these questions to my satisfaction.

 

Why are we not concerned about the rationality of believing all these apparently irrational beliefs?

 

What are we concerned about really?  Whether or not the names of some gods were correctly translated on an obscure Egyptian papyrus?

 

Are you serious?

 

We are concerned about historical evidence that some Ugaritic inscription somehow "parallels" our beliefs and therefore the beliefs are "true"?

 

That if Joseph "mistranslated" Egyptian, that therefore God does not exist?

 

That because we have no plates for the Book of Mormon and that we have not found a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" then all the incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon should be thrown out?

 

Why in heaven's name do we gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutia?

 

Just askin'.

 

Simple answer - because there is a sad little part in all of us that longs to be able to 100% PROVE our somewhat "irrational" beliefs to the non-believing public.  So when someone says "we have not seen" we go hunting for proof that doesn't exist.  We don't need it to believe, but we sure want to prove it to everyone who has no interest in believing in the first place.  And the more minutia and little details that can be proven "true" the closer we feel to convincing people, even though that's not the case.

Edited August 13, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

Simple answer - because there is a sad little part in all of us that longs to be able to 100% PROVE our somewhat "irrational" beliefs to the non-believing public.  So when someone says "we have not seen" we go hunting for proof that doesn't exist.  We don't need it to believe, but we sure want to prove it to everyone who has no interest in believing in the first place.  And the more minutia and little details that can be proven "true" the closer we feel to convincing people, even though that's not the case.

I think that's it, but to me that is not a good reason.

 

One reason I heard at conference was that historical resonances help deepen our beliefs, which I think is true.

 

But the fact that someone 2500 years ago believed something similar really does not prove much

[Bikeemikey]

I echo this question. I don't get the obsession with proving the historical veracity of the BOM when we have no historical capacity to prove the greater claim of either God or the atonement.

Well articulated OP !! Thanks.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[JAHS]

"But the fact that someone 2500 years ago believed something similar really does not prove much"

 

That's what religion is all about. If we could prove it all it would no longer be a religion; it would be a field of science.

[teddyaware]

As someone of a philosophical bent, there is something I have not really understood about Mormonism.  Sorry, this is gonna be kinda long, so if you don't want to get into it, don't bother.

 

I brought this up at the Fair Conference to a few who would know the answers, who will remain unnamed, but their answers still bother me and did not convince me that they were right, although they were good answers.

 

I look at philosophical arguments by first examining the main thesis of the argument- the assumptions, if you will, and then from that, what supports the rest of the argument.

 

The main thesis of Mormonism as I understand it, is that God exists in a bodily form like a Man, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to atone for our sins, that we accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as restoring the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

 

We accept other details about the Plan of Salvation as well, as defined in the Articles of Faith and in other places, about pre-earth life, some things about the nature of intelligences, the nature of matter, and the nature of the afterlife, including the amazing assertion that we can become like God himself if indeed we follow the true path.

 

We accept that the Bible represents one Testimony (Testament, Witness) of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon as another.  We have other "Standard Works" which are canonized and are accepted as divine revelations.

 

We accept the Proclamation on the Family as a statement about gender and family values and how they are grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it and accept it to be "true".

 

We accept all this completely on faith because there is no possible way any of this can be "proven" by logic, or any other means.

 

On a personal level, knowing fully through my training, the implications of saying that "I know that "x" is true"  I feel I can say with full assurance that "I know the church is true".

 

Some have problems with saying those words without hedging, but my spiritual experiences have convinced me that I can say that with some boldness.

 

Here's my problem:

 

The existence of God cannot be proven in any way.  There is no historical evidence for the existence of God.

 

There is no possible evidence that this invisible, ephemeral being we call "God" IF indeed "He" exists, is capable of having, or in fact did have a "son" who came to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  In fact most people in the world find the assertion, well, let's just say unbelievable.

 

Just as unbelievable are all the details about this alleged divine-human person, including the odd notion that his death could somehow take away all the bad things we have done in this world and make it all as if they had never happened if we only believe in him and do our best to not do them again.

 

The layers of what can be seen as nonsense keep getting deeper.

 

Not only do we not have evidence for God, or his Son, or the Atonement, we now add to it the idea that ANYONE can have a "true knowledge" of any of this, much less humans called "prophets".

 

Then we have the problem of how these alleged "prophets" received their knowledge of this unbelievable God and his unbelievable Son and their mission.  There is no possible historical evidence which can show any of this to be true.

 

Even if we jumped into a time machine and took a video of the alleged crucifixion of the alleged person Jesus of Nazareth and his alleged agony in Gethsemane, it would still not prove that these alleged activities could in any way remove the alleged "spiritual" effects of our doing "bad things" called alleged "sins" now 2000 years later.

 

Hopefully by this point you get the idea.  Again, I want to say that I am a TBM in every way and have answered all these questions to my satisfaction.

 

Why are we not concerned about the rationality of believing all these apparently irrational beliefs?

 

What are we concerned about really?  Whether or not the names of some gods were correctly translated on an obscure Egyptian papyrus?

 

Are you serious?

 

We are concerned about historical evidence that some Ugaritic inscription somehow "parallels" our beliefs and therefore the beliefs are "true"?

 

That if Joseph "mistranslated" Egyptian, that therefore God does not exist?

 

That because we have no plates for the Book of Mormon and that we have not found a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" then all the incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon should be thrown out?

 

Why in heaven's name do we gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutia?

 

Just askin'.

Interesting op and an interesting glimpse into your mind. But as I was reading the thought that continued to coursed through my gray matter is that, at least as far as I can tell, the prophets, as recorded in the standard works, never seemed to express themselves in the way you have here (correct me if I'm wrong) and I would imagine there must be a very good reason for it.

 

Perhaps what you're demonstrating here is that there is always going to be frustration and unavoidable angst  associated with the process of trying to understand the gospel through the lens of philosophy, rather than through the lens of revelation, because philosophy is deficient when it comes to understanding the things of God. In the following immortal quotation from the Apostle Paul, he seems to directly address the deficiencies of a philosophical approach when it comes to trying to comprehend the mysteries of the God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

 

Edited to add the following: 

 

Interestingly, it is the Book of Mormon's notorious Korihor who expresses himself in philosophical terms similar to the ones you used in your op...

13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. (Alma 30)

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[katherine the great]

Maybe because some people don't start to apply critical thinking skills until later in their lives and it seems natural to apply them to their religious beliefs as well.  Still, I see your point.  I think it's silly that people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever try to disprove Mormonism by quoting DNA studies and yet have no problem whatsoever believing in a world wide flood and a literal Biblical timeline for human occupation of the planet.  

[erdoch]

Since I got home from my mission a few years ago, and most especially in the past two years, I have been on a kind of intellectual journey to better understand my faith, be able to reconcile my faith with science and scholarship, and so on. I have gone through questions of the Book of Mormon's historicity, how to reconcile aspects of biblical scholarship with modern revelation, and have come to better understand the provisional nature of our current understanding of doctrinal matters from a historical perspective. I continue to read my books, all somehow part of a search to better understand God in my life as well as universally and historically... But lately (as I am reading books on the New Testament and the historical Jesus) my thoughts have wandered more and more towards the Atonement, a subject I hope to somehow study more and someday be able to better understand. 

 

So your post strikes a deep chord with me. 

 

I think you are absolutely right that there is no historical or philosophical evidence for the existence of God. It is all in the realm of faith and spiritual experience. Someday there might be scientific proof for the light of Christ, or God's interactions with the world, but my guess is such proof won't be forthcoming anytime in the near future.

 

I think you are right that the idea that an unproven God exists, that Jesus is divine, and that Jesus's death somehow has redemptive power in a spiritual sphere that is also unproved... is quite an assertion. Apparently irrational. "Foolishness" to the world, to paraphrase scripture. 

 

Why - exactly why - was an Atonement needed? Sure, "justice" needed to be satisfied, but why did "justice" need to be satisfied? Why is it an eternal law that operates this way? Why can't God just forgive us by His own power without having to slaughter His Son? Why should we even worry about such a thing as "sin", isn't that a bit OCD, why doesn't utilitarianism combined with respect for other people's rights and feelings work well enough by itself in the eternities? 

 

I have always understood the Atonement as consisting of Jesus entering beyond time and space - while in the Garden and on the Cross - to literally take upon Himself all our negative "energies", burdens, pains, sorrows, sins, guilt, etc. Some would argue that He did not literally suffer every person's pain, that His suffering was more general, but I have always understood the scriptures as telling us otherwise. 

 

I am vaguely aware of various Christian models of Atonement, such as penal substitution, moral influence and such, but have not studied these in depth. Perhaps there is some more understanding to be gained there? 

 

When the scriptures speak about "mysteries", I don't think we have any greater mystery than the Atonement. I think it is a subject worthy of deeper understanding. Maybe it is one of the things, though, that can only be really understood by it being spiritually discerned.

[teddyaware]

Since I got home from my mission a few years ago, and most especially in the past two years, I have been on a kind of intellectual journey to better understand my faith, be able to reconcile my faith with science and scholarship, and so on. I have gone through questions of the Book of Mormon's historicity, how to reconcile aspects of biblical scholarship with modern revelation, and have come to better understand the provisional nature of our current understanding of doctrinal matters from a historical perspective. I continue to read my books, all somehow part of a search to better understand God in my life as well as universally and historically... But lately (as I am reading books on the New Testament and the historical Jesus) my thoughts have wandered more and more towards the Atonement, a subject I hope to somehow study more and someday be able to better understand. 

 

So your post strikes a deep chord with me. 

 

I think you are absolutely right that there is no historical or philosophical evidence for the existence of God. It is all in the realm of faith and spiritual experience. Someday there might be scientific proof for the light of Christ, or God's interactions with the world, but my guess is such proof won't be forthcoming anytime in the near future.

 

I think you are right that the idea that an unproven God exists, that Jesus is divine, and that Jesus's death somehow has redemptive power in a spiritual sphere that is also unproved... is quite an assertion. Apparently irrational. "Foolishness" to the world, to paraphrase scripture. 

 

Why - exactly why - was an Atonement needed? Sure, "justice" needed to be satisfied, but why did "justice" need to be satisfied? Why is it an eternal law that operates this way? Why can't God just forgive us by His own power without having to slaughter His Son? Why should we even worry about such a thing as "sin", isn't that a bit OCD, why doesn't utilitarianism combined with respect for other people's rights and feelings work well enough by itself in the eternities? 

 

I have always understood the Atonement as consisting of Jesus entering beyond time and space - while in the Garden and on the Cross - to literally take upon Himself all our negative "energies", burdens, pains, sorrows, sins, guilt, etc. Some would argue that He did not literally suffer every person's pain, that His suffering was more general, but I have always understood the scriptures as telling us otherwise. 

 

I am vaguely aware of various Christian models of Atonement, such as penal substitution, moral influence and such, but have not studied these in depth. Perhaps there is some more understanding to be gained there? 

 

When the scriptures speak about "mysteries", I don't think we have any greater mystery than the Atonement. I think it is a subject worthy of deeper understanding. Maybe it is one of the things, though, that can only be really understood by it being spiritually discerned.

After contemplating what you wrote, it seems to me you might be better served if you studied and pondered the Book of Mormon-- the most correct book on the face of the earth -- rather than books of far less prophetic inspiration. The Book of Mormon beautifully answers your questions about the atonement and why it's the only way God can rule and function as God:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

 

So the reason (paraphrasing you) why God and can't just forgive us by His own power, without having to slaughter His Son, and why we need to worry about sin, is because otherwise everything would cease to exist. And Lehi really does mean everything when he says all things would cease to exist, for even God Himself would cease to exist. Forever into the past and forever into the future, the atonement is the only way. God is known by revelation or He is not known at all.

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[readstoomuch]

I think many people would like to believe in God and if a particular religion had something that could be measured it would potentially "prove" that God existed and that religion was true. I showed a filmstrip on my mission called Ancient America Speaks which was trying to at last show some evidence of the BoM. There are not plates, but when some papyrus is found-finally something that could be studied and proven. An uneducated man read Egyptian and got the translation correct through the gift and power of God. Of course even if religiously the translation is right and Joseph Smith connected with the streams of unconscious religious thought that have pstreamed through the generations, he didn`t translate it the way an egyptologist would and thus God and Mormonism is bunk. Even if there is plenty in the text itself, that is enough to prove it all wrong. I have read multiple people say that including a man in my ward and a "gazillion" people on MormonStories.

Too bad they are asking the wrong question.

Since I mentioned MS, I like Mormon Matters and StayLDS, both of which are part of OpenStories Foundation(as is MS). OSF is the 503B that can take donations and such. Since I have mentioned them (MS) so many times I thought I would say something nice about John Dehlin (who I usually disagree with most things he says).

[mfbukowski]

"But the fact that someone 2500 years ago believed something similar really does not prove much"

 

That's what religion is all about. If we could prove it all it would no longer be a religion; it would be a field of science.

Agreed.

So why do we waste so much time on trying to find hard "evidence" that could not in principle even exist?

[mfbukowski]

Interesting op and an interesting glimpse into your mind. But as I was reading the thought that continued to coursed through my gray matter is that, at least as far as I can tell, the prophets, as recorded in the standard works, never seemed to express themselves in the way you have here (correct me if I'm wrong) and I would imagine there must be a very good reason for it.

 

Perhaps what you're demonstrating here is that there is always going to be frustration and unavoidable angst  associated with the process of trying to understand the gospel through the lens of philosophy, rather than through the lens of revelation, because philosophy is deficient when it comes to understanding the things of God. In the following immortal quotation from the Apostle Paul, he seems to directly address the deficiencies of a philosophical approach when it comes to trying to comprehend the mysteries of the God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

 

Edited to add the following: 

 

Interestingly, it is the Book of Mormon's notorious Korihor who expresses himself in philosophical terms similar to the ones you used in your op...

13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. (Alma 30)

I agree with every word.

 

This is essentially why I gave up academic philosophy, but I find it a useful tool against argumentative militant unbelievers.

 

So why do we worry about it at all?  Are you agreeing that historicity is irrelevant to the gospel?

[Scott Stevenson]

 

I look at philosophical arguments by first examining the main thesis of the argument- the assumptions, if you will, and then from that, what supports the rest of the argument.

 

The main thesis of Mormonism as I understand it, is that God exists in a bodily form like a Man, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to atone for our sins, that we accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as restoring the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

 

We accept other details about the Plan of Salvation as well, as defined in the Articles of Faith and in other places, about pre-earth life, some things about the nature of intelligences, the nature of matter, and the nature of the afterlife, including the amazing assertion that we can become like God himself if indeed we follow the true path.

 

We accept that the Bible represents one Testimony (Testament, Witness) of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon as another.  We have other "Standard Works" which are canonized and are accepted as divine revelations.

 

We accept the Proclamation on the Family as a statement about gender and family values and how they are grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it and accept it to be "true".

 

We accept all this completely on faith because there is no possible way any of this can be "proven" by logic, or any other means.

 

On a personal level, knowing fully through my training, the implications of saying that "I know that "x" is true"  I feel I can say with full assurance that "I know the church is true".

 

Some have problems with saying those words without hedging, but my spiritual experiences have convinced me that I can say that with some boldness.

 

Why not go one step back and ask why a "spiritual experience" is convincing evidence? It's not a bad idea to establish some first principles before moving on to some pretty bold claims.

 

At some point don't you also have to be able to articulate the difference between your spiritual experience and the spiritual experiences of competing religions?

[Storm Rider]

The supposed tension between Faith and Reason often leads individuals to take one side versus the other in the debate.  One will either place themselves solely on Faith's path or alternatively, on the path of Reason.  I don't think or believe that it is completely an either/or discussion or proposition. 

 

I think it is more dynamic; there will be times with Faith must lead and other times when Reason leads. However, Faith and Reason remain eternal companions.  Reason demands that answers are developed in specific ways; it is a path that must be replicable by others that follow the same steps.  Faith may function in a very similar manner, but there is nothing tangible to be reviewed. It is accepting the guidance or direction of the Holy Spirit in spite of what Reason may say.  It accepts that Reason does not have all answers at all times.

 

I still recommend John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" as a concise read on this topic.  Obviously some of his writings are not germane to LDS (Mother Church, etc.), but there is great value in what he does have to say on the topic.

 

There will always be those who use one standard of analysis for one thing and then swallow the proverbial camel when it comes to their pet topic.  We should use one standard to evaluate all things. 

[mfbukowski]

Maybe because some people don't start to apply critical thinking skills until later in their lives and it seems natural to apply them to their religious beliefs as well.  Still, I see your point.  I think it's silly that people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever try to disprove Mormonism by quoting DNA studies and yet have no problem whatsoever believing in a world wide flood and a literal Biblical timeline for human occupation of the planet.  

But the odd thing is that I see no difference between someone believing a world wide flood any more than no flood at all.  Either of those is still a historical position.

 

I don't know if there "really was" a flood or not, it could be either local or worldwide or a metaphor, it doesn't matter to me.

 

I believe the story is "true" in terms of what I can learn from it, and that is good enough for me.

[smac97]

As someone of a philosophical bent, there is something I have not really understood about Mormonism.  Sorry, this is gonna be kinda long, so if you don't want to get into it, don't bother.

 

I brought this up at the Fair Conference to a few who would know the answers, who will remain unnamed, but their answers still bother me and did not convince me that they were right, although they were good answers.

 

I look at philosophical arguments by first examining the main thesis of the argument- the assumptions, if you will, and then from that, what supports the rest of the argument.

 

The main thesis of Mormonism as I understand it, is that God exists in a bodily form like a Man, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to atone for our sins, that we accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as restoring the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

I accept this premise.

 

We accept other details about the Plan of Salvation as well, as defined in the Articles of Faith and in other places, about pre-earth life, some things about the nature of intelligences, the nature of matter, and the nature of the afterlife, including the amazing assertion that we can become like God himself if indeed we follow the true path.

I accept this premise.

 

We accept that the Bible represents one Testimony (Testament, Witness) of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon as another.  We have other "Standard Works" which are canonized and are accepted as divine revelations.

I accept this premise.

 

We accept the Proclamation on the Family as a statement about gender and family values and how they are grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it and accept it to be "true".

I more or less accept this premise. The Proclamation is not canonized, but it is, I think, wholly congruent with other revealed truths, and distills these truths into a succinct form.

 

We accept all this completely on faith because there is no possible way any of this can be "proven" by logic, or any other means.

No, I do not accept this premise. At least, not the extent you juxtapose "faith" with study, pondering, analysis, etc. You appear to refer here to some sort of blind, irrational faith. That is not the type of faith taught in The Church of Jesus Christ. See, e.g., D&C 9:7-10, 88:118 and 131:6. Also consider this statement by Pres. Kimball (just one of many, many similar exhortations from The Brethren): "We expect the Saints to gain such knowledge naturally, as a result of righteousness and by study and faith. ... We must do more than ask the Lord for learning. Perspiration must precede inspiration; there must be effort before there is the harvest. We must take thought, work, be patient, acquire competence."

I cannot agree with any viewpoint based on the false dichotomy which pits faith against study and learning.

 

On a personal level, knowing fully through my training, the implications of saying that "I know that "x" is true"  I feel I can say with full assurance that "I know the church is true".

 

Some have problems with saying those words without hedging, but my spiritual experiences have convinced me that I can say that with some boldness.

 

Here's my problem:

 

The existence of God cannot be proven in any way.  There is no historical evidence for the existence of God.

Yes, there is. There is not proof, I will grant you that. But no evidence? At all? That's just not so.

 

More in the next post.

Edited August 13, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:

 

There is no possible evidence that this invisible, ephemeral being we call "God" IF indeed "He" exists, is capable of having, or in fact did have a "son" who came to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  In fact most people in the world find the assertion, well, let's just say unbelievable.

There is testimonial evidence of Jesus Christ. You can question its weight, its probative value, but you cannot reasonably deny its existence.

 

Just as unbelievable are all the details about this alleged divine-human person, including the odd notion that his death could somehow take away all the bad things we have done in this world and make it all as if they had never happened if we only believe in him and do our best to not do them again.

Again, you are conflating the probative value of evidence with the existence of evidence. These are two different things.

Consider the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses to The Book of Mormon. What is the point and purpose of these writings, if not to provide evidence for The Book of Mormon? If these statements are not intended as evidence, then what is their intended purpose? Also consider D&C 76:22. What is the purpose of this statement, if not to provide evidence of Jesus Christ?

 

The layers of what can be seen as nonsense keep getting deeper.

 

Not only do we not have evidence for God,

Yes, we do.

 

or his Son,

Yes, we do.

 

or the Atonement,

Yes, we do.

 

we now add to it the idea that ANYONE can have a "true knowledge" of any of this, much less humans called "prophets".

I don't know what this means.

 

Then we have the problem of how these alleged "prophets" received their knowledge of this unbelievable God and his unbelievable Son and their mission.  There is no possible historical evidence which can show any of this to be true.

This is an incorrect statement. Again, you are conflating the probative value of evidence with the existence of evidence. These are two different things.

 

Even if we jumped into a time machine and took a video of the alleged crucifixion of the alleged person Jesus of Nazareth and his alleged agony in Gethsemane, it would still not prove that these alleged activities could in any way remove the alleged "spiritual" effects of our doing "bad things" called alleged "sins" now 2000 years later.

Now you are conflating "evidence" with "proof." I don't think that's right.

 

Hopefully by this point you get the idea.

Not really, no. I do not accept most of the latter half of your list of premises. They are not established. I therefore am not inclined to accept conclusions based on them.

 

Again, I want to say that I am a TBM in every way and have answered all these questions to my satisfaction.

 

Why are we not concerned about the rationality of believing all these apparently irrational beliefs?

 

What are we concerned about really?  Whether or not the names of some gods were correctly translated on an obscure Egyptian papyrus?

 

Are you serious?

 

We are concerned about historical evidence that some Ugaritic inscription somehow "parallels" our beliefs and therefore the beliefs are "true"?

 

That if Joseph "mistranslated" Egyptian, that therefore God does not exist?

 

That because we have no plates for the Book of Mormon and that we have not found a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" then all the incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon should be thrown out?

 

Why in heaven's name do we gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutia?

 

Just askin'.

We don't. We don't "gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutiae." I know many, many faithful, observant, well-informed and erudite Latter-day Saints. I do not think a single one of them would acquiesce to your accusation that they "gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutiae."

As a closing observation, I note that virtually nothing in this OP addresses the issue of "historicity" or how it is a "problem."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

I echo this question. I don't get the obsession with proving the historical veracity of the BOM when we have no historical capacity to prove the greater claim of either God or the atonement.

I am not aware of any effort by informed, observant Latter-day Saints which meets this description (an "obsession" about "proving" the "historical veracity" of The Book of Mormon). I think historicity is a necessary component of having a meaningful and enduring testimony of The Book of Mormon. That does not, however, translate into an "obsession" about "proving" historicity. I think it would be more productive to engage this issue on its merits, rather than distort it and reduce to an absurd caricature the viewpoints about it which are alternate to yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Why not go one step back and ask why a "spiritual experience" is convincing evidence? It's not a bad idea to establish some first principles before moving on to some pretty bold claims.

 

At some point don't you also have to be able to articulate the difference between your spiritual experience and the spiritual experiences of competing religions?

Religious experience brings meaning and certainty to our lives.

 

And no, I do not personally need to account for what gives meaning to your life if it is different from what brings meaning to my life.

 

But if you need an objective explanation story for some objective spiritual reality, we can say that God teaches each of us the path we need to get closer to Him but after an eternity or two all true seekers will end up on the same path.  "Every knee shall bow..."

 

I am a humanist.  I can imagine no better story than that I can become like a Human God if I become the best human I can be, and I have defined what that means for myself.  We are all here taking intellectual "matter unorganized" and creating our own worlds or world views which to me is the same.

 

I can not imagine a more powerful belief set than Mormonism to help me achieve that.

[katherine the great]

But the odd thing is that I see no difference between someone believing a world wide flood any more than no flood at all. Either of those is still a historical position.

I don't know if there "really was" a flood or not, it could be either local or worldwide or a metaphor, it doesn't matter to me.

I believe the story is "true" in terms of what I can learn from it, and that is good enough for me.

I agree.

[smac97]

But the odd thing is that I see no difference between someone believing a world wide flood any more than no flood at all.  Either of those is still a historical position.

 

I don't know if there "really was" a flood or not, it could be either local or worldwide or a metaphor, it doesn't matter to me.

 

I believe the story is "true" in terms of what I can learn from it, and that is good enough for me.

Do you take this same approach to Jesus Christ? Are you indifferent to whether He actually exists, whether He is the Son of God, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

I cannot agree with any viewpoint based on the false dichotomy which pits faith against study and learning.

 

That's the only relevant line in the post.

 

I never said anything close to that.

[mfbukowski]

The supposed tension between Faith and Reason often leads individuals to take one side versus the other in the debate.  One will either place themselves solely on Faith's path or alternatively, on the path of Reason.  I don't think or believe that it is completely an either/or discussion or proposition. 

 

I think it is more dynamic; there will be times with Faith must lead and other times when Reason leads. However, Faith and Reason remain eternal companions.  Reason demands that answers are developed in specific ways; it is a path that must be replicable by others that follow the same steps.  Faith may function in a very similar manner, but there is nothing tangible to be reviewed. It is accepting the guidance or direction of the Holy Spirit in spite of what Reason may say.  It accepts that Reason does not have all answers at all times.

 

I still recommend John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" as a concise read on this topic.  Obviously some of his writings are not germane to LDS (Mother Church, etc.), but there is great value in what he does have to say on the topic.

 

There will always be those who use one standard of analysis for one thing and then swallow the proverbial camel when it comes to their pet topic.  We should use one standard to evaluate all things. 

It depends on what the words mean, but I don't see any dichotomy between faith and reason.

 

I mean why trust reason at all?  One must have faith IN reason in the first place for that to even make sense. I see it as all of us using the best tools available for the problem at hand.

 

Faith doesn't work too well on fixing cars or sending vehicles to the moon, but it can help you to finish law school or plant a crop that will not provide food for many months.  Each has its own function.

[mfbukowski]

Continued from the previous post:

 

There is testimonial evidence of Jesus Christ. You can question its weight, its probative value, but you cannot reasonably deny its existence.

 

Again, you are conflating the probative value of evidence with the existence of evidence. These are two different things.

Consider the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses to The Book of Mormon. What is the point and purpose of these writings, if not to provide evidence for The Book of Mormon? If these statements are not intended as evidence, then what is their intended purpose? Also consider D&C 76:22. What is the purpose of this statement, if not to provide evidence of Jesus Christ?

 

Yes, we do.

 

Yes, we do.

 

Yes, we do.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

This is an incorrect statement. Again, you are conflating the probative value of evidence with the existence of evidence. These are two different things.

 

Now you are conflating "evidence" with "proof." I don't think that's right.

 

Not really, no. I do not accept most of the latter half of your list of premises. They are not established. I therefore am not inclined to accept conclusions based on them.

 

We don't. We don't "gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutiae." I know many, many faithful, observant, well-informed and erudite Latter-day Saints. I do not think a single one of them would acquiesce to your accusation that they "gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutiae."

As a closing observation, I note that virtually nothing in this OP addresses the issue of "historicity" or how it is a "problem."

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are not understanding me.

 

I think that it is obvious that the probative value of evidence is irrelevant in matters of faith, or they would not be matters of faith.

 

Historicity is a problem if people actually think it is relevant in spiritual matters.  Most of what appears on this board makes this confusion.  We have endless threads on scientific evidence vs religion, historical evidence vs religious belief, etc.

[mfbukowski]

Do you take this same approach to Jesus Christ? Are you indifferent to whether He actually exists, whether He is the Son of God, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe he exists and all the standard church doctrine, on faith and based on direct spiritual experience, not history.