The Problem Of Historicity

[mfbukowski]

Why not go one step back and ask why a "spiritual experience" is convincing evidence? 

Do you take one step back and question if your experience of blue is good evidence that a thing is blue?

 

Do you know that it is true that you love your significant other?  Would you doubt it if others told you you were mistaken?

Edited August 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Great post, and thanks for it!

 

I agree entirely.  Waking up every morning is a mystery in itself.

[Scott Stevenson]

Do you take one step back and question if your experience of blue is good evidence that a thing is blue?

 

Of course. You mean to tell me that you've never wondered if others experience the color blue the same way you do? The center squares on the top and side of the below cube are actually the exact same color. Your eyes and brain play plenty of tricks on you.

 

 

 

 

Do you know that it is true that you love your significant other?  Would you doubt it if others told you you were mistaken?

 

With the information available to me now, I love my wife. I can think of several scenarios that could possibly change that and make me realize my love was based on a lie. I have to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong based on new evidence. 

[Tacenda]

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 think this idea is where religion got it's legs. Whatever can be learned that helps one be a better person.

So out of that are many stories and parables taught and some stories are completely false but perpetuated anyway for the greater good, many things in scripture for instance.

Also, things I believed were literal, now are to be taken symbolically. Which sort of feels like I've been outright lied to. In our church and in worldwide churches. This doesn't help people's faith in God. Once they believe they've been deceived they turn to where it's not human error but to just science giving the answers. This is a shame, because they don't keep an open mind as much. I guess those that wrote the bible for instance may have embellished stories to help belief along, just as prophets have, IMO.

But in the long run, if they've lied or told white lies, it just creates distrust in the whole system, and people shut it all off. But hopefully they see creation as being far superior to just science alone.

[rameumptom]

Joseph Smith and God apparently felt that giving evidence to the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be an important thing.  Providing first Three and then Eight Witnesses as evidence the plates actually exist is clearly something of value.  Nephi saw witnesses/evidences as important, as he claimed Jacob and Isaiah as witnesses with him of Christ. Alma gave to Korihor the evidence of the planetary motions that God lives.

 

That God chose to provide us with the Book of Mormon as a second witness of Christ continues in this vein.

 

While in the long run it may or may not matter how we see the historicity of any of this (did Joseph Smith really exist? Do we exist?), being able to provide possible evidences at least keeps the conversation open.  Such evidences help prevent the spiritual beliefs from being relegated to the dung heap of mythology, along with Zeus, Odin, the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch.  Providing and discussing evidences allows us to retain the importance of the spiritual and remain in a believing state.

 

Of those who doubt the historicity of the Book of Mormon, how many do you suppose also strongly support the Prophet, sustain traditional marriage, believe in chastity, etc?  As I've spent decades online, I've noted that more liberal thinking (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly a riskier thing) allows for more questioning of things clearly stated in the scripture and living prophets.  They think they see openings for gays to be sealed in the temple, women to be ordained to the priesthood and sexuality to often be minimized as a sin.

 

While it doesn't matter to me on whether the Flood was global or local, as it has little bearing on the most important things regarding the gospel, we need to look at all evidence - religious and scientific, before coming to any hard conclusions. Not all of it has to be   I've seen good friends and people who have looked beyond this mark and left the Church for this very reason.  We need to ensure that people understand that part of the problem with historicity in the texts is first determining if the author has a correct understanding, and second, if we correctly understand the author.  Too many people insist on a 6000 year old earth from a poor reading of Genesis 1, which may or may not be totally or partially historical.  It is sad to see people walk away from the Church and Christ because of someone's bad eisegesis.

[teddyaware]

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?

I do understand the point you're making with regard to the irrelevancy of historicity when it comes to gaining a testimony of the Restored Gospel, but the only reason why historicity is irrelevant is because revelation from God trumps modern man's established methods of determining what took place in the past. Revelation provides the seeker after truth with a wholly valid and fully effective (in the eyes of God) way to uncover the truth of the past that is an "end run" around the scientific methods employed today by archaeologists, anthropologists and philologists in their diligent attempts to unravel what actually happened in the past. And when a man is privileged to receive a clear and cogent revelation from God, he doesn't testify "with some boldness," but rather testifies with the assurance of complete certainty.  

For example, when Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer testified of the inspired translation, divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon they said:

 

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. " (from the Testimony of the Three Witnesses)

 

As you can see, these three brethren did not testify "with some boldness" but rather with absolute certainty. They actually saw the plates, they actually saw the engravings, they actually saw the angel and they actually heard the voice of God testify to them and command them. So the end of philosophically induced angst will only come when revelation, not the wisdom of men (philosophy), breaks forth into the soul of man and confirms beyond all doubt that, for example, the Nephites and Lamanites did in reality exist as a real people upon the face of the earth who played a significant role in world history. We have all been promised this same kind confirmatory knowledge about earth's past that will leave no room doubt, but we will obtain it only if we seek it with all of our heart, mind and strength... 

 

"5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise (the philosophers) shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man. (D&C 76)

The admission that we can only testify with "some boldness" is proof positive that there is more work to do till we get to the place of blessedness occupied by the sons of Mosiah who "had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God (and) had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

Just think about it: Joseph Smith and the sons of Mosiah didn't testify with "some boldness." They testified with all boldness as those privileged to have obtained  "the more sure word of prophecy." And what they knew and testified to was real and historical.

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I think this idea is where religion got it's legs. Whatever can be learned that helps one be a better person.

So out of that are many stories and parables taught and some stories are completely false but perpetuated anyway for the greater good, many things in scripture for instance.

Also, things I believed were literal, now are to be taken symbolically. Which sort of feels like I've been outright lied to. In our church and in worldwide churches. This doesn't help people's faith in God. Once they believe they've been deceived they turn to where it's not human error but to just science giving the answers. This is a shame, because they don't keep an open mind as much. I guess those that wrote the bible for instance may have embellished stories to help belief along, just as prophets have, IMO.

But in the long run, if they've lied or told white lies, it just creates distrust in the whole system, and people shut it all off. But hopefully they see creation as being far superior to just science alone.

You are assuming that the folks who told you what you now call a "lie" were teaching you a deliberate falsehood, when all they were teaching you is their personal conception of what they defined as "true".

 

The problem was your misunderstanding of what "truth" is, and that was not their fault. When we are children we think as children.  Hopefully at some time in life, we grow up.

Edited August 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

You are assuming that the folks who told you what you now call a "lie" were teaching you a deliberate falsehood, when all they were teaching you is their personal conception of what they defined as "true".

 

The problem was your misunderstanding of what "truth" is, and that was not their fault. When we are children we think as children.  Hopefully at some time in life, we grow up.

I guess so, it was their faith speaking. 

[brainburn]

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'.

Funny thing happened just now, mf.

I just decided after a super long while to check in on MD&D... And I see this excellent post.

I've been thinking about trying one more time to get my point across to you and anyone else interested, but this takes the cake. Bravo freakin 150%. 99% agreement. I'll start a new thread soon...

Edited August 13, 2014 by brainburn

[Spammer]

I do understand the point you're making with regard to the irrelevancy of historicity when it comes to gaining a testimony of the Restored Gospel, but the only reason why historicity is irrelevant is because revelation from God trumps modern man's established methods of determining what took place in the past. Revelation provides the seeker after truth with a wholly valid and fully effective (in the eyes of God) way to uncover the truth of the past that is an "end run" around the scientific methods employed today by archaeologists, anthropologists and philologists in their diligent attempts to unravel what actually happened in the past. And when a man is privileged to receive a clear and cogent revelation from God, he doesn't testify "with some boldness," but rather testifies with the assurance of complete certainty.

If I wanted to believe the Angel Gabriel visited Mohammed in a cave, that I was once abducted and experimented on by aliens, or that I was reincarnated from Alexander the Great, all I need to do is adopt this method, make an end run around science, and just rely on my feelings. It won't matter if no one else believes me. I'll 'just know' that I'm right.

Historicity matters. The deluded are absolutely certain they're right, even though their belief is contradicted by the facts. Strong, inner conviction is not evidence that can be used to test historical claims. If the New Testament did not exist, there was no 2,000 year old tradition telling me about the Incarnation and Resurrection, and someone came up to me to invite me to pray so I can know through revelation that some guy named Jesus rose from the dead a long time ago, I'd say 'heck no!' I would reasonably conclude that the person doing the inviting is likely a kook. Scientific methods can't falsify spiritual experiences but they can falsify historical claims attached to those experiences. If the claims are falsified, then we need to reinterpret our experiences.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

 

Of course. You mean to tell me that you've never wondered if others experience the color blue the same way you do? The center squares on the top and side of the below cube are actually the exact same color. Your eyes and brain play plenty of tricks on you.

 

 

 

 

With the information available to me now, I love my wife. I can think of several scenarios that could possibly change that and make me realize my love was based on a lie. I have to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong based on new evidence. 

 

Of course!  What we each experience as blue is the entire "problem" and it's solution all at once!

 

Ultimately between the two of us in communication it doesn't matter one iota if our experiences are the same or different, practical matters still take precedence.  There is no way to check if your blue is my blue OR if either one of them "corresponds" to "true blue" magically existing "out there" in a world beyond the collective experience of humanity.

 

All any of us have is our direct experiences combined with what others have told us their experiences are.  The latter is called "science"- the collective repeatable experiences of mankind, to which we may all "add a verse" in the great Wikipedia in the sky.

 

But these collective experiences still have nothing to do with our private experiences like what color blue is to us personally, or if we love our wives, or if what we think of as "God" has directly communicated with us.  And the important point is that it is in this private world where everything important in life resides, beyond proof or communication to others.  

 

In this private world we make every decision of our lives, to become Mother Theresa or Charles Manson.

 

That is really the bottom line here.  The stories of the external world may inspire us to greatness or depravity,  but it is ultimately a private decision on how to interpret those stories for each of us.  Wittgenstein says that private languages cannot exist and that is why.  Linguistic communication is always public, the experience of God , or anything, is private.

[thesometimesaint]

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'.

 

I choose to believe. Let others choose to believe or not believe as is their choice.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith and God apparently felt that giving evidence to the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be an important thing.  Providing first Three and then Eight Witnesses as evidence the plates actually exist is clearly something of value.  Nephi saw witnesses/evidences as important, as he claimed Jacob and Isaiah as witnesses with him of Christ. Alma gave to Korihor the evidence of the planetary motions that God lives.

 

That God chose to provide us with the Book of Mormon as a second witness of Christ continues in this vein.

 

While in the long run it may or may not matter how we see the historicity of any of this (did Joseph Smith really exist? Do we exist?), being able to provide possible evidences at least keeps the conversation open.  Such evidences help prevent the spiritual beliefs from being relegated to the dung heap of mythology, along with Zeus, Odin, the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch.  Providing and discussing evidences allows us to retain the importance of the spiritual and remain in a believing state.

 

Of those who doubt the historicity of the Book of Mormon, how many do you suppose also strongly support the Prophet, sustain traditional marriage, believe in chastity, etc?  As I've spent decades online, I've noted that more liberal thinking (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly a riskier thing) allows for more questioning of things clearly stated in the scripture and living prophets.  They think they see openings for gays to be sealed in the temple, women to be ordained to the priesthood and sexuality to often be minimized as a sin.

 

While it doesn't matter to me on whether the Flood was global or local, as it has little bearing on the most important things regarding the gospel, we need to look at all evidence - religious and scientific, before coming to any hard conclusions. Not all of it has to be   I've seen good friends and people who have looked beyond this mark and left the Church for this very reason.  We need to ensure that people understand that part of the problem with historicity in the texts is first determining if the author has a correct understanding, and second, if we correctly understand the author.  Too many people insist on a 6000 year old earth from a poor reading of Genesis 1, which may or may not be totally or partially historical.  It is sad to see people walk away from the Church and Christ because of someone's bad eisegesis.

Good points, similar to those offered to me in conference.  They all speak to how we interpret our private experiences I suppose.

 

I will definitely have to think about it, thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I do understand the point you're making with regard to the irrelevancy of historicity when it comes to gaining a testimony of the Restored Gospel, but the only reason why historicity is irrelevant is because revelation from God trumps modern man's established methods of determining what took place in the past. Revelation provides the seeker after truth with a wholly valid and fully effective (in the eyes of God) way to uncover the truth of the past that is an "end run" around the scientific methods employed today by archaeologists, anthropologists and philologists in their diligent attempts to unravel what actually happened in the past. And when a man is privileged to receive a clear and cogent revelation from God, he doesn't testify "with some boldness," but rather testifies with the assurance of complete certainty.  

For example, when Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer testified of the inspired translation, divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon they said:

 

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. " (from the Testimony of the Three Witnesses)

 

As you can see, these three brethren did not testify "with some boldness" but rather with absolute certainty. They actually saw the plates, they actually saw the engravings, they actually saw the angel and they actually heard the voice of God testify to them and command them. So the end of philosophically induced angst will only come when revelation, not the wisdom of men (philosophy), breaks forth into the soul of man and confirms beyond all doubt that, for example, the Nephites and Lamanites did in reality exist as a real people upon the face of the earth who played a significant role in world history. We have all been promised this same kind confirmatory knowledge about earth's past that will leave no room doubt, but we will obtain it only if we seek it with all of our heart, mind and strength... 

 

"5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise (the philosophers) shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man. (D&C 76)

The admission that we can only testify with "some boldness" is proof positive that there is more work to do till we get to the place of blessedness occupied by the sons of Mosiah who "had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God (and) had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

Just think about it: Joseph Smith and the sons of Mosiah didn't testify with "some boldness." They testified with all boldness as those privileged to have obtained  "the more sure word of prophecy." And what they knew and testified to was real and historical.

Surely you don't mean we shouldn't study history, because we can find out about what probably happened in the 13th century by praying about it?

 

I have no problem with history, just the conclusion that it supports assertions of a spiritual nature.

[mfbukowski]

Strong, inner conviction is not evidence that can be used to test historical claims.

I presume you realize that you are making my case for me.

My point is that historical evidence cannot be used to test strong inner convictions.

[stemelbow]

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'.

I appreciate this train of thought.

I think what we've observed over the years is people begin to question that there is incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon. Once you start realizing the amazing insights on the human condition from sources outside the Book of Mormon and outside the Church it starts to make you wonder whether the book itself is as helpful and insightful as we like to tell ourselves. It trickles from there. Once you start to get that impression you have to ask yourself, well what of this Book of Mormon? Is it really ancient? Peak into that question, building on the doubts of it really holding amazing insights, and suddenly your left wondering what in the world we're dealing with here. Ask questions about whether the book is of ancient origin and the defenses tend to look a little weak.

The faithful can't understand how a doubter has such difficulty with the issues of historicity and the critic can't understand why the faithful, in effect, shuts off his/her mind. Impasse. Mockery ensues on both sides and here we are.

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

What about the facts that science has taught us? They are not important? 

[teddyaware]

If I wanted to believe the Angel Gabriel visited Mohammed in a cave, that I was once abducted and experimented on by aliens, or that I was reincarnated from Alexander the Great, all I need to do is adopt this method, make an end run around science, and just rely on my feelings.  It won't matter if no one else believes me.  I'll 'just know' that I'm right.

 

Historicity matters.  The deluded are absolutely certain they're right, even though their belief is contradicted by the facts.  Strong, inner conviction is not evidence that can be used to test historical claims.

You obviously misunderstood my post. I was clearly saying that historicity does matter but that modern science has no way of being able to uncover all historic truth, much of which is totally lost forever to human view, and will remain forever lost and unknown without revelation from God. In the end, the "end run" of revelation will prove to be correct, as it will in the case of the real historical existence of the Nephites and the Lamanites.

As an aside, I suppose one of the greatest of divine means to uncover all of the lost (to science) truths and mysteries of the past will be the resurrection from the dead. All those who ever lived will once again live but with perfect recall and recollection, and by this means the combined human race be able to fill in all the blanks that historians of all sorts, despite their very best efforts, will never, ever be able to uncover. It is only through God that the full truth of the past will be uncovered. 

You also seem to have missed the point that the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon testified to a very real experience they all shared, and that by that holy encounter they learned from God Himself, and the angel, that there was once flourishing nation of pre-Columbian Christians who inhabited ancient America. And in addition to the three witnesses' theophany, they also examined, up close and personal, the very real and historical gold alloy plates upon which was engraved the sacred Nephite record. These witnesses discovered, much to their joy, that the Nephites were real living, breathing historical people who once held, treasured  and wrote on those same plates of "curious workmanship (from the testimony of the eight witnesses)." So as you can see,  this is one example of where the so-called divine "end run" shines.

And as far as your Korihor-like unbelief is concerned, that is par for the course because the natural man is always going to think the things of God are delusions and foolishness, so I take no offence. You're only doing what comes natural; and that's the way it ought to be because the mind of natural man has always been, and forever will be, an enemy to the things of God. And so we read:

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

and again,

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3)

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate this train of thought.

I think what we've observed over the years is people begin to question that there is incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon. Once you start realizing the amazing insights on the human condition from sources outside the Book of Mormon and outside the Church it starts to make you wonder whether the book itself is as helpful and insightful as we like to tell ourselves. It trickles from there. Once you start to get that impression you have to ask yourself, well what of this Book of Mormon? Is it really ancient? Peak into that question, building on the doubts of it really holding amazing insights, and suddenly your left wondering what in the world we're dealing with here. Ask questions about whether the book is of ancient origin and the defenses tend to look a little weak.

The faithful can't understand how a doubter has such difficulty with the issues of historicity and the critic can't understand why the faithful, in effect, shuts off his/her mind. Impasse. Mockery ensues on both sides and here we are.

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.

I should have said this in the OP.

 

Edit:  In fact, I am going to edit the OP to include this.

Edited August 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

I presume you realize that you are making my case for me.

My point is that historical evidence cannot be used to test strong inner convictions.

Yes, I do realize, and I agree. My reply is more narrowly focused on the subset of strong inner convictions that involve testable historical claims.

[teddyaware]

Surely you don't mean we shouldn't study history, because we can find out about what probably happened in the 13th century by praying about it?

 

I have no problem with history, just the conclusion that it supports assertions of a spiritual nature.

... and I agree. All I'm saying is that modern historical method, while often valuable and somewhat effective, has its very real limitations, and that if one relies solely on it for understanding the truth of the past, he will never be saved.

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[smac97]

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.

Then we appear to be talking past each other.

 

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.

I do not understand this. Faith is based on something, right? It should be based principally on promptings from the Spirit. The Spirit is therefore a form of evidence. It's probative value is not only not "irrelevant," it is vital.

The Book of Mormon is presented as evidence. It was given "to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." How can the evidentiary value of The Book of Mormon be "irrelevant?"

When Nephi confronted the wicked judges as described in Helaman 8, he marshaled evidence. He spoke of "all the words which have been spoken by our fathers, and also the words which were spoken by this man, Moses" (v. 13), of how Moses "(bore) record that the Son of God should come" (v. 14), of how Moses testified, as did "all the holy prophets (v. 16). Nephi goes on to cite the testimony of Abraham, Zenock, Ezias, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Nephi presents these things as evidence. He even specifically refers to them as such (see v. 24 ("And now, seeing ye know these things and cannot deny them except ye shall lie, therefore in this ye have sinned, for ye have rejected all these things, notwithstanding so many evidences which ye have received..."). Testimony is, by definition, "evidence." I am therefore at a loss to understand how the probative value of such things are, in your view "irrelevant in matters of faith." If The Book of Mormon is "irrelevant," then why has so much effort been made in preserving, transmitting and translating it so that it is available in our day?

I previously brought up 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?

Historicity is a problem if people actually think it is relevant in spiritual matters.

I do not understand this. Perhaps you can explain what you understand "historicity" to mean. I would really like to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you could also explain what you understand "evidence" to mean, and also "proof." I think you are using these words in ways which are different from my understanding of them. If so, and if I am incorrect in my understanding, I would like to be corrected on these points.

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.

I don't understand what this has to do with historicity.

I believe that the historicity of Jesus Christ is a necessary component of having meaningful faith in Him. If a person rejects that historicity (that is, if a person asserts that Jesus Christ is a fictional construct, that he never existed, that he is simply a literary figure and not actually the Son of God), then I don't see how such a faith can any meaning or effect. It would be like me believing that Atticus Finch was one of the greatest attorneys in the history of the United States, or that the current conflict in the Middle East will be resolved by The Avengers. Atticus Finch never existed, he lacks historicity, ergo he cannot be said to have been a great attorney. The Avengers are fictional, they lack historicity, ergo it would be foolish to believe that the conflict in the Middle East will be resolved by them. If Jesus Christ is fictional, if He lacks historicity, then faith in Him is futile. He never existed, ergo there was no great and eternal sacrifice, no Atonement, no redemption of men, ergo no need for faith in Him or adherence to the fictional precepts dressed up as coming from the Son-of-God-who-was-just-a-figment-of-the-imagination.

In contrast, if Jesus Christ really did exist, if He does have historicity, then there is all the reason in the world to have faith in Him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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

You believe Jesus Christ exists? That He has historicity?

Also, how did you arrive at this "direct spiritual experience?" Did The Book of Mormon and other Scriptures have anything to do with this determination?

I guess I'm wondering if you subscribe to a macro view of "historicity," but not necessarily a "micro" one. That is, you believe that Jesus Christ really existed as an actual person, born to Mary, grew up Nazareth and its environs, actually walked around and interacted with people, actually fasted for 40 days, actually ascended the Mount of Transfiguration, actually performed miracles and taught vital truths, etc. You believe that these things actually happened, that they have "historicity," as opposed to being fictional stories. This is what I would call the "macro" view of the historicity of Jesus Christ. However, on a "micro" level, historicity becomes less vital. For example, it is immaterial to you whether the parable of the Good Samaritan describes an actual event or is a fictional account told to make a doctrinal point. It is also irrelevant to you if the NHM altars are or are not evidence of the historicity of the place described as "Nahom" in 1 Nephi 16:34.  Such evidence is interesting, perhaps, but not essential to faith in the Restored Gospel.

 

Does the foregoing paragraph accurately state your position?  I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am instead just trying to understand your position.  And since we seem to be misunderstanding each other, I thought the foregoing paragraph might help bridge the gap in communications between us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2014 by smac97

[Senator]

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."

 

 

I will add in connection with what you are saying, that I am confused as to who the "We" are that Mark is talking about.  Whom is the OP addressing?

[stemelbow]

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.

I should have said this in the OP.

I see. The strength of our position then needs to remain our focus. What insights on human condition does the BoM have wherein we are not likely to find elsewhere? How do we remain convincing to those who doubt the notion that the BoM has special and amazing insight?