Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[Tacenda]

Write a book MF, your on to something!

[UtahTexan]

Let me ask this:  Brigham taught that Adam is our God.  I think it is accepted now that Brigham was just wrong.  That did not make him a liar or a fraud, did it?

 

Could Joseph just have been wrong about the Book or Mormon being history without that making him into a liar or fraud?

[smac97]

Let me ask this:  Brigham taught that Adam is our God.  I think it is accepted now that Brigham was just wrong.  That did not make him a liar or a fraud, did it?

 

Could Joseph just have been wrong about the Book or Mormon being history without that making him into a liar or fraud?

I don't see how that is feasible. Brigham Young's Adam-God theory was a surmise. Doctrinal speculation. It is possible to be wrong in such circumstances, but not "a liar or a fraud."

But when it comes to Joseph Smith and his teachings about The Book of Mormon, those teachings are so extensive and so pervasively based in claims of historical authenticity, that the only options are that Joseph Smith A) was telling the truth, B) was a liar and a fraud, or C) was profoundly deluded/insane.

Option A is the position taken by the LDS Church. Option C seems very problematic when the Three and Eight Witnesses are taken into account (particularly the three). There's little chance of Joseph Smith *and* Oliver Cowdery *and* David Whitmer *and* Martin Harris all sharing the same mental disease or delusion. So that really only leaves Option B to consider. So let's consider this:

1. Joseph Smith testified that he was repeatedly visited by an angel, a resurrected Nephite named Moroni. Can this claim be written off as just something Joseph Smith was "wrong" about? How could he be "wrong" about such a specific and detailed event? To me, it seems like the only options for this are that he A) was telling the truth, B) was a liar and a fraud, or C) was profoundly deluded/insane. Simply being "wrong" about making affirmative representations like this is beyond implausible.

2. Joseph Smith testified that the Angel Moroni led him to the location of the plates. This is an affirmative statement. How could Joseph Smith be "wrong" about it, but not lying/insane?

3. Joseph Smith claimed that the Angel Moroni led him to a specific location, that he (Joseph) dug up the ground at the instruction of the angel, and discovered the gold plates buried in the earth, and that this discovery was not accidental, but was the result of specific instructions from Moroni. How could Joseph Smith A) make these claims, B) be "wrong" about these claims, but C) *not* be insane or dishonest?

4. The Three Witnesses claimed to have seen the plates under remarkable circumstances: An angel descended from heaven with the plates and showed them to the witnesses. The witnesses examined the plates in detail sufficient to observe the engravings on them. They heard the voice of God telling them that Joseph Smith had translated these plates "by the gift and power of God." They heard the voice of God command them to bear witness of these things. These witnesses all later became estranged from Joseph Smith and all three left the Church, with two of them returning after long intervals and the third never returning. Were these men all collectively "wrong" but not deluded or insane? That seems manifestly implausible, does it not? If they were "wrong," their wrongness would need to be borne of deceit or mental defect.

5. The Eight Witnesses all testified of physical plates. They "hefted" them and saw the engravings. So either an artifact existed at this event, or the event never occurred. If the event never occurred, then Joseph Smith and the Eight Witnesses all colluded in a profound lie and deceit. If the artifact did exist, then it was either what Joseph Smith claimed it to be - an ancient record - or it was an artifice constructed by Joseph Smith or some co-conspirator. If the artifact was fabricated by Joseph Smith or a co-conspirator, and was then shown to the Eight Witnesses and characterized as an ancient record, then how could Joseph Smith do all these things without being deluded/insane or a liar/fraud?

So could Joseph just have been wrong about the Book or Mormon being history without that making him into a liar or fraud? I don't see how. Either he was telling the truth, or he was a liar and a fraud, or he and the Witnesses were co-conspirators or collectively deluded/insane, or there was some combination of deceit, conspiracy, delusion and/or insanity. The circumstances surrounding the origins of The Book of Mormon are complicated, involve many details and many people, and were described by over and over again for years afterward. Regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon as an ancient record, Joseph Smith either A) was telling the truth, B) was a liar and a fraud, or C) was profoundly deluded/insane. Simply being "wrong" about making affirmative representations like this is beyond implausible.

Again, I encourage you to read the book Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses. I think it is essential reading for anyone earnestly hoping to understand and evaluate the factual/evidentiary underpinnings of the claims about The Book of Mormon. As an attorney, I am sure you will recognize the importance of evaluating their credibility as witnesses, their overall character, and their behavior subsequent to giving their testimony.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 16, 2014 by smac97

[Senator]

In fairness to smac, I edited my previous post- (additions- no subtractions) after he posted this, but before I read his reply.  I do not expect a reply on those additions- unless he wants to do so-  I don't think the new points I made really carry my argument further

 

Emphasis added.

 

Yep we are talking about belief either way.  That is what I have said from the beginning.  We cannot "know" what "really happened" so what makes the difference is our BELIEF in "what really happened".  We don't have a video from a time machine of the resurrection certified to be a true video by the TRUTH CERTIFYING COMPANY, who we get to sue if it's fake.

 

That is what I have been saying all along.  I do not believe in fiction either, and I have never used that term.

 

We are talking about belief either way.

 

Now can we stop this?

 

Good heavens!

 

You are both right. dontcha know.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe this will say it succinctly.

It is the BELIEF that drives the interpretation of the alleged evidence or lack thereof. But that is always the case. There is no such thing as an objective reporter. Look at the nightly news.

Yes, we must believe the events were "real", but don't expect anyone else to see it that way. For one who discounts the evidence, but is still a believer, as I am, the alleged historicity becomes irrelevant and the spirit reigns supreme over reason. Fideism. Look it up. It's all I have. Bless you if you see it differently. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

It all comes back to the idea that there are no facts, only interpretations of the data. Our desire to interpret everything the way we individually want to see it colors all our perceptions.

Once I saw that in my life, it freed me from dogma. It felt wonderful

Edited October 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

Isn't the elephant in the middle of this discussion forum that no historicity of the Book of Mormon exists? Attempts have been made to link known information or archaeological finds from various people groups in Central, South and North America, but to date nothing has come close to a bullseye.

Regardless of anyone's stance on how belief should be interpretted, all of these "faith" discussions are necessary because nothing exists that moves the discussion from interpretation to actual, tangible knowledge.

 

It isn't even a tiny little mouse.

[ERayR]

Let me ask this:  Brigham taught that Adam is our God.  I think it is accepted now that Brigham was just wrong.  That did not make him a liar or a fraud, did it?

 

Could Joseph just have been wrong about the Book or Mormon being history without that making him into a liar or fraud?

 

Try this experement.  Take all of BY's statements and prove he was "just wrong".

[mfbukowski]

This is a quote from Wikipedia I can't make the quote function work on this device. See the page on Fideism. Note the similarity to Alma 32.

James and "The Will to Believe"

American pragmatic philosopher and psychologist William James introduced his concept of the "will to believe" in 1896. Following upon his earlier theories of truth, James argued that some religious questions can only be answered by believing in the first place: one cannot know if religious doctrines are true without seeing if they work, but they cannot be said to work unless one believes them in the first place.

Edited October 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Write a book MF, your on to something!

In the works.

[Mystery Meat]

We've had this discussion before, and you lost.  You substitute bare assertion for discussion of hard evidence, and we have seen the same sort of empty assertion by skeptics and atheists on biblical historicity.

 

Were you to present us with a serious review of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, or of my August 2014 "The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage," online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , you could try to support your empty assertions with substantive argument.  However, bcuz you have never come to grips with the facts, one cannot take your assertions seriously.

 

bcuz just got owned.

[LeonardoM]

Without JS being a prophet of God he wouldn't have translated those plates. Without the Book of Mormon we're just another Christian sect. Just look what happen to the CoC when they walked away from it.

 

What do you mean specifically by that statement with respect to the Community of Christ? To my knowledge, Affirmation Nine of the Community of Christ puts doubt on that claim; however, you may be stating that anything but a literarlist interpretation of the Book of Mormon along with accepting the historicity of the Golden Plates is walking away from it; which, is fine, but I don't think that would properly represent the CoC per se since its members hold a variety of views on the text, e.g.; I recall listening to a few podcasts of John Hamer -- I will get sources if requested -- that some members believe that the Book of Mormon to be historically accurate whilst others see it as a pseudegraphia for various reasons. To get the sense of the milieu with respect to the BoM, but Prophet-President Veazey of the CoC is reported to have said that:

 

 

[W]hile the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church.

 

Addendum: Sorry if this is way off topic.

[bcuzbcuz]

We've had this discussion before, and you lost.  You substitute bare assertion for discussion of hard evidence, and we have seen the same sort of empty assertion by skeptics and atheists on biblical historicity.

 

Were you to present us with a serious review of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, or of my August 2014 "The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage," online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , you could try to support your empty assertions with substantive argument.  However, bcuz you have never come to grips with the facts, one cannot take your assertions seriously.

"We've had this discussion before, and you lost." Really...? I didn´t realize this was a competition. I wasn´t aware we were struggling for a title match. You may have pinned me............ but the ref didn´t count to three.

I´ve read your article (and no, I have not purchased Sorenson´s codex nor read it)

But your article is far from nailing the topic in my opinion.

You talked about pieces of eight, ancient Jewish calculations on a base 8 and Egyptian calculations on a ten base and Book of Mormon divisions of smaller quantities linked to ⅛ th and whole quantities to base 10, but I felt like I was watching a magic show. The continual banter you provide feels like you´re trying to misdirect me, the reader, and move my attention from being able to grasp what is front of me.

None of what you talk about has any link to Central America or peoples in the Americas. You leave the voyagers from the Levant somewhere stuck out in the middle of the Pacific. You show no examples of mathematical calcultions as done by the pre-Columbian peoples.

Yes, a simple example of counting whole numbers in tens is easy to understand, since most of us are born with ten fingers.

And yes, once calculations are done in parts of a whole, numbers less than 1, taking a half, of a half, of a half easily leads to ⅛ th.

That, to me, makes sense, since cutting or dividing something, like an orange, or a pineapple or a gold coin into ten equal parts is beyond being an easy task. Halves of things are easy to grasp. (Even the youngest of children will complain if they think they´re getting the smaller half of something)

But in order for your discussion to have any impact you need to show calculations that match such numbers, from the Americas. And no, simply showing such calculations from the Book of Mormon is not bringing the discussion full circle, rather it is talking in circles.

Chew on that for a while.

[smac97]

 

You said that the need for historicity - the historical authenticity - of things like The Book of Mormon (and, presumably, Jesus Christ) is illusory and unimportant. I think historicity is a vital component of having faith in Christ and faith in The Book of Mormon.

Fair enough, you are right, I did say that. So how do we get from the point we agree upon to that extra step?

Let's look a little closer at my argument. First, I am also talking about "authenticity"- that Jesus authentically existed , died and atoned for us, etc.- that they were "real events" which really happened.

The problem is an epistemological one.

 

I don't think so. I understand epistemology to mean generally "a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge." You seem to be suggesting that we deploy this philosophy to say that since we can't know 100% of the historicity of an event, we disregarding any analysis of historicity at all, declare analysis historical authenticity of illusory and unimportant, and content ourselves with only what we choose to believe about the event. If so, there are many problems with this approach.

First, I reject as a false dilemma the apparent proposal that historicity is an all or nothing sort of thing, that we either determine an event's historical authenticity with absolute certainty, or we reject any attempt to determine its historical authenticity at all and declare the whole thing illusory and unimportant. That makes no sense to me.

Second, there is no one set standard for determining the historicity of an event or person. The quantum of evidence needed to discuss a particular event will vary by the event, by the event's importance, by conflicting data about the event, by the plausibility of the event, by the objectives sought in the evidentiary inquiry, and many other variables.

Third, the historicity of miraculous events will be hard/difficult/impossible to establish. I think that's the intended state of things. If we were given definitive, indisputable documentation/evidence of the truth claims of the Restored Gospel, faith would not be necessary, the agency of men would wither and die, and people would be condemned for sinning against such great light (a la Laman and Lemuel, who continued to murmur and doubt moments after having seen an angel). So historicity is something that must be accepted principally on faith. Joseph Smith said:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

 

We must accept, on faith, that Jesus Christ had historicity. We must accept the historical authenticity of his being born, being the Son of God, teaching and performing miracles, suffering for our sins, dying, resurrecting, and ascending into heaven. To reject the historicity of these things, or to declare the historical authenticity of these things as illusory and unimportant, is to eviscerate the strength and meaning of the Restored Gospel.

 

What is our standard for labeling an historic event which happened several thousand years ago (those including BOM and old testament events) as being "authentic"?

I don't think this is a universal standard. We are not all situated in the same circumstances. I had a friend on my mission in Taiwan, an elderly church member named Hsieh, who had a very strong testimony of the Church, but who for himself required not only a conviction regarding the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon as a basis for joining the Church, but also a conviction regarding the truthfulness of The Doctrine and Covenants. I think he felt that The Book of Mormon was what it claims to be, but that he needed to also know that the prophet who translated it continued on in that calling. Also, consider D&C 46:

 

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Some people will require a lot of study and convincing as to the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ as part of developing faith, while others (most, I think) will take the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ as a given when developing faith in Him.

As to gaining a testimony of The Book of Mormon, I think the opposition to it by sectarians and secularists alike make the issue of its historicity more disputed and, for some, more relevant in the overall inquiry. I'm actually okay with that state of events. It makes us as Saints work harder to establish what we believe and explain it to others. But to throw our hands up in the air and say that the historical authenticity of The Book of Mormon is illusory and unimportant is to capitulate on its claims. I do not think we can do that.

 

How can we possibly know- rationally and with historical "authenticity" that Job existed, that Alma existed, that evolution is incorrect and the first man was named "Adam", that Lehi really came to the West in a boat, etc etc? How about the Jardites and their barges?

The same way we can come to "know" that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We seek to understand things things "by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118). We work on the process described in D&C 50:24: "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."

 

Now I am asking you in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jaredites used the vessels described, that Lehi existed and that indeed even that a man named Jesus had the power to atone for our sins?

Um, why are you bringing up "a court of law?" Since when are disputed historical issues decided in that environment? Courts of law are set up with all sorts of procedural and legal strictures which are useful and necessary in order to provide the optimum environment for adjudicating disputes while protecting the rights of all parties, but which are impractical when applied to historical disputes. Asking a Mormon to use the environment of "a court of law" to prove up the historicity of the Jaredites is like asking a Jew to use our current court system to prove up the historicity of Abraham.

 

At what point can we reasonably say that they were "authentic"? What is the standard for "historicity"?

Again, there is no one set standard for determining the historicity of an event or person. The quantum of evidence needed to discuss a particular event will vary by the event, by the event's importance, by conflicting data about the event, by the plausibility of the event, by the objectives sought in the evidentiary inquiry, and many other variables.

 

It is arbitrary.

No, it's not. There is reason and rationality for positing differing quanta of evidence for different historical events and the characteristics of those events.

 

Again I am not talking about the spirit confirming this all to us, I am talking about strict logical reasonability.

Well, I'm not. We are commanded to learn "by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118). The inquiry into the Restored Gospel will always require both learning by both of these measures.

I am also wondering if you apply such an absurdly high standard of "strict logical reasonability" when assessing the historicity of things other than The Book of Mormon. That would seem to rule faith in Jesus Christ out. We would also have to reject vast swaths of other historical events as well.

 

At what point would a reasonable man say "Yes, I suppose it is reasonable to believe that Lehi existed?" Not a church member, but any reasonable man agreeing that these events were "authetic"?  At what point do we draw the epistemological line?

I'm do not think there is one single epistemological line. See D&C 46:10-26. The "line" will vary depending on which "reasonable man" you meet on the street.

 

Is it as in a court of law- beyond a reasonable doubt?  Not "proof"- not pictures of the crucifixion, but just "beyond a reasonable doubt" that these things authentically happened?

Funny you should bring up "reasonable doubt" after asking about the location of a single, universal "epistemological line." In the U.S. legal system, there is not one "epistemological line" in terms of persuasive evidence. There are, at the most basic level, three quanta of evidence used, and by some ways of reckoning there are eight, as follows (ordered from least burdensome to most burdensome):

• Reasonable Suspicion: A low standard of proof to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted
• Reasonable to Believe: Applies only to vehicle searches after the suspect has been placed under arrest.  It requires that it must be "reasonable to believe" there is more evidence in the vehicle of the crime for which the suspect was arrested.
• Probable Cause for Arrest: A relatively low standard of proof, which is used to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted.
• Some Credible Evidence: Often used in administrative law, and often in Child Protective Services (CPS) proceedings in some states.  It is on the order of the factual standard of proof needed to achieve a finding of "probable cause" used in ex parte threshold determinations needed before a court will issue a search warrant. It is a lower standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
• Substantial Evidence: In some appeals from decisions of administrative agencies, the courts apply a "substantial evidence" standard of review of the agency's factual findings. 
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.  It is the standard required in most civil cases.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in civil and certain criminal procedure in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.  This standard is used in many types of equity cases, including paternity, persons in need of supervision, juvenile delinquency, child custody, the probate of both wills and living wills, petitions to remove a person from life support ("right to die" cases), and fraud cases.
• Beyond Reasonable Doubt: This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.  It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Which of these, if any, should be deployed in considering the historicity of Jesus Christ?

 

I can see why someone who views historicity as illusory and unimportant might be tempted to jump to the highest, most rigorous evidentiary standard and declare that it is the "epistemological line" that must be reached, and otherwise historicity goes out the window. But why? Why is "beyond reasonable doubt" the most appropriate and analogous standard of evidence? Why not Clear and Convincing? Why not Preponderance? Why not Reasonable to Believe?

 

I maintain with the evidence available, we have nothing close to this standard, at least not today.

I would agree with you. But then, we also "have nothing close to this standard" for virtually all historical events. That's probably why this standard of evidence is not deployed when discussing the historicity of ancient events. It's not a reasonable standard. And it looks like you chose it over and above more reasonably analogous evidentiary standards (Preponderance, for example) precisely because virtually no historical event could hope to satisfy it. And failing to establish a historical event "beyond reasonable doubt" bolsters your proposal that historicity is illusory and unimportant.

But I submit that this is sort of a rigged deck. I reject the notion that "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is an appropriate evidentiary standard to apply when considering the historicity of ancient events and persons, like Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon.

More in the next post.

Edited October 17, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Based on these standards it is NOT "reasonable" to believe that the BOM is "authentic", at least as a reasonably objective person would see it.

See? You have arbitrarily chosen the highest, most rigorous evidentiary standard - one that is only used for criminal proceedings in the United States, you have then applied it to historical questions to which that standard was not intended to apply, and then have declared that due to this failure the issue of historicity is illusory and unimportant.

It's a rigged deck. "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is not an appropriate evidentiary standard to apply when considering the historicity of ancient events and persons, like Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon.

 

But that does not for one minute mean that ANY of these events "are fictional".

Why include such a caveat if historicity is, in your estimation, illusory and unimportant? That position erases the distinction between fact and fiction, so why emphasize that distinction now?

 

This is a complex world. We can't prove absolutely, as Bertrand Russell convincingly argued that the world did NOT spring into existence 5 minutes ago, much less what "actually happened" thousands of years ago.

This seems like a straw man. Nobody here is talking about trying to "prove absolutely" the historicity of Jesus Christ or The Book of Mormon. But the fact that we can't "prove absolutely" these things does not render their historicity illusory and unimportant.

 

In front of a jury of non-members, could any of us win that case for reasonable historicity?

This is a rigged deck. "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is not an appropriate evidentiary standard to apply when considering the historicity of ancient events and persons, like Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon. But you are proposing that we use it to establish that historicity, and that the inevitable failure to do so renders historicity illusory and unimportant.

You are proposing that we apply an adversarial process to persuade a group of people who must collectively agree on the facts. And to do so to determine the historical authenticity of ancient peoples and events. And to do so while facing numerous evidentiary and procedural strictures inherent in the legal process. And to utterly disregard the principal and primary source of evidence God wants us to use: the Spirit. And if we submit to these conditions, present The Book of Mormon in such a kangaroo court, and if we fail (which, it is clear, is the intended outcome), then this somehow establishes that the historicity of Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon are illusory and unimportant.

 

It's a rigged deck.  It's a gamed system.

 

If we CAN, where are not people flocking into the church based on the history alone?  To me THAT is the ultimate test!

An "ultimate test" which requires us to disregard the Spirit, in violation of the instructions we have received from God about these things (see, e.g., Moroni 10:3-5)?

Doesn't sound like much of a test.

I may as well administer an exam on about the Res Judicata Doctrine on my five year old son. He'll fail it. I know ahead of time that he'll fail it. I chose the topic and the circumstances of the test with the pre-determined objective of having him fail it.

 

Science is not infallible- paradigms change, and we have an endless stream of metaphysical theories about what is "real" and what is not.

And yet we are required to make real, actual delineations between "what is 'real' and what is not," even though we cannot do so with 100% certainty. I can't take a gun and go rob a bank, and then at trial say "But you're honor, I have a metaphysical argument that shows that you cannot establish that I am real! And if I am not real, I cannot have committed a crime. And since you cannot establish my epistemelogical realness, you cannot convict me."

We work with what we've got. "For now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). But that doesn't mean that we don't see at all. It doesn't mean that we throw up our hands and say "If I can't see through the glass and perceive everything with 100% clarity and accuracy, then I cannot see anything at all."

So we are faced with questions in life that we need to answer in order to progress. Does God exist? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? Do we have a relationship with God? What is the nature of that relationship? Does God intercede in the affairs of men? Does He speak to men, individually and through prophets? Was Joseph Smith a prophet? Did he see God the Father and Jesus Christ and receive instructions from them? Did he see an angel named Moroni? Was Moroni a resurrected Nephite? Did Moroni instruct Joseph about gold plates and where to find them and what to do with them? Did Joseph find these plates? Were these plates an ancient record left by some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas? Did he translate them by the gift and power of God? Is The Book of Mormon a translation of the plates? Did the Three Witnesses see the plates under the circumstances described in their testimony? Did the Eight Witnesses see the plates? Did Joseph receive further ministrations from heavenly messengers? Did he receive the priesthood? Did he receive instructions from God to establish a church, God's church? Is that church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These are all important questions for someone investigating the truth claims of the LDS Church. Tied up in pretty much each and every one of them is a fundamental presumption that in order for these things to have meaning and weight, they must be real. If God does not exist, if he lacks historicity, then there's not much point to exerting further effort or inquiry. If God is remote from us, if he does not intercede in the affairs of men, then there's not much point to exerting further effort or inquiry. If Jesus Christ does not exist, if he lacks historicity, then there is no Atonement, and no need or purpose in having faith in Him. If Joseph Smith lied or was deluded/insane about his experiences and about The Book of Mormon, then the peculiar truth claims of the LDS Church fail.

Historicity matters in a person's investigation of the Restored Gospel. It matters a lot. It is not illusory and unimportant.

 

I discount NOTHING as "impossible" except what is logically contradictory, and clearly that does not fit the gospel at all.

 

I personally believe everything in the scriptures COULD have happened, if God wanted it to, in my opinion- Adam being "real" and donkeys talking -- ALL of it "could be" historically authentic, the way I see the world. This is a very mysterious place.

But convincing 12 randomly picked "men on the street" of that? VERY doubtful.

Again, this is a rigged deck.

 

 

You said the demand for historicity is unimportant and illusory.

 

Now we get to it.

If indeed one cannot show that Jesus died for our sins AT ALL much less to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a hypothetical jury of non-believers, can it be said that "historicity is important"?

 

Yes, it can be said. I will not play a game with a rigged deck.

 

It is not.

It is. The historicity of Jesus Christ is important. The historicity of The Book of Mormon is important.

 

People are not flocking into the church based on the historicity of Christ, the atonement, the Book of Mormon or ANY of that.  That is perfectly clear.

I could not disagree more. People who join the Church do so not because they are indifferent to the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon. To the contrary, they join the Church in the hopes that Jesus Christ is real, that He was and is historically authentic, that He was and is the Son of God, that He atoned for our sins. They join the Church in the hopes that its truth claims are real, that God speaks to man, that He has established a church with ongoing authority, power and revelation, and that it is the LDS Church.

More in the next post.

Edited October 17, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from previous post:
 

The BELIEF in historicty IS incredibly important,

So is the historical authenticity itself. If we believe in a lie, then we are deceived. We are on the wrong path. I continue to be flummoxed by your disregard of the distinction between what is real/true and what is not, that whether a thing is true/real is illusory and unimportant.
 

TO US but how can the claims of actual authentic historicity be important if there ARE NONE as evidenced by virtually no conversions based on how convincing the historic arguments are?

Every sincere conversion to the Restored Gospel is based on the historical authenticity of the truth claims of the LDS Church. I would be hard-pressed to believe that people are joining the Church who reject the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ, or who think that the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ is illusory and unimportant. When the Spirit confirms the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon, it is doing nothing less than confirming the historical authenticity The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon claims historical authenticity for itself.

Could you convince an atheist of the historicity of the BOM?

Nope. The Spirit might be able to, if the atheist is willing to exercise faith.
 

Why not? Because they are unreasonable?  Because they are illogical and cannot see the clear authenticity of the historical position?

I have never said that historical authenticity of The Book of Mormon is "clear." I recognize that it is disputed. I recognize that reasonable minds can and do disagree about the provenance of the book.
 

You said:

What makes the difference is whether we believe in Christ as a real, historically authentic being, or not.

That is exactly right.

 

Well, apparently not. You've said that historicity is illusory and unimportant. I say that the historicity of Christ is important.
 

The difference is whether WE BELIEVE that Christ really did exist and do what the scriptures say he did, not in belief that the historicity can be shown.

I am speaking of historicity itself, not our ability to prove or disprove it. I recognize that these are separate considerations, but I think both are important, whereas you believe that historicity is illusory and unimportant, and that mere belief is all that matters.

I don't get that. Let me illustrate: Jack and Jill are neighbors who are both interested in opening an ice cream parlour. They decide to go into business together, and so ask an attorney to draw up a partnership contract. Jack and Jill then start up the business and things go well for a while. However, a dispute later arises between Jack and Jill, so they both hire lawyers to sort things out. The principal disagreement pertains to certain provisions of the contract. The only version of the contract that could be found is one that has Jack's signature, but not Jill's. Jack insists that he remembers Jill signing it, and Jill insists that she never signed it because she did not like or agree with the terms.

So we have an issue in dispute: whether Jill signed the contract. This involves a question of historicity: Did the event at issue - Jill signing the contract - actually occur? The way I look at it, this is a question that needs to be answered. One side or the other is wrong, and the parties can't move ahead until this question is resolved. So they sue each other, go to trial, and the jury ultimately determines _____________ (the result doesn't matter).

By your reasoning, however, whether Jill actually signed the contract is illusory and unimportant. The only thing that matters is what Jack believes happened. If Jack believes that Jill signed the contract, then that settles the matter.

Or does it? What about Jill? She believes that she did not sign it. By your reckoning, if Jill believes she signed the contract, then that settles the matter.

Except it doesn't. The matter isn't settled because the issue of historicity has not been determined. The parties are left in limbo, with no real answer to a question that needs an answer. The parties having faith in their respective positions isn't enough to resolve the issue. Saying that whether Jill signed the contract is illusory and unimportant doesn't resolve the issue.

So it is with Jesus Christ. Whether He really exists matters. A lot. Whether He is the Son of God and atoned for our sins matters. A lot. It's a question that needs answering. Dodging the necessity of an answer by saying essentially "You can answer the core questions of the Restored Gospel however you want, there is no right or wrong, there is no real or unreal, there is only what you believe. If you believe it, than fine. If you do not believe it, then fine."

The historical reality and authenticity of Jesus Christ matters. Exercising faith that Jesus Christ is really who He claims to be matters.
 

It COULD have happened, and we have faith- "hope in things unseen" that indeed it DID happen, but it is an illusion to think that we have sufficient evidence to show - absent the desire to believe, as Alma pointed out- that it DID happen.

You seem to be equivocating here. You didn't say that "sufficient evidence" of historicity is illusory and unimportant. You said historicity itself is illusory and unimportant.
 

This all probably made no difference, but I have faith- hope in things unseen- that it helped someone.
 
Frankly, when I was an atheist and someone told me that arguments for the historicity of the gospel were strong, I thought they were, uh, let's just say - wrong.  I found those claims totally unreasonable.  In fact it was MY belief that what mattered was MY BELIEF in the atonement- that MY BELIEF made it real for me.
 
I know there are others out there with those beliefs.  I totally understand their point of view, and those are the folks I hope to help find the gospel, and not let historicity problems hurt the development of their testimonies.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church. Good and decent people have reasonable grounds to accept them, and good and decent people have reasonable grounds to not accept them.

But that is a separate question as to whether historicity is illusory and unimportant. Historicity is as important to our daily lives and salvation as the life preserver was to the drowning Jerry I discussed earlier in this thread.
 

The great strength of religious positions in general is that they can neither be proven nor disproven, but always accepted on faith.  They do not rest on historicity at all, but on the BELIEF in historicity.

I disagree. We could just as easily say: "Jerry being saved from drowning does not rest on the life preserver thrown to him at all, but on his BELIEF." Oh, wait. No, that's not right. An imaginary life preserver does nothing to save Jerry from drowning. So the only way Jerry is saved is if the life preserver is real. Mike cannot tell Jerry that Jerry's demand for a real life preserver is unreasonable because such a demand is illusory and unimportant.

 

Make no mistake, Jerry's "belief" is also important.  There has to be a life preserver, but he still has to grab and hold onto it.  The realness of the life preserver matters.  Jerry's determination to hold on to that life preserver matters.
 

It is totally reasonable to have faith- the hope for things unseen- in the historicity of miracles like the atonement, but quite another thing to think that such beliefs can be shown to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
This is quite long enough.

You have arbitrarily selected an impossibly impractical standard of evidence. I don't know why. And you have shifted the discussion from historicity being illusory and unimportant to talking about proving/disproving, about evidence and evidentiary standards, and so on.

The historicity of Jesus Christ matters. It is not illusory or unimportant.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 17, 2014 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

Smac, I truly appreciate the time and effort apparent in your replies, and will continue to answer them, as I have time over the next few days which include a weekend, thankfully. 

 

I defer to your obviously superior command of standards of evidence in the legal system, and thank you for pointing them out.

 

I think we are largely talking past each other though on many issues.  Frankly, there isn't much in these articulate posts that I would disagree with.  I think I have a clear understanding of your points, of course that is to be determined by further dialogue if you so desire.

 

Below I have quoted only a small portion of your first post, and I find this portion highly relevant in pointing out where our misunderstandings may lie.

 

My whole "reasonable man" argument was strictly supposed to show the interaction between "reason" on one hand, and "faith" on the other.  I notice you did not mention the link on Fideism, and I think understanding the arguments of real philosophers (since I only play one on the internet   ) on the subject might be beneficial to moving towards understanding.  But my goal in bringing it up was to establish some line of demarcation for defining what is "reasonable" as a standard that most people would accept.

 

Obviously I agree, there are many problems with that definition and agree with you and actually Kevin C who made a similar point that many people find different totally "reasonable reasons" for believing most things we find in life to be "reasonable", so that was probably not a good standard to pick.  You convinced me.

 

But I think it might be more productive for my purposes to look at the "faith" side of the equation, in which we already acknowledge by scriptural definition that faith consists of belief, a firm belief upon which one is willing to take action, in "things which are NOT seen which are hoped for, and which are true".

 

Notice that looking at the problem from this angle suddenly changes everything dramatically.  We are now talking about "things NOT seen which are true".  We have disregarded evidence of the senses from the beginning.  We have excluded observable phenomenon automatically, as a basis for these most important beliefs.

Third, the historicity of miraculous events will be hard/difficult/impossible to establish. I think that's the intended state of things. If we were given definitive, indisputable documentation/evidence of the truth claims of the Restored Gospel, faith would not be necessary, the agency of men would wither and die, and people would be condemned for sinning against such great light (a la Laman and Lemuel, who continued to murmur and doubt moments after having seen an angel). So historicity is something that must be accepted principally on faith. Joseph Smith said:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

We must accept, on faith, that Jesus Christ had historicity. We must accept the historical authenticity of his being born, being the Son of God, teaching and performing miracles, suffering for our sins, dying, resurrecting, and ascending into heaven. To reject the historicity of these things, or to declare the historical authenticity of these things as illusory and unimportant, is to eviscerate the strength and meaning of the Restored Gospel.

But now to the above quote, which I think says it all, and we agree on every word.

I think the misunderstanding we have between us is a semantic problem, as a good Wittgensteinian would say, in that I put the requirements of "historicity" of the BOM, of the atonement, resurrection, virgin birth etc etc on the FAITH side- as beliefs in "things not seen which are hoped for, which are true" while our discussion has centered around "historicity" on the evidentiary side, the side of reason and proof.

For me personally, and perhaps I should leave it at that, since we all have different standards what we will believe when presented with "evidence" in the world, I would never presently be a member of the church based on the "rationality" of the evidence for any of the miracles you detail above. Never. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. On the "reasonableness" scale, for me the meter reads at virtually zero.

On the other hand, on the "faith" side of the equation- my willingness to base beliefs on "things unseen which are true" is very high. How is that possible? Because I find my "evidence" IN things not seen, but felt in my heart, which I regard as "revelations". I regard morality in this category, because there is for example, no evidence which can be seen which shows us that murder is wrong, that it is good to help others etc. We can develop a theory which might show that being "good" is beneficial to society and therefore has survival value, and therefore has some "evidence", but that is just a rational theory explaining the phenomenon and is therefore subject to the same evidentiary rules you have brought up.

So the problem as I see it is that we were confusing two senses of "historicity".

One sense is showing THROUGH REASON ALONE that an event "really happened"  and establishing evidentiary criteria which reasonably (by whatever standard) shows that the event descriptions meet the criteria for "historicity" in the rational, factual, "reasonable to most scholars" sense.

 

THAT is the sense in which I insist that ultimately historicity is irrelevant to belief in the atonement etc, and based on your comment above, I think we agree.

 

On the other hand we have the RELIGIOUS belief, in "historicity" based on faith, based on "things hoped for, which are unseen, and are true" (based on revelation from the Holy Ghost) that Jesus indeed DID ACTUALLY live and die, was our Savior and the Christ, visited the Americas as is recorded on the Book of Mormon etc.

 

So in the former sense of "historicity", such historicity is irrelevant to religious matters, but in the latter sense it is absolutely crucial.

 

Again, Wittgenstein gets it right, and we see that the whole thing was a semantic confusion.  That's my story and I'm sticking too it as long as it works. 

Edited October 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I guess for a convert the question becomes if you would give up your previous faith, face persecution from your family, fork over a tenth of your income for the rest of your life, give up all your favorite beverages, nag people to see you on monthly basis to see you when don't want to see you, clean buildings on your only day off, set up and take down a million chairs in your lifetime, sit through the same boring movie a thousand times, all because of a story about angels and golden plates?

Is that rational behavior? Are the evidences enough to convince you, without spiritual confirmation, that you would do that for those stories?

Without spiritual confirmation, how relevant would the evidence be to take all that on based on the alleged historicity of a story of angels and plates?

For me,that version of historicity was totally irrelevant to my baptism, without question.

Without the spirit,I would still be where I was instead of where I am now experiencing the infinite riches of the gospel.

[ERayR]

Smac, I truly appreciate the time and effort apparent in your replies, and will continue to answer them, as I have time over the next few days which include a weekend, thankfully. 

 

I defer to your obviously superior command of standards of evidence in the legal system, and thank you for pointing them out.

 

I think we are largely talking past each other though on many issues.  Frankly, there isn't much in these articulate posts that I would disagree with.  I think I have a clear understanding of your points, of course that is to be determined by further dialogue if you so desire.

 

Below I have quoted only a small portion of your first post, and I find this portion highly relevant in pointing out where our misunderstandings may lie.

 

My whole "reasonable man" argument was strictly supposed to show the interaction between "reason" on one hand, and "faith" on the other.  I notice you did not mention the link on Fideism, and I think understanding the arguments of real philosophers (since I only play one on the internet   ) on the subject might be beneficial to moving towards understanding.  But my goal in bringing it up was to establish some line of demarcation for defining what is "reasonable" as a standard that most people would accept.

 

Obviously I agree, there are many problems with that definition and agree with you and actually Kevin C who made a similar point that many people find different totally "reasonable reasons" for believing most things we find in life to be "reasonable", so that was probably not a good standard to pick.  You convinced me.

 

But I think it might be more productive for my purposes to look at the "faith" side of the equation, in which we already acknowledge by scriptural definition that faith consists of belief, a firm belief upon which one is willing to take action, in "things which are NOT seen which are hoped for, and which are true".

 

Notice that looking at the problem from this angle suddenly changes everything dramatically.  We are now talking about "things NOT seen which are true".  We have disregarded evidence of the senses from the beginning.  We have excluded observable phenomenon automatically, as a basis for these most important beliefs.

But now to the above quote, which I think says it all, and we agree on every word.

I think the misunderstanding we have between us is a semantic problem, as a good Wittgensteinian would say, in that I put the requirements of "historicity" of the BOM, of the atonement, resurrection, virgin birth etc etc on the FAITH side- as beliefs in "things not seen which are hoped for, which are true" while our discussion has centered around "historicity" on the evidentiary side, the side of reason and proof.

For me personally, and perhaps I should leave it at that, since we all have different standards what we will believe when presented with "evidence" in the world, I would never presently be a member of the church based on the "rationality" of the evidence for any of the miracles you detail above. Never. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. On the "reasonableness" scale, for me the meter reads at virtually zero.

On the other hand, on the "faith" side of the equation- my willingness to base beliefs on "things unseen which are true" is very high. How is that possible? Because I find my "evidence" IN things not seen, but felt in my heart, which I regard as "revelations". I regard morality in this category, because there is for example, no evidence which can be seen which shows us that murder is wrong, that it is good to help others etc. We can develop a theory which might show that being "good" is beneficial to society and therefore has survival value, and therefore has some "evidence", but that is just a rational theory explaining the phenomenon and is therefore subject to the same evidentiary rules you have brought up.

So the problem as I see it is that we were confusing two senses of "historicity".

One sense is showing THROUGH REASON ALONE that an event "really happened"  and establishing evidentiary criteria which reasonably (by whatever standard) shows that the event descriptions meet the criteria for "historicity" in the rational, factual, "reasonable to most scholars" sense.

 

THAT is the sense in which I insist that ultimately historicity is irrelevant to belief in the atonement etc, and based on your comment above, I think we agree.

 

On the other hand we have the RELIGIOUS belief, in "historicity" based on faith, based on "things hoped for, which are unseen, and are true" (based on revelation from the Holy Ghost) that Jesus indeed DID ACTUALLY live and die, was our Savior and the Christ, visited the Americas as is recorded on the Book of Mormon etc.

 

So in the former sense of "historicity", such historicity is irrelevant to religious matters, but in the latter sense it is absolutely crucial.

 

Again, Wittgenstein gets it right, and we see that the whole thing was a semantic confusion.  That's my story and I'm sticking too it as long as it works. 

 

If I understand you correctly when I accepted Moroni's challenge and got my answer then, for me, historocity became part of my faith and real.  It did not take a Zarahemla city limits sign nor does it really matter rather or not such a sign is found.  When such correlations are shown to exist it is rewarding but not necessary.

[Gervin]

On the other hand we have the RELIGIOUS belief, in "historicity" based on faith, based on "things hoped for, which are unseen, and are true" (based on revelation from the Holy Ghost) that Jesus indeed DID ACTUALLY live and die, was our Savior and the Christ, visited the Americas as is recorded on the Book of Mormon etc.

 

So in the former sense of "historicity", such historicity is irrelevant to religious matters, but in the latter sense it is absolutely crucial.

This sort of jumped out at me.  

 

If the sentence, above, ended at "Christ," then you would have a simple expression of the Christian (non-LDS) religion; the belief that Christ was the Son of God who died, was buried, and rose.  Now, that "faith statement" carries some "weight of history" because Christians have a historic backstory that informs the origins of their faith - the Jewish people - and this influences not only what we believe but how we believe.  This does not mitigate against Fideism. Kierkegaard developed entire philosophical tenets on the events of scripture (Abraham and Isaac and the raising of Lazarus come to mind) but probably never worried about the historicity of those passages.  He probably read them literally, but in truth the Christian faith gives (I believe) some latitude with regard to our interpretation of events, conversations, poetry, allegory, and so forth.  As long as there is belief in the claims of Christ with regard to who he was.

 

History helps provide a context in much the same way that reading a letter authored by one of your ancestors might give a better understanding of the motivations, desires, and circumstances of your family history.  Some of it might be history and some of it might be embellishment, and you have to determine what is important in the letter and if it carries any influence on your own life.  History isn't a door that, when opened, reveals the justification for faith.  It's more like the scenery that we get to enjoy was we walk the path.  Having had parents who were missionaries in Israel for 6 years helped me in my appreciation of the scenery that fills-in the teachings of the Bible.  I was never much for the stations of the cross on the Via Dolorosa but standing at the location of the Pool of Bethesda gives me an interesting sense of peace.

 

I'm sure that the LDS would not be unfamiliar with these thoughts.  And if the LDS faith requires not only this faith in Christ, but also a faith that Christ "visited the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon, etc." I wish no ill will.  I wonder what the "etc." entails?  Faith that Jos Smith was a prophet?  Faith that the LDS Church is the one true church?  Things go better with Coke Christ.  But, a desire to likewise learn about, see, or investigate the backstory of the Hebrews in America is not possible.  This is problematic because the Book of Mormon presents itself as history, beginning with the title page and Chapter 1 verse 1 - "I make a record."  With all due respect to the authors of books and presentations and links provided here (most of which I'm familiar) the only people who believe in an actual Book of Mormon history, are those who believe in the Book of Mormon.  This makes sense because it is Moroni's promise: if you believe the book is true then you are in a good position to get a witness that the book is true.  While I'm sure the history of the book has been verified many times over to members, it's nice for us who have faith that begins and ends in "Christ"  that we aren't required to have a witness of the historicity of the Bible, or a personal testimony that Jeremiah was a prophet - even though we have incredible information and insight into the culture and geography of the people and places in the Bible.

 

A lack of any evidence of a Hebrew presence in the New World won't cause the collapse of the LDS Church, but it excludes the LDS from claiming a credible backstory.  I don't believe the Bible is true because it has a credible cultural setting and has attested historic events in the pages of the Book.  One may not believe that Christ rose from the dead or that he walked on water, but you wouldn't be able to argue that the Romans didn't use crucifixion as a method of execution or that the Sea of Galilee exists.  

Edited October 18, 2014 by Gervin

[mfbukowski]

If I understand you correctly when I accepted Moroni's challenge and got my answer then, for me, historocity became part of my faith and real.  It did not take a Zarahemla city limits sign nor does it really matter rather or not such a sign is found.  When such correlations are shown to exist it is rewarding but not necessary.

"Real" is a tough word. It's not like it switched into reality. But yes the historicity became part of your religious faith

Belief in the historicity of the BOM became something you would act on and accept as a direction for your life, and which gives your life meaning.

Faith is a principle of action, and you decided now to act on your belief that these events "really happened". You accepted to act on the assumption that these events were "real", or at least that was the way it was for me.

[mfbukowski]

This sort of jumped out at me.

If the sentence, above, ended at "Christ," then you would have a simple expression of the Christian (non-LDS) religion; the belief that Christ was the Son of God who died, was buried, and rose. Now, that "faith statement" carries some "weight of history" because Christians have a historic backstory that informs the origins of their faith - the Jewish people - and this influences not only what we believe but how we believe. This does not mitigate against Fideism. Kierkegaard developed entire philosophical tenets on the events of scripture (Abraham and Isaac and the raising of Lazarus come to mind) but probably never worried about the historicity of those passages. He probably read them literally, but in truth the Christian faith gives (I believe) some latitude with regard to our interpretation of events, conversations, poetry, allegory, and so forth. As long as there is belief in the claims of Christ with regard to who he was.

History helps provide a context in much the same way that reading a letter authored by one of your ancestors might give a better understanding of the motivations, desires, and circumstances of your family history. Some of it might be history and some of it might be embellishment, and you have to determine what is important in the letter and if it carries any influence on your own life. History isn't a door that, when opened, reveals the justification for faith. It's more like the scenery that we get to enjoy was we walk the path. Having had parents who were missionaries in Israel for 6 years helped me in my appreciation of the scenery that fills-in the teachings of the Bible. I was never much for the stations of the cross on the Via Dolorosa but standing at the location of the Pool of Bethesda gives me an interesting sense of peace.

I'm sure that the LDS would not be unfamiliar with these thoughts. And if the LDS faith requires not only this faith in Christ, but also a faith that Christ "visited the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon, etc." I wish no ill will. I wonder what the "etc." entails? Faith that Jos Smith was a prophet? Faith that the LDS Church is the one true church? Things go better with Coke Christ. But, a desire to likewise learn about, see, or investigate the backstory of the Hebrews in America is not possible. This is problematic because the Book of Mormon presents itself as history, beginning with the title page and Chapter 1 verse 1 - "I make a record." With all due respect to the authors of books and presentations and links provided here (most of which I'm familiar) the only people who believe in an actual Book of Mormon history, are those who believe in the Book of Mormon. This makes sense because it is Moroni's promise: if you believe the book is true then you are in a good position to get a witness that the book is true. While I'm sure the history of the book has been verified many times over to members, it's nice for us who have faith that begins and ends in "Christ" that we aren't required to have a witness of the historicity of the Bible, or a personal testimony that Jeremiah was a prophet - even though we have incredible information and insight into the culture and geography of the people and places in the Bible.

A lack of any evidence of a Hebrew presence in the New World won't cause the collapse of the LDS Church, but it excludes the LDS from claiming a credible backstory. I don't believe the Bible is true because it has a credible cultural setting and has attested historic events in the pages of the Book. One may not believe that Christ rose from the dead or that he walked on water, but you wouldn't be able to argue that the Romans didn't use crucifixion as a method of execution or that the Sea of Galilee exists.

I don't think you are really any better off than we are on this issue, but it is nice to finally have something we can agree on. The point is that the "backstory" in our case includes fewer pages than yours. That is a quantitative issue but not a qualitative one.

All the archaeology in the world cannot change a carpenter from Galilee with interesting ideas into the Christ, the Son of the living God and the savior of the world.

And that is really all that matters.

The bottom line is people do not change their lives and find joy in the gospel because an archaeologist says they should.

Edited October 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

For LDS readers, I have been thinking more about Gervin's post.

 

Typically I find that traditional Christians, ie Protestants and Catholics, of course put a lot of emphasis on the historicity of the Bible.  If one accepts that historicity in an archaeological sense- ie scientific evidence of Biblical events- is important in establishing the veracity of Jesus being the savior, of course traditional Christians would claim that their churches are "true" because they are old and therefore more "historic".

 

So in short, they like historicity because they have it in spades.

 

On the other hand, traditional Christians discount the idea that personal revelation is a good way to find a church.  They find the Moroni challenge to be subjective, emotional, not reasonable, and therefore subject to error in finding a church.

 

Mormons, however, believe that without personal revelation- a "testimony", no one can know the Book of Mormon is true, and that our church is true.  We believe that we must have a testimony- they believe that such an idea is dangerous and leads to errors.

 

Then we turn around and still insist that archaeology and geography somehow give evidence for the spiritual correctness of the Book of Mormon, using essentially THEIR argument against our greatest strength, personal revelation and the Moroni promise.

 

Go figure. 

 

We want to be included in their "IN" group of what THEY call "Christians" so much that we use THEIR arguments against our own strongest position.

 

I've never been able to figure out why we do that.  We should all agree that spiritual truths can only be shown through spiritual means, and be consistent with the Moroni promise.  Belief that these events "actually happened" is essential, but the reality of these events can only be proven spiritually because these are spiritual beliefs.

 

In other words, Moroni 10:4 IS our "proof of historicity" ultimately, not archaeology etc.

 

That is also true for traditional Christians and the Bible, but they do not understand that idea.  Again, archaeology cannot make the person historic person Jesus into The Christ, the Son of God.

Edited October 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

For LDS readers, I have been thinking more about Gervin's post.

 

Typically I find that traditional Christians, ie Protestants and Catholics, of course put a lot of emphasis on the historicity of the Bible.  If one accepts that historicity in an archaeological sense- ie scientific evidence of Biblical events- is important in establishing the veracity of Jesus being the savior, of course traditional Christians would claim that their churches are "true" because they are old and therefore more "historic".

 

So in short, they like historicity because they have it in spades.

 

On the other hand, traditional Christians discount the idea that personal revelation is a good way to find a church.  They find the Moroni challenge to be subjective, emotional, not reasonable, and therefore subject to error in finding a church.

 

Mormons, however, believe that without personal revelation- a "testimony", no one can know the Book of Mormon is true, and that our church is true.  We believe that we must have a testimony- they believe that such an idea is dangerous and leads to errors.

 

Then we turn around and still insist that archaeology and geography somehow give evidence for the spiritual correctness of the Book of Mormon, using essentially THEIR argument against our greatest strength, personal revelation and the Moroni promise.

 

Go figure. 

 

We want to be included in their "IN" group of what THEY call "Christians" so much that we use THEIR arguments against our own strongest position.

 

I've never been able to figure out why we do that.  We should all agree that spiritual truths can only be shown through spiritual means, and be consistent with the Moroni promise.  Belief that these events "actually happened" is essential, but the reality of these events can only be proven spiritually because these are spiritual beliefs.

 

In other words, Moroni 10:4 IS our "proof of historicity" ultimately, not archaeology etc.

 

That is also true for traditional Christians and the Bible, but they do not understand that idea.  Again, archaeology cannot make the person historic person Jesus into The Christ, the Son of God.

Maybe it is because of this:

 

If I have archaeological evidence, it cannot be refuted.  It is there.

 

But, the "testimony" can be subjective.  we can walk into 50 different churches and find people in each church who have received, through prayer, a "testimony" that their church is true.  

 

Meanwhile, you can have 50 people take the Mornoni Challenge and maybe only half received a positive answer.

 

So, how can that be the determination of anything?

 

If you take out reason and go simply on prayer, then who are you to say MY answer that a different church is "the true church" is not as good as YOUR answer?

[smac97]

Maybe it is because of this:

 

If I have archaeological evidence, it cannot be refuted.  It is there.

May I ask archaeological evidence of what? Are you suggesting that there is archaeological evidence supporting the religious claims of The Bible? If so, what is this evidence?

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity. As an atheist friend of a friend put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is [that] the Bible is a really old fraud." Another time, William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus.

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now authenticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

 

I think Hamblin's point here merits serious consideration.  Homer's references to ancient Greek cities do not constitute evidence that Zeus is the king of heaven.  The Bible's references to, say, Jerusalem and the River Jordan do not constitute evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

Moreover, I would disagree that "archaeological evidence ... cannot be refuted." Archaeological data/artifacts must be interpreted. By people. People with biases, blind spots, limited information, etc. Consider these remarks by Louis Midgley responding to a critic of The Book of Mormon named Luke Wilson (emphases added):

 

Wilson first strives to discredit the Book of Mormon by unfavorably comparing the present state of knowledge about ancient Nephite sites with the state of knowledge about biblical sites. He begins his discussion of Book of Mormon geography by proclaiming that "one might expect that determining the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon lands would be a fairly simple undertaking." He provides no evidence or analysis to indicate why this dubious assumption should be accepted. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified --- and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world.  For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

While all scholars now agree that the Norsemen did indeed discover and temporarily colonize North America in the eleventh century, the precise location of the "Vinland" of the sagas is hotly disputed with nearly a dozen candidates ranging between "Hudson Bay and the state of Florida." If precise geographical unanimity cannot be reached by scholars in these and many other areas, why should the analysis of Book of Mormon geography be "a fairly simple matter"?

In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.

 

In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

The situation in ancient Mesopotamia is precisely the same. "The inscriptions and administrative documents from Presargonic Lagash have left us hundreds of place names and names of watercourses, yet only a small number can be identified with precision. Others can be put in the general vicinity of some known place, but the vast majority remain only vaguely situated at best."

 

It seems like "archaeological evidence" is subject to all sorts of subjective interpretation and debate.  It seems impractical to designate such evidences "irrefutable."  

 

Please consider giving the entire Midgley article a read.  I think you'll find it's worthwhile.

 

But, the "testimony" can be subjective.

So too can the interpretation of archaeological evidence.

 

we can walk into 50 different churches and find people in each church who have received, through prayer, a "testimony" that their church is true.  

 

Meanwhile, you can have 50 people take the Mornoni Challenge and maybe only half received a positive answer.

 

So, how can that be the determination of anything?

First, the whole world is subjective. You can make these same arguments about archaeological evidence ("We can walk into 50 different archaeologists' offices and find each one having differing opinions on and interpretations of the same evidence.").

Second, Latter-day Saints are not supposed to take a faith-only approach to the truth claims of the Church:

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8 )

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118, see also D&C 109:7,14)

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)

"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand." (D&C 50:10)

 

If you take out reason and go simply on prayer,

We don't "take out reason." See above.

 

then who are you to say MY answer that a different church is "the true church" is not as good as YOUR answer?

In such discussions we must have the proper motive and decorum. Consider 1 Cor. 13:1: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

It is the Spirit which will guide us "into all truth" (John 16:13). Not clever arguments or rhetoric. Not archaeological evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2014 by smac97

[UtahTexan]

May I ask archaeological evidence of what? Are you suggesting that there is archaeological evidence supporting the religious claims of The Bible? If so, what is this evidence?

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity. As an atheist friend of a friend put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is [that] the Bible is a really old fraud." Another time, William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus.

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now authenticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

 

Moreover, I would disagree that "archaeological evidence ... cannot be refuted." Archaeological data/artifacts must be interpreted. By people. People with biases, blind spots, limited information, etc. Consider these remarks by Louis Midgley responding to a critic of The Book of Mormon named Luke Wilson (emphases added):

 

 

Wilson first strives to discredit the Book of Mormon by unfavorably comparing the present state of knowledge about ancient Nephite sites with the state of knowledge about biblical sites. He begins his discussion of Book of Mormon geography by proclaiming that "one might expect that determining the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon lands would be a fairly simple undertaking." He provides no evidence or analysis to indicate why this dubious assumption should be accepted. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified --- and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world.  For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

While all scholars now agree that the Norsemen did indeed discover and temporarily colonize North America in the eleventh century, the precise location of the "Vinland" of the sagas is hotly disputed with nearly a dozen candidates ranging between "Hudson Bay and the state of Florida." If precise geographical unanimity cannot be reached by scholars in these and many other areas, why should the analysis of Book of Mormon geography be "a fairly simple matter"?

In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.

 

In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

The situation in ancient Mesopotamia is precisely the same. "The inscriptions and administrative documents from Presargonic Lagash have left us hundreds of place names and names of watercourses, yet only a small number can be identified with precision. Others can be put in the general vicinity of some known place, but the vast majority remain only vaguely situated at best."

 

I think the entire Midgley article is worth a read.

 

So too can the interpretation of archaeological evidence.

 

First, the whole world is subjective. You can make these same arguments about archaeological evidence ("We can walk into 50 different archaeologists' offices and find each one having differing opinions on and interpretations of the same evidence.").

Second, Latter-day Saints are not supposed to take a faith-only approach to the truth claims of the Church:

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8 )

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118, see also D&C 109:7,14)

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)

"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand." (D&C 50:10)

 

We don't "take out reason." See above.

 

In such discussions we must have the proper motive and decorum. Consider 1 Cor. 13:1: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

It is the Spirit which will guide us "into all truth" (John 16:13). Not clever arguments or rhetoric. Not archaeological evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Like I said before...the argument using Zeus is a red herring...you know it and I know.

 

As far as evidence, you should look at some archaeological evidence from Jerusalem and nearby areas.  Again, I can walk the same streets Jesus did.  I can see where Jesus was born.  I can see where He died.  That is enough for me.  And we can talk to 50 Archaeologists and they will ALL say that the Jeusalem of the Bible is the same one that exists today.  Your argument there falls flat.

 

And that did not address my points...

 

But, the "testimony" can be subjective.  we can walk into 50 different churches and find people in each church who have received, through prayer, a "testimony" that their church is true.  

 

Meanwhile, you can have 50 people take the Mornoni Challenge and maybe only half received a positive answer.

 

So, how can that be the determination of anything?

 

If you take out reason and go simply on prayer, then who are you to say MY answer that a different church is "the true church" is not as good as YOUR answer?