What If There Is No Way To Distinguish A Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

Actually I am saved by Grace after all I can do - 2nd nephi 25:23

Oh gosh, I got a word wrong.

Thanks for the correction.

[mfbukowski]

real faith can only be invested in that which is true.  Otherwise wise it is misplaced trust.  I get arriving at truth is in some aspects impossible, and yet truth matters.

But you still don't know what "truth" is.  You have no definition and that is where you go wrong

[mfbukowski]

Of course, it is irrelevant to one's salvation, Mark.

But I liked your earlier statement about this better:  "Historicity doesn't matter unless you think it does."

I'll even grant that "If you believe actual historicity is important that becomes the problem.  The problem is all in your head."

 

However, as you know, I have an affectation with historicity, even though it is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, if only because it seems so important to extracting meaning from Holy Writ.  If, for example, a Holy text is not ancient, is a pseudepigraphon, and has no real ties with antiquity, then we do not need to interpret it based on ancient linguistic or textual analysis and cultural understanding.  It then becomes a mirror of the age in which it was created, and may mean nearly anything which a post-modernist wants it to mean.  Internal coherence then is not necessarily important, and may be disregarded with impunity.

 

Since faith is all important, as you point out, then that may be the only legitimate consideration.  Where does that leave us when under attack by ill wishers?  Should we have a ready defense (apologia), and should it ever include historical claims?  The late Apostle Neal Maxwell believed that, even though it is ultimately unnecessary, we should provide such intellectual defenses -- if only because those who have little faith can be so easily swayed by fallacious and non-factual arguments.  President Gordon Hinckley even thought that FARMS represented exactly the right approach to such matters, and so brought FARMS into the BYU fold.  On that basis, work and debate on historicity is important.

Non believers are just as vulnerable as we are on a deflationary theory of truth, which many many philosophers hold, both atheists and believers.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[mfbukowski]

Of course, it is irrelevant to one's salvation, Mark.

But I liked your earlier statement about this better:  "Historicity doesn't matter unless you think it does."

I'll even grant that "If you believe actual historicity is important that becomes the problem.  The problem is all in your head."

 

However, as you know, I have an affectation with historicity, even though it is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, if only because it seems so important to extracting meaning from Holy Writ.  If, for example, a Holy text is not ancient, is a pseudepigraphon, and has no real ties with antiquity, then we do not need to interpret it based on ancient linguistic or textual analysis and cultural understanding.  It then becomes a mirror of the age in which it was created, and may mean nearly anything which a post-modernist wants it to mean.  Internal coherence then is not necessarily important, and may be disregarded with impunity.

 

Since faith is all important, as you point out, then that may be the only legitimate consideration.  Where does that leave us when under attack by ill wishers?  Should we have a ready defense (apologia), and should it ever include historical claims?  The late Apostle Neal Maxwell believed that, even though it is ultimately unnecessary, we should provide such intellectual defenses -- if only because those who have little faith can be so easily swayed by fallacious and non-factual arguments.  President Gordon Hinckley even thought that FARMS represented exactly the right approach to such matters, and so brought FARMS into the BYU fold.  On that basis, work and debate on historicity is important.

I do not mean to disparage history or scholarship in historical topics, though it might seem that I do.  On the contrary I find it a very valuable pursuit- to me it is just that I am seeking to show that the need for historical belief in spiritual topics should be a stop-gap measure in one's spiritual progression. 

 

I think in one's spiritual progression one must eventually move to where factual evidence is unimportant because one has so internalized spiritual beliefs and principles that one moves even beyond belief into a habit of attitude in the way one sees the world.

 

I wish I could get there, but an example of this might be that instead of worry about whether Jesus was "real" we see his teachings as an ideal path to emulate where what he said is less important than BECOMING what we think he said we should be.

 

My goal, as far as I am from it, is to become an idealized and fully actualized human being where every thought and action becomes what an ideal human would do and think in every situation.  That will take an eternity- I have no doubt- and clearly one stage in that progression would be deciding what characteristics an "ideal" human should have.  The stories of Christ describe such a perfect being who commands us to be perfect like him, and to me THAT is the important part of the gospel.

 

I know in my heart that Jesus lived and lives again and is alive today.  I have that testimony which I think it justified to say "I know it is true".  I also know it is true he visited the BOM peoples.

 

But the reality is, in the day to day struggle to BECOME, the facts become irrelevant.  I am thinking about what I lack, what I should and could have done instead of the stupid way I handled a given situation.  Yet I also know that those human failings are forgiven at least partially because I am striving to do my very best.

 

Not once in my day while I am concentrating on BECOMING, does a thought of the historicity of these beliefs cloud a single moment.

 

If one is focused on becoming an IDEAL, the actual becomes irrelevant.  Putting that in historical terms, history gives us lessons on what NOT to do and what mistakes not to do again and so is extremely valuable.   History is the equivalent of reflection on one's mistakes in the past- not the IDEAL we hope to achieve.  So for me, history becomes humanity's memory of past struggles proving that all have fallen short, and that we can do better.

 

But at some point we have to turn to the actual job of becoming better, and for me that is where the stories of Jesus teach me how to live my life.

 

Suppose those stories were never actually said.

 

I think they come from thousands of years of humans stating their most noble beliefs- they have become the collective statement of ideal behavior for all humanity.  And I think the person Jesus said them.  But that becomes almost irrelevant when I am trying to live those principles.  What is important to me in those moments, is the effort to become an example of those ancient words.

 

So yes, history is great, but in the final analysis it only makes us better as a negative example, almost by definition.  At its best it can only attempt to represent what actually happened, not the way it should have been.

Edited September 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Non believers are just as vulnerable as we are on a deflationary theory of truth, which many many philosophers hold, both atheists and believers.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Yes, C. S. Lewis noted that, while an atheist, he read subversive Christian literature -- and was converted!!

So, yes, both sides in the debate are vulnerable, although the deflationary theory makes debate nearly impossible.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I'm not convinced that the only reason we know about Christians was because of Constantine.  He didn't endorse the Yazidi or the Mandeans and yet we know about them.  Also, Christians left symbols -- the fish and some rudimentary crosses.  And, as you say, newly discovered texts including the Nag Hammadi Gnostic literature.  .................................

The Mandaeans are not Christian, and are an ancient gnostic sect which reveres John the Baptist.  We would certainly have some data on the failed Christian sects without Constantine, but the overall picture would be cloudy and our estimates of it wrong in many respects -- as our estimate of gnosticism was so wrong until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi collection.  Similarly, we did not at all understand pre-Christian Judaism until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Now we see so clearly that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum.

 

What is "Biblical Cosmology?"  Monotheism and ex nihlo creation?

No.  Biblical cosmology is polytheistic and represents creation from already extant materials in chaos.

 

Before considering the possible relevance of parallels I suppose I'd need to understand what Graulich means by this.  Also, isn't the Popul Vuh considered highly unreliable due to Spanish influence?  If there are Biblical parallels isn't it possible that they came from Spanish Christianity?

No. The Mayan Popol Vuh is very reliable on pre-Spanish beliefs.

In 1971 Michael Coe of Yale “read” the same story on ancient Mayan funerary pottery as found in the text of the Popol Vuh (which Coe insists is comparable to the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead)* – a complex tale of Hero Twins, Hunahpu & Xbalanqué (and their father & uncle), at the center of elaborate rites of passage (ritual journey) from Creation, through Death (Xibalba), to Resurrection – and which is virtually the same as the well-known Old World mystery-religion sequence.  The late Cyrus Gordon provided in that same year a systematic comparison of the New World Hero Twins tale with very similar tales of twins from both Ugaritic and Egyptian literature and religion, such as “The Tale of Two Brothers: Bata & Anubis,” and “The Contendings of Horus & Seth.”  This includes, for example, the Hero Twins being put to death “in a bonfire” and crushed “on a grindstone, as corn meal is ground,” just as Ugaritic-Canaanite Mot “Death” was burned and ground up before being resurrected.  It also includes the Hero Twins being born of Xquic, who was fertilized by a god, just as the Ugaritic Twins were the sons of a woman impregnated by ‘El.  One even finds the earth rising from the primeval sea in both Popol Vuh and ancient Egyptian religion.

 

*  Coe in Visible Language, V (1971), 293-307; Coe, The Maya Scribe and His World (Grolier Club, 1973); Coe, Lords of the Underworld – Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics (Princeton Univ. Press, 1978).

 

.................................... But is Farriss really suggesting that sacrifice is a legitimate connection to the Old World?  Many ancient cultures conducted sacrifices -- human or animal.  If this is a connection then I could also argue that Hinduism is either influenced, or was influenced by Mesopotamia.  Also, what does she mean by communion?  Bread and wine?  Because many religions have ceremony that involves food.  I guess I need to read her entire argument.  Is she actually arguing for an Old World influence?  Or is it more of "hey, look how interesting it is that disparate cultures came up with similar religious rites."  Without having read more fully it would seem that these are descriptions of traits common to human civilizations but just because there are pyramids in Egypt and Mesoamerica that doesn't mean contact between the two.  I guess the more I learn about ancient religion the more I come to think Jung was onto something with his notion of the "collective unconscious."

You don't have to be a diffusionist, or an afficionado of the late Joseph Campbell to believe that certain very detailed similarities exist in distant cultures, and Farriss doesn't address that question.

 

One more thing.  Many cultures and religions have "synthesized" old and new but this in no way implies contact or connection.  I'm thinking of Zen Buddhism, for example.  It is the synthesis of Vedic philosophy (via Buddhism), Buddhism, Taoism and in Japan, Shamanism.  Just because the Zen patriarchs melded traditions together doesn't say anything about contact or influence between these ancient traditions.

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

Well, both Hinduism and Buddhism originated in the same Indian sub-continent, and both have had a profound effect on Asian philosophy and religion.  They share some things in common (and have clearly been in contact for a long period), but are actually very different.  However, it would really be no heresy to see close similarities between typical Hindu puja and the ancient Egyptian daily rituals at tombs and temples.  Many scholars have pointed to such parallels without being condemned.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If we found an inscription in Mesoamerica (or Ohio for you Meldrum fans) that read: "I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents was here" it would go a very long way in not just estabishing the historicity of the BoM but also its divinity.  

 

Except that's not how ancient inscriptions work. Some researcher would translate the inscription to read, 'I, Nph, lived here'. This datum would then languish in some obscure research journal for years until finally some Latter-day Saint noticed it and had an ah-ha moment. Here, she would proclaim, is evidence of Nephi. But then the critics would immediately point out -- correctly -- that no one has any idea which or how many vowels should be in this name, whether or not the 'ph' should be sounded as an aspirated P or as an F, etc. To which LDS apologists would respond that we have no idea really how Nephi's name was pronounced by Nephi and that the consonants at least indicate that a name like Nephi was being used in Mesoamerica at the exactly right time. To which would come charges of clinging to mere coincidence and lacking a serious lack of systamiticity in how such coincidences should be analysed, coupled with endless debate on exactly how Joseph Smith 'translated' the names in the Book of Mormon. About this point in time the Meldrumites would pipe up and point out that the inscription might well have been translated 'Nephi' and it still wouldn't matter because any ancient Nephi in Mesoamerica clearly had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon anyway. Which would lead the apostates to chuckle amongst themselves on their message boards about how the Church was about to completely implode over issues of geography, resulting in even more predictions that within five more years the internet would prove the death of 'Mormonism'.

 

Meanwhile the average Latter-day Saint would never even be aware of the debate -- or only encounter it in passing -- but instead faithfully go on building his life around the teachings of Nephi et al., reaping the sweet fruit thereof.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[MormonFreeThinker]

Of course, this says nothing about supernatural events in David's life.  But the inscription tends to support the Biblical assertion that such a person existed.  

 

The King David inscription was discovered in 1993, before 1993 we had no archaeological evidence for King David. It is much harder to find evidences for the Book of Mormon, because Mesoamerica is a totally different environment, and

 

"We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite" 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/behind-the-mask-behind-the-curtain-uncovering-the-illusion-a-review-of-the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon

 

and I think that a lot of loan-shifting happened, so it is very hard to find evidences for the Book of Mormon in the new world, but the Book of Mormon in the Near East is a totally different story. Everything that the Book of Mormon mentions during Lehi's journey has been discovered. 

Edited September 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

  There have indeed been people like me, John Sorenson, and others, who once thought that the Book of Mormon took place throughout the Americas (South America, North America, and Central America all included), but when we grew up realized just how foolish that assumption was.

 

 

Well, at least we are God's fools and have decades of General Authority statements to back us up. 

 

I don't see the opening post's problems.  The Lamanites are Amerinds and the descendants of the Conquistadors.  

[sethpayne]

I disagree.

 

How so?  If strong linguistic, archeological, or other evidence were found that established -- as much as is possible -- that Nephi (or Moroni etc..

.) was a real, living human being then this would be a HUGE indication that 1) JS was telling and accurate story about his heavenly visitations, the plates, and the translation and therefore 2) the Book of Mormon came about by supernatural means because it would align with Joseph Smith's story.  Same thing with the city of Troy.  It was considered mythical until it was found!  Finding Zarahemla would not only support the historicity of the BoM but also its divinity because it implies supernatural knowledge by JS.

 

But if we are talking purely about spiritual value and how it plays out in people's lives then of course, historicity and evidence of any kind is of no importance.

[sethpayne]

Except that's not how ancient inscriptions work. Some researcher would translate the inscription to read, 'I, Nph, lived here'. This datum would then languish in some obscure research journal for years until finally some Latter-day Saint noticed it and had an ah-ha moment. Here, she would proclaim, is evidence of Nephi. But then the critics would immediately point out -- correctly -- that no one has any idea which or how many vowels should be in this name, whether or not the 'ph' should be sounded as an aspirated P or as an F, etc. To which LDS apologists would respond that we have no idea really how Nephi's name was pronounced by Nephi and that the consonants at least indicate that a name like Nephi was being used in Mesoamerica at the exactly right time. To which would come charges of clinging to mere coincidence and lacking a serious lack of systamiticity in how such coincidences should be analysed, coupled with endless debate on exactly how Joseph Smith 'translated' the names in the Book of Mormon. About this point in time the Meldrumites would pipe up and point out that the inscription might well have been translated 'Nephi' and it still wouldn't matter because any ancient Nephi in Mesoamerica clearly had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon anyway. Which would lead the apostates to chuckle amongst themselves on their message boards about how the Church was about to completely implode over issues of geography, resulting in even more predictions that within five more years the internet would prove the death of 'Mormonism'.

 

Meanwhile the average Latter-day Saint would never even be aware of the debate -- or only encounter it in passing -- but instead faithfully go on building his life around the teachings of Nephi et al., reaping the sweet fruit thereof.

 

Aren't Egyptian and Mesoamerican hieroglyphics examples of ancienter *literature*?  Don't we know much about ancient Egypt because of the writing they left behind.  (certainly I agree that "I Nph" found carved in a rock is ambiguous -- just like NHM -- but if we found Alma 32 written on the walls of a newly-discovered  mesoamerican temple... that's different.  Forgive the hyperbole )  

 

But I understand and appreciate your wider point -- that study of the past is not nearly as straightforward as we may expect.  

[sethpayne]

 

 

Well, both Hinduism and Buddhism originated in the same Indian sub-continent, and both have had a profound effect on Asian philosophy and religion.  They share some things in common (and have clearly been in contact for a long period), but are actually very different.  However, it would really be no heresy to see close similarities between typical Hindu puja and the ancient Egyptian daily rituals at tombs and temples.  Many scholars have pointed to such parallels without being condemned.

 

Given my wife's background I am very familiar with Buddhism.   And of course Buddhism and Hinduism are closely and directly related because Gotama was a Hindu.  Most likely a reformer given his traditionally understood dissatisfaction with his experience among Brahmins and ascetics.

 

That is why I mentioned *Zen* Buddhism specifically.  It, unlike "mainline" Mahayana or Theraveda Buddhism is a mixture of Hinduism, Chinese Taoism, and in Japan, ancient Shamanism.  I'm simply observing that because Zen Buddhism melded Japanese Shamanism and Hindu Vedic Monism, that doesn't indicate any ancient connection between the two. 

 

 

 

No.  Biblical cosmology is polytheistic and represents creation from already extant materials in chaos.

 

My old OT professor, John Collins, would be very interested to learn this!  Certainly this is *one* view of Biblical cosmology but certainly not the only or definitive view.  I agree that the OT is henotheistic (at least in terms of the Israelites) but I am curious what text you feel supports "creation from already extant materials in the chaos".  Clearly this is more of your area of expertise than mine and so I am asking simply because this specific claim is new to me.

 

 

 

No. The Mayan Popol Vuh is very reliable on pre-Spanish beliefs.

 

Interesting.  Yet another indication of my ignorance.  

 

 

 

You don't have to be a diffusionist, or an afficionado of the late Joseph Campbell to believe that certain very detailed similarities exist in distant cultures, and Farriss doesn't address that question.

 

Of course.  But in the case of the BoM what's the point of noticing similarities if not to establish contact or connection?  If that isn't the goal then this line of argumentation -- at least as an apologetic -- seems somewhat irrelevant.

 

ETA:  I am enjoying this conversation and appreciate you indulging me Robert.  Same goes for you Hamba!

Edited September 20, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

The King David inscription was discovered in 1993, before 1993 we had no archaeological evidence for King David. It is much harder to find evidences for the Book of Mormon, because Mesoamerica is a totally different environment, and

 

"We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite" 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/behind-the-mask-behind-the-curtain-uncovering-the-illusion-a-review-of-the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon

 

and I think that a lot of loan-shifting happened, so it is very hard to find evidences for the Book of Mormon in the new world, but the Book of Mormon in the Near East is a totally different story. Everything that the Book of Mormon mentions during Lehi's journey has been discovered. 

 

Thanks, MFT.  Interesting perspective.

[DBMormon]

Oh gosh, I got a word wrong.

Thanks for the correction.

It wasn't me being snippy, but rather that one word changes a lot and impacts what your were saying at the end.

[Tacenda]

I listened to this Mormon Stories with Brent Metcalf where he discusses the BoM, and now listening to the newest one about the BoA.  I just wish I could zone in and listen better, my mind is wandering like crazy.  Have you listened to it DB?  He does mention that he doesn't think JS is trying to con people with the BoA, and that it is sincere. Maybe this thread could make room to discuss the newest one about the BoA, or not. 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, C. S. Lewis noted that, while an atheist, he read subversive Christian literature -- and was converted!!

So, yes, both sides in the debate are vulnerable, although the deflationary theory makes debate nearly impossible.

Actually it makes debate unnecessary, and that is why I don't worry about it.

 

So that is why I always ask people what their theory of truth is- and of course most don't have an answer, or cannot refute the deflationary theory of truth, which I think is irrefutable.

 

So if the deflationary theory is "true"- and indeed that IS an appropriate statement IN the deflationary theory (which states that we already know what "true" means, but there literally isn't much to be said about it) THEN I am right that there is not much point in debating all this.

 

So in order to attack my position, I think one would have to attack the deflationary theory of truth.

 

Another way of saying this is, to me at least, anti-Mormons need to attack the deflationary theory of truth to make Mormonism "false", and I don't think anyone is prepared to do that.

 

Riskas attempts miserably to do so in his "Deconstructing Mormonism" and Boghossian does so also in "Fear of Knowledge" but both make cases against strawman characterizations of deflationism.  It seems those stuck in correspondence cannot really break clear of it long enough to even truly understand deflationism in order to make a good case against it.  Typically the come up with something like "well if truth is relative, then even that statement that truth is relative is a relativistic position and therefore false"

 

They don't seem to realize that for a relativist, the above statement could end with the word "true" and still also be just as correct!

 

The entire point is that there is no clear way to define "truth", just as there is no clear way to verbally state the experience of "red", but like obscenity "one knows it when one sees it", and indeed people may differ on what the word means.  But that does not mean that nothing is true, no more than nothing is red, or obscene.

 

So for a relativist, the fact that the statement "the truth is relative" is itself neither true nor false is not an important argument.  In fact THAT is the thesis they are making themselves, so for one to say that, the relativist response might just be "Yes, you're right!"

 

It's kind of like "Who's on first"- when indeed Mr Who really IS on first base!  The question itself becomes a linguistic trick.  Statements about truth are neither true nor false, they are simply utterances of agreement or disagreement, like saying something is "right" or "wrong".

 

We as Mormons seem to fear philosophy totally without a reason to do so- contemporary postmodern philosophy is the best friend Mormonism ever had, but that seems to be the best kept secret in theology.

 

So Bob, I know you also consider yourself a "postmodern" in at least some respects, but we seem to differ on this truth issue, right?

 

Then I often hear the quote that in Mormonism, truth is "knowing things as they are".  I have no problem with that- for me, "things as they are" are the way we experience them.

 

So if I have a spiritual experience, that is an experience of "things as they are" just as an experience of red is an experience of "things as they are" or an experience of love is an experience of "things as they are" from a phenomenological point of view. 

 

So for me, my view is indeed the scriptural definition of truth- things are as we experience them, and the way we experience them IS "as they are".

 

And mistakes are mistakes.  So what if I am confused at seeing a mirage or getting thrown off by an optical illusion?  Do I need a whole ontology to explain optical illusions?   I don't think so.  They are linguistic statements which don't work in the real world and are therefore "false".  Nothing more needs to be said about them.

Edited September 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How so?  If strong linguistic, archeological, or other evidence were found that established -- as much as is possible -- that Nephi (or Moroni etc..

.) was a real, living human being then this would be a HUGE indication that 1) JS was telling and accurate story about his heavenly visitations, the plates, and the translation and therefore 2) the Book of Mormon came about by supernatural means because it would align with Joseph Smith's story.  Same thing with the city of Troy.  It was considered mythical until it was found!  Finding Zarahemla would not only support the historicity of the BoM but also its divinity because it implies supernatural knowledge by JS.

 

But if we are talking purely about spiritual value and how it plays out in people's lives then of course, historicity and evidence of any kind is of no importance.

I honestly think you are wrong about the first paragraph here and exactly right on the last.

 

Suppose archaeological evidence were found that indeed alien visitors had visited this planet.  Note that I am not even suggesting, as you are, that these visits were "supernatural".  They were perfectly natural beings from another planet.  Indeed organizations like SETI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence are set up specifically to find such beings but yet if one suggests that such visits have already happened, one becomes a kook.

 

What would be the response?  Clearly any possible conclusion other than an alien visit would be found to debunk the possibility, and the believers would be labeled "kooks" as was Van Daniken, etc. 

 

There is always an alternative explanation for anything anyone is unwilling to accept!

 

Also, science will simply not accept anything that is "supernatural" since such things do not exist according to science as it is presently constituted.  So ANY other explanation would be created to counter the possibility that Joseph was actually a prophet.

 

The newly found inscriptions were forgeries, they were a prank, they were a coincidence, etc.  Many do not even believe that the person Jesus was a "real living being", and you think that Moroni could be proven to be such by a few inscriptions?

 

Perhaps Joseph found the story under your scenario, from someone else, perhaps a Native American who was familiar with such stories.   I think of Carlos Casteneda's "Don Juan", who in this scenario, might have been an authentic shaman in our analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda

 

Under such a scenario, Joseph still would be seen as a fraud, constructing the BOM on a shard of information from the shaman, even if the alleged shaman was never proven to be real.   After all, the other explanations would be too unbelievable to accept.

 

I am also reminded of the various theories that Joseph was not the author of the BOM, but stole the whole idea from various works of literature.  The only difference between these explanations and the hypothetical one we are now dreaming up would include the idea that Joseph was given correct names of legendary figures which had been passed through the generations.

 

Or rather than getting it from someone else, perhaps Joseph himself found such evidence and concocted the rest of the BOM from some tiny shard of evidence he himself had happened upon. 

 

Perhaps this, perhaps that, whatever evidence was found would be discounted, because the dominant belief is that the supernatural does not exist, so that could not possibly be the explanation.

 

Even if Zarahemla were found, Joseph's testimony could be discounted.  He found out about it some other way, since it is impossible that it was revealed by angels.

 

Think of what Mormon archaeologists think of the site of "Nahom" and compare that to what secular archaeologists think of the same "evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

 

I think that is precisely on point for your proof of "Moroni" and how it would be handled.

 

But if we are talking purely about spiritual value and how it plays out in people's lives then of course, historicity and evidence of any kind is of no importance.

Now on that point, we are in perfect accord! 

[SmileyMcGee]

But what you are not seeing is this:

Historicity can NEVER BE PROVEN, therefore it is irrelevant and always has been

What matters in your life is your FAITH in the BELIEF that it all "really happened" even though it cannot be proven to have happened.

You are not saved by historicity, you are saved by faith after all that you can do

Can you prove there is a god or that JS saw god or that the BOM is god's word or that Jesus atoned for you? If you can't then your beliefs are irrelevant because what you can't prove is irrelevant. You are saved by belief in things that you want to be true.

You have a very interesting approach to the gospel.

Edited September 22, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

My old OT professor, John Collins, would be very interested to learn this!  Certainly this is *one* view of Biblical cosmology but certainly not the only or definitive view.  I agree that the OT is henotheistic (at least in terms of the Israelites) but I am curious what text you feel supports "creation from already extant materials in the chaos".  Clearly this is more of your area of expertise than mine and so I am asking simply because this specific claim is new to me.

The strongest evidence is the powerful effect of comparison with the same Creation sequence (in the same order) in Enuma elish, and the actual text in both makes the pre-existent material very clear.  Genesis 1:1-3, for example, is not only a set of conditional clauses, but it is clear to most biblical scholars that the creatio ex nihilo interpretation was imposed due to later dogma (Judeo-Christian), not because the text actually reads that way.  See, for example, Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), 9-13, who says that one must allow the text to speak for itself, despite any theological considerations.

His translation of Gen 1:1-3,

When God set about to create heaven and earth--the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water--God said, "Let there be  light."  And there was light.

 

In fact, as noted by David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament (2014), I:91, Victor Hurowitz claims direct dependence on Enuma elish for Gen 1.  In fact, Bokovoy notes that Gen 1:1-3 is indeed a series of dependent clauses, and that this is followed by the Jewish Publication Society version, and he agrees that creatio ex nihilo is a late theological overlay (97-98).  I'm quite surprised that John J. Collins is not on board with this.

 

Of course.  But in the case of the BoM what's the point of noticing similarities if not to establish contact or connection?  If that isn't the goal then this line of argumentation -- at least as an apologetic -- seems somewhat irrelevant.

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

I mentioned Joseph Campbell because he was a Jungian and accepted the notion of the collective unconscious.  Just trying to be fair and cover all bases, apologetic or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

Interesting question in the OP, DBMormon.

 

Does anyone know if missionaries who are called to serve in south, central American countries are told that they will be preaching to the Lamanites. It used to be a common rallying cry and a source of excitement to teach the ancestors of the Lamanites. I'm just curious if that claim is still being made.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Riskas attempts miserably to do so in his "Deconstructing Mormonism" and Boghossian does so also in "Fear of Knowledge" but both make cases against strawman characterizations of deflationism.  It seems those stuck in correspondence cannot really break clear of it long enough to even truly understand deflationism in order to make a good case against it.  Typically they come up with something like "well if truth is relative, then even that statement that truth is relative is a relativistic position and therefore false"

 

They don't seem to realize that for a relativist, the above statement could end with the word "true" and still also be just as correct!

Thank you for calling these books to my attention.  Kerry Shirts' response to Riskas was predictable:  http://www.amazon.com/review/R1UTQ25BP7RKMT/ref=cm_cr_quotes_dprb_0?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1578840074&nodeID=283155&store=books .

 

The entire point is that there is no clear way to define "truth", just as there is no clear way to verbally state the experience of "red", but like obscenity "one knows it when one sees it", and indeed people may differ on what the word means.  But that does not mean that nothing is true, no more than nothing is red, or obscene.

 

So for a relativist, the fact that the statement "the truth is relative" is itself neither true nor false is not an important argument.  In fact THAT is the thesis they are making themselves, so for one to say that, the relativist response might just be "Yes, you're right!"

 

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

 

We as Mormons seem to fear philosophy totally without a reason to do so- contemporary postmodern philosophy is the best friend Mormonism ever had, but that seems to be the best kept secret in theology.

 

So Bob, I know you also consider yourself a "postmodern" in at least some respects, but we seem to differ on this truth issue, right?

Possibly, but only because I prefer the forensic, scientific approach to fact, and think that sound modes of interpretation of the facts may get us very close to the "truth."  I believe that I am covered by Wittgenstein's correct observation that words mean what they are used to mean.

 

Then I often hear the quote that in Mormonism, truth is "knowing things as they are".  I have no problem with that- for me, "things as they are" are the way we experience them.

 

So if I have a spiritual experience, that is an experience of "things as they are" just as an experience of red is an experience of "things as they are" or an experience of love is an experience of "things as they are" from a phenomenological point of view. 

 

So for me, my view is indeed the scriptural definition of truth- things are as we experience them, and the way we experience them IS "as they are".

 

And mistakes are mistakes.  So what if I am confused at seeing a mirage or getting thrown off by an optical illusion?  Do I need a whole ontology to explain optical illusions?   I don't think so.  They are linguistic statements which don't work in the real world and are therefore "false".  Nothing more needs to be said about them.

O.K. by me, Mark.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

There is always an alternative explanation for anything anyone is unwilling to accept!

Certainly.  But are all such alternative explanations equal?

 

Also, science will simply not accept anything that is "supernatural" since such things do not exist according to science as it is presently constituted.  So ANY other explanation would be created to counter the possibility that Joseph was actually a prophet.

Since perception is everything, Mormonism is frequently interpreted as supernatural -- even though it hasn't a supernatural bone in its body.

 

The newly found inscriptions were forgeries, they were a prank, they were a coincidence, etc.  Many do not even believe that the person Jesus was a "real living being", and you think that Moroni could be proven to be such by a few inscriptions?

In his Mormon's Codex, Sorenson extrapolates from known archeological and linguistic data.  The secular data just happen to fit the Book of Mormon chronology of the rise and fall of specific Mesoamerican civilizations.  This should be impossible, if the Book of Mormon is mere fiction.

 

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

Perhaps this, perhaps that, whatever evidence was found would be discounted, because the dominant belief is that the supernatural does not exist, so that could not possibly be the explanation.

 

Even if Zarahemla were found, Joseph's testimony could be discounted.  He found out about it some other way, since it is impossible that it was revealed by angels.

 

Think of what Mormon archaeologists think of the site of "Nahom" and compare that to what secular archaeologists think of the same "evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

 

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

That discussion on Nahom in Wikipedia is carried on mostly by amateurs who take predictable pro & con positions, although Kent Brown is a careful scholar, and none are archeologists.  Some do report on what archeololgists have found, and that is helpful.  No one I know thinks that it is a slam-dunk, but it does fit the ancient context, and should not be considered in isolation.

 

I often hear of the powerful effect discovery of Zarahamla would have, but archeology seldom provides that sort of result.  In the case of Troy (Ilium), for example, the archeological excavation of that site does not prove that the great siege described by Homer actually took place there (or anywhere).  However, what has been established by generations of serious archeological activity in Greece and Asia Minor, is that the great, literate Mycenean civilization described by Homer certainly existed.  Earlier generations had frankly doubted it.

[Gervin]

  Earlier generations had frankly doubted it.

 

But there were believers who didn't stop looking for it.  

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for calling these books to my attention.  Kerry Shirts' response to Riskas was predictable:  http://www.amazon.com/review/R1UTQ25BP7RKMT/ref=cm_cr_quotes_dprb_0?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1578840074&nodeID=283155&store=books .

 

Possibly, but only because I prefer the forensic, scientific approach to fact, and think that sound modes of interpretation of the facts may get us very close to the "truth."  I believe that I am covered by Wittgenstein's correct observation that words mean what they are used to mean.

 

O.K. by me, Mark.

Yes, it was poor Kerry who first exposed me to that book, and it has done a lot of damage to a lot of naive people, including Kerry. I finally got a copy and would like to eventually take it apart line by line, but the problem is getting laymen to understand the counter arguments, which are essentially found in the deflationary theory of truth, which is widely held among philosophers but sounds like nonsense to laymen who haven't taken the time to understand it. Kevin C did a review of it which was hugely panned by people who did not have the ability to understand Kevin's arguments. It's hard to imagine how to do it better. Riskas whole approach depends on exploiting widely held misunderstandings of the nature of truth which only the uninformed still hold. So to defeat the arguments, you have to first teach a new theory of truth, which may seem counterintuitive to the novice, and have the novice accept it, before even taking on the arguments.

Practically impossible. I have been trying for years to do that here, and still very few get what I am talking about.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have been trying for years to do that here, and still very few get what I am talking about.

 

I hear ya! Whenever I point out the demonstrably ahistorical nature of certain assumptions, people just ignore the points raised and keep talking from within the same off-the-rack understanding.