DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

[PeterPear]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mockery and sarcasm are not the same as serious scholarship -- nor indeed scholarship of any kind.  You might even try understanding what you are mocking before you begin the mockery.  You need to study Nehor:  There is learned sarcasm and buffoonery which we can all enjoy.  Yours is just uninformed and mean-spirited.

I understand this is what you believe:

"Over the last sixty years, Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, and other scholars have shown the Book of Mormon to be truer than Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could know. Consequently, what Joseph Smith knew and understood about the book ought to be research questions rather than presumptions. Thanks in large part to his critics, it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, lit- erary form, or cultural content of the book." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/2/S00003-5176a03b6d5fc3Roper.pdf

- No need to look to the Prophet Joseph Smith about the contents or the geography of The Book of Mormon.

- We must look to LDS scholars Nibley, Sorenson and others.

- That's right "and other scholars."

There is no need for a Prophet to understand the contents of The Book of Mormon. You just need to be a scholar.

And who should we thank for this?

- "Thanks in large part to [Joseph Smith's] critics..," to quote from above.

Ha ha ha!

This is what the Mesoamerica Theory is based on, critics of Joseph Smith who claim:

- The Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know

And Robert F. Smith used an ad hominen: claiming I don't understand what I'm talking about. LOL!

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

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

And Robert F. Smith used an ad hominen: claiming I don't understand what I'm talking about. LOL!

Your own words give you away as someone who has not bothered to familiarize himself with the material before making off-the-wall comments.  At the same time, you buy into the silly and tendentious belief that anything Joseph Smith said is prophecy and that he is infallible -- which are not part of LDS faith or doctrine, but which are frequently adopted by anti-Mormons as part of their invective.  Joseph himself stated that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.

[salgare]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your own words give you away as someone who has not bothered to familiarize himself with the material before making off-the-wall comments.  At the same time, you buy into the silly and tendentious belief that anything Joseph Smith said is prophecy and that he is infallible -- which are not part of LDS faith or doctrine, but which are frequently adopted by anti-Mormons as part of their invective.  Joseph himself stated that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.

I certainly have no titles, certificates or experience to add anything to scholarly debate about the historicity of the BoM.  I suppose that is why it's wonderful to have access to public debates from experts. 

Robert you certainly appear to this novice to be so qualified.  It seems Bill Hamblin got his butt handed to him over this issue.  Would you have been a better man to have debated Jenkins?  Are there other scholars who would have been better to have taken the pro-historicity stance?  If so why is there no one standing up, except against us novices in the likes of these boards?

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

 

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, salgare said:

I certainly have no titles, certificates or experience to add anything to scholarly debate about the historicity of the BoM.  I suppose that is why it's wonderful to have access to public debates from experts. 

Robert you certainly appear to this novice to be so qualified.  It seems Bill Hamblin got his butt handed to him over this issue.  Would you have been a better man to have debated Jenkins?  Are there other scholars who would have been better to have taken the pro-historicity stance?  If so why is there no one standing up, except against us novices in the likes of these boards?

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm 

One doesn't need titles or certificates to add anything to scholarly debate about the Bible and Book of Mormon, but some experience and reading might be helpful.  I did read a good deal of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, and it was nice to have so many issues covered -- even better if someone could go through it all and bring out the best arguments pro & con in a systematic volume.  I found it exhausting to try to follow the whole thing while it was in process.

I love to watch experts debate such issues, and I recall a particularly good debate held at UCLA on June 1, 2003, between professors Larry Stager and Israel Finkelstein.  I have my own notes, but you can read those available in the ASOR Newsletter, 53/2 (Summer 2003):5,10, online at http://www.asor.org/pubs/news/53_2.pdf (I'm somewhere toward the back in the bottom photo on p. 5).

[salgare]

Bump for Robert ... with all the spam new OP's in the last 24hrs.

 

eta

Thanks Robert, we hit submit at the same time there.

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I found it exhausting to try to follow the whole thing while it was in process.

That was the nice thing about Jenkin's summary link provided as it cut out most of the noise and focused on the debate, which as you note covered a lot of territory.

At the time I only followed the biased critics posting about this debate, but indeed did read the debate.  It seemed pretty clear to me that the Church was either represented poorly or does not have a foot to stand on.

When I see the same arguments being presented here I can not help but return to that debate and the messages that it has to tell about this whole topic.  Including the likes of why Scott will not even accept free books for his professional use from the new Guard.

I've never sensed you as being one of those that needed/wanted the badge of honor (mad/mdb war days) and yet I assume you may not be too much into mfb/givens philosophies.  And yet it seems to me the only plausible pro-historicity arguments involve these very fuzzy logic almost philosophical ways of looking at history.

I do make these statements in ignorance in that I have not read one of your writings you mentioned in one of these threads.  I do need to review that.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

That was the nice thing about Jenkin's summary link provided as it cut out most of the noise and focused on the debate, which as you note covered a lot of territory.

At the time I only followed the biased critics posting about this debate, but indeed did read the debate.  It seemed pretty clear to me that the Church was either represented poorly or does not have a foot to stand on.

Of course, the Church was not involved in that debate at all.  It was Jenkins vs Hamblin, who are not surrogates for any other organization.  They represented only themselves.  Thus, I am puzzled as to why you would interpret that debate as somehow representative of LDS scholars/scholarship generally.  I thought rather that they represented points of view about the nature of scholarly inquiry which have nothing to do with any faith-based assumptions, and they did not do a particularly good job of it -- I would have approached it quite differently.

When I see the same arguments being presented here I can not help but return to that debate and the messages that it has to tell about this whole topic.  Including the likes of why Scott will not even accept free books for his professional use from the new Guard.

Forgive my ignorance, but who are Scott and the New Guard?

I've never sensed you as being one of those that needed/wanted the badge of honor (mad/mdb war days) and yet I assume you may not be too much into mfb/givens philosophies.  And yet it seems to me the only plausible pro-historicity arguments involve these very fuzzy logic almost philosophical ways of looking at history.

When Terryl Givens and Mark Bukowski turn philosophical/theological, I find them both well worth reading, not because that provides a "plausible pro-historicity" base, but because it provides the only rational and meaningful approach to Mormon theology/philosophy (which have nothing directly to do with archeology and history, which must be evaluated on their own merits).

For my views on Book of Mormon theology, see my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

I do make these statements in ignorance in that I have not read one of your writings you mentioned in one of these threads.  I do need to review that.

For a hint at my views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, please have a look at my following pieces:

“The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ,

“The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847  .

“Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147.  Online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=5 .

“Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 .

“Evaluating the Sources of 2 Nephi 1:13-15: Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 21/2 (2013):98-103, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/8Smith_Evaluating Sources of 2 Nephi.pdf .

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Interesting stuff Bob.

It is an observation of significant importance that BOM historicity should be judged by a different standard ("preponderance of evidence") simply because it IS totally preposterous on its face.

It becomes then a question then not of proving the historicity of the book, but of explaining the "evidence" itself.  How does one indeed account for the apparently coherent explanations for what we DO have?  Why are they even slightly coherent at all?

That really seems to turn the whole historicity issue on its head. It becomes not so much of a glass half empty or half full, but why there is a glass there at all.

And in that review I just published in Interpreter I take a position that is similar actually, in raising the idea that it was providential that God guided philosophical thought in such a way that Joseph would have his socially constructivist and pragmatic revelations just before the time when social constructivism and pragmatism were to reign supreme in philosophical circles.  How could Joseph have possibly done that??

How is it possible that Joseph's writings would fit so well with these philosophies?  How is it possible that the "coincidences" of evidence for the BOM cannot be explained without the hypothesis that indeed the BOM IS historical?

The tragedy, in my estimation, is that we have until recently wasted so much time as a church re-affirming a Scholastic, creedal approach to what theology we DO have instead of what is to me, taking the obvious path down the postmodern road.

But in reading this again, it kind of "clicked" that both views work together well.

[salgare]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, the Church was not involved in that debate at all.  It was Jenkins vs Hamblin, who are not surrogates for any other organization.  They represented only themselves.  Thus, I am puzzled as to why you would interpret that debate as somehow representative of LDS scholars/scholarship generally.  

Sure, officially everyone has their disclaimers, and yet we see no disclaimers from the Church and with a BYU professor, life long member, well know Mormon apologist of course he represented the Church rather anyone likes that or not.  If fact that is part of the observation here ... if he does not represent the LDS scholars/scholarship generally why does someone else not step forward?  Silence in this case confirms the loss.

"I thought rather that they represented points of view about the nature of scholarly inquiry which have nothing to do with any faith-based assumptions, and they did not do a particularly good job of it -- I would have approached it quite differently."

As to scholarly inquiry verses faith-based assumptions is that not saying the same thing as its a non-historical document and hence is a faith based story.  Either its a historical document or it is not, no amount of faith is going to change that.  You having a different approach is what I'm interested in.  Why are these not presented and debated in circles outside of faithful communities?

"Forgive my ignorance, but who are Scott and the New Guard?"

I'm interested in what has happened here FAIR -> MAD -> MDDB.  I'm fairly familiar with the MAD years and have found the recent changes here of interest.  Is the "New Guard" really an unknown term here that does not reflect the pubic hate that was tossed back and forth between Dan and Bill towards BYU and Blair Hodges and crew?  Does it not reflect the undertones of harsh allegations with pointed fingers of shame -> non-historical believers!  Surely you are not ignorant of all this history.

"When Terryl Givens and Mark Bukowski turn philosophical/theological, I find them both well worth reading, not because that provides a "plausible pro-historicity" base, but because it provides the only rational and meaningful approach to Mormon theology/philosophy (which have nothing directly to do with archeology and history, which must be evaluated on their own merits)."

I'm also very confused and yet interested in the Mark/Terryl philosophy/theology.  You separated those terms as if they are synonyms.  I'm weak on philosophy and would assume that the majority of orthodox Mormons would not view their beliefs/theology (synonym) as being a philosophy.  It seems to me these philosophies are required to inject fuzzy logic into proclaim truths that don't stand up to simple black and white truth.   I've made the assumption you are a traditional orthodox Mormon.  I've poorly tried to relate this concept to (forgot the names) historical philosophy type ways of looking at history, if I remember right were popular in the 90's or so and some held as invalid.  These were the historical methodologies Hamlin had turned to.

I will take the time and review what you have linked for me on your thoughts to the historicity of the BoM.  Thank you for linking them here.

[salgare]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That really seems to turn the whole historicity issue on its head. It becomes not so much of a glass half empty or half full, but why there is a glass there at all.

At your age/experience I would assume you would have a hard time falling back to a non-historical view and yet I assume your philosophies would/should have no problem doing so.

What is your stance?  Is it one that you could honestly state at this time in history?  Does not the level of acceptance of Given's and your philosophies determine the possibility of a wide enough tent to hold historical and non-historical believers?

I personally believe of all the issues that the Millennials have to face is this exact debate and how/where they fall in regards to it as the key to the future of the Church.  And yet this is also indoctrinated to be the keystone and hence it seems that the tent could not withstand both? 

Edited January 25, 2016 by salgare

[Russell C McGregor]

48 minutes ago, salgare said:

Sure, officially everyone has their disclaimers, and yet we see no disclaimers from the Church and with a BYU professor, life long member, well know Mormon apologist of course he represented the Church rather anyone likes that or not.  If fact that is part of the observation here ... if he does not represent the LDS scholars/scholarship generally why does someone else not step forward?  Silence in this case confirms the loss.

Sigh.

Salgare, there are two things you need urgently to do.

First, take a course in remedial writing. Learn how to construct coherent sentences. It will help your cause tremendously.

Second, recognise the fact that there are some honest people in the world, even if you don't see any in the mirror when you are shaving. You don't need to assume that every time a Mormon says something that disagrees with your idiotic prejudices, said Mormon must be lying. The Hamblin/Jenkins debate, which I read, was between the two of them. Bill was not "assigned" by anyone to debate Jenkins, just like Jenkins was presumably not "assigned" by anyone to debate Hamblin. They both did it because they were interested in the topic.

And if you were to try opening your other eye, you might realise that the result wasn't quite the whitewash you so fondly imagine.

But then again, if your writing ability reflects your reading comprehension, that may explain something.

Incidentally, if you've heard of the fact that Bill and Dan have had their disagreements with BYU, why do you so stupidly imagine that Bill, Dan and BYU represent some kind of "hive mind?"

I mean, how really dumb is that?

 

[salgare]

sigh,

I've acknowledged elsewhere of my ignorance based on a lack of education etc. but thanks for a thorough personal ad-homien scourging.  But of course that is your moniker, your fame, your reputation.  Own it brother, who am I to deign you this nor expect any better?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, salgare said:

sigh,

I've acknowledged elsewhere of my ignorance based on a lack of education etc. but thanks for a thorough personal ad-homien scourging.  But of course that is your moniker, your fame, your reputation.  Own it brother, who am I to deign you this nor expect any better?

 

Please try to ignore the emotional and inappropriate response by McGregor, salgare.  He needs to learn how to school his feelings.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Sure, officially everyone has their disclaimers, and yet we see no disclaimers from the Church and with a BYU professor, life long member, well know Mormon apologist of course he represented the Church rather anyone likes that or not.  If fact that is part of the observation here ... if he does not represent the LDS scholars/scholarship generally why does someone else not step forward?  Silence in this case confirms the loss.

Nonsense, salgare.  The LDS Church need make no disclaimers of any kind, and almost never does.  Why would they?  As I stated, this was a private debate between Jenkins & Hamblin.  Neither of them represented any church, nor did either to them think so.  Silence does not confirm anything at all.  You are so wrong here.  Do you even have any basis for your imaginative claims?  Cite a source for us.

Quote

"I thought rather that they represented points of view about the nature of scholarly inquiry which have nothing to do with any faith-based assumptions, and they did not do a particularly good job of it -- I would have approached it quite differently."

As to scholarly inquiry verses faith-based assumptions is that not saying the same thing as its a non-historical document and hence is a faith based story.  Either its a historical document or it is not, no amount of faith is going to change that.  You having a different approach is what I'm interested in.  Why are these not presented and debated in circles outside of faithful communities?

Again, I am perplexed that you think that the historical issue is a faith issue.  Why do you confuse the two?  Scholars do not.  Such issues are debated outside faith communities.  This was true of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, and was true of the debate I cited at UCLA.  Neither was a faith-based debate.

Quote

"Forgive my ignorance, but who are Scott and the New Guard?"

I'm interested in what has happened here FAIR -> MAD -> MDDB.  I'm fairly familiar with the MAD years and have found the recent changes here of interest.  Is the "New Guard" really an unknown term here that does not reflect the pubic hate that was tossed back and forth between Dan and Bill towards BYU and Blair Hodges and crew?  Does it not reflect the undertones of harsh allegations with pointed fingers of shame -> non-historical believers!  Surely you are not ignorant of all this history.

Blair Hodges is a wonderful and friendly guy who does not hate, and is not hated by anybody.  I know him personally.  He came on board at the Maxwell Institute long after the rift between Dan Peterson and the Director of the Maxwell Institute became public.  Moreover, it was made public by anti-Mormons, not by Dan or that Director.  Indeed, it was based on the lie that a piece about to appear then in FARMS Review was a "hit piece" against John Dehlin.  It has since been published and is obviously no "hit piece."  Dehlin simply wanted to practice censorship, which was very hypocritical  of him.  I don't know what version of that history you have been fed, but it sounds fake to me.

Quote

"When Terryl Givens and Mark Bukowski turn philosophical/theological, I find them both well worth reading, not because that provides a "plausible pro-historicity" base, but because it provides the only rational and meaningful approach to Mormon theology/philosophy (which have nothing directly to do with archeology and history, which must be evaluated on their own merits)."

I'm also very confused and yet interested in the Mark/Terryl philosophy/theology.  You separated those terms as if they are synonyms.  I'm weak on philosophy and would assume that the majority of orthodox Mormons would not view their beliefs/theology (synonym) as being a philosophy.  It seems to me these philosophies are required to inject fuzzy logic into proclaim truths that don't stand up to simple black and white truth.   I've made the assumption you are a traditional orthodox Mormon.  I've poorly tried to relate this concept to (forgot the names) historical philosophy type ways of looking at history, if I remember right were popular in the 90's or so and some held as invalid.  These were the historical methodologies Hamlin had turned to.

One cannot practice theology without a full understanding of philosophy.  The disciplines are inseparable.  Most "orthodox Mormons" (whatever that means) know nothing of either theology or philosophy, which are academic disciplines which must be learned.  Moreover, philosophy does not entail "fuzzy logic," but rather hard, mathematical, and precise forms of logic.  I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "black and white truth."  Perhaps you could enlighten me.  As for me being "a traditional orthodox Mormon," have you yet read my piece on "Book of Mormon Theologies"?  Do I sound like "a traditional orthodox Mormon" therein?

As for good, acceptable historiography, I'm open to understanding what you think is an acceptable historical methodology.  Do any of my writings pass muster with you?

I will take the time and review what you have linked for me on your thoughts to the historicity of the BoM.  Thank you for linking them here.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

It becomes then a question then not of proving the historicity of the book, but of explaining the "evidence" itself.  How does one indeed account for the apparently coherent explanations for what we DO have?  Why are they even slightly coherent at all?

That really seems to turn the whole historicity issue on its head. It becomes not so much of a glass half empty or half full, but why there is a glass there at all.

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

Exactly, Mark.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

At your age/experience I would assume you would have a hard time falling back to a non-historical view and yet I assume your philosophies would/should have no problem doing so.

What is your stance?  Is it one that you could honestly state at this time in history?  Does not the level of acceptance of Given's and your philosophies determine the possibility of a wide enough tent to hold historical and non-historical believers?

I personally believe of all the issues that the Millennials have to face is this exact debate and how/where they fall in regards to it as the key to the future of the Church.  And yet this is also indoctrinated to be the keystone and hence it seems that the tent could not withstand both? 

As I have told you before, I became a Mormon intellectually because it conformed to my philosophy.  I became Mormon spiritually because God decided to favor me with an incredible spiritual experience confirming that this was the path he desired for me

I was 30 years old when this happened/  So much for your stereotypes.

The entire point of Mormonism is that of course it allows all paradigms which do not contradict orthopraxis of a lifestyle of behaving according to what satisfies the temple recommend interview.

We have discussed that Mormonism has no doctrine, but only a temple recommend interview to determine worthiness.

As long as you can pass that honestly, that is the sole requirement.

I also am of the firm belief that most Mormons will eventually turn away from the creedal/scholastic philosophies of the past at at least get into the mid twentieth century when they figure out that it is the only possible way to philosophically justify religious belief in general, and Mormonism in particular.

[salgare]

"scholarly inquiry which have nothing to do with any faith-based assumptions"

I responded about the faith scholarly mix as I miss read your above statement where I thought you were suggesting for a faith based mix and I was suggesting the scholarly should rule the day for the historicity issue.

"Blair Hodges is a wonderful and friendly guy who does not hate, and is not hated by anybody."

I fully agree.  Everyone in the new guard acted totally professionally, and Christ like with all public aspects of this history.  I have a high respect for Blair.  I'm fully aware of the early (publicly available) history of the MI breakup.  It was mostly Bill that continued to attack BYU, MI and the new guard for a couple years following.  However Dan continued with his fair share, last I heard was the blow up in a book store, I assume on BYU campus.  This bookstore ugliness happened sometime in the last year I believe, where Dan swore at Blair.  I assume Scott and possibly others from FairMormon continue to have hard feelings that continue to this day over this history, and years before it. (I witnessed some loap unpleasantness here myself).  Blair's recent comment in his announcement thread on Scott's rejection of free copies supports this assumption.

Several of these later incidents were based on accusations of apostasy coming from Bill/Dan towards BYU/MI individuals because of their having/supporting a non-historical BoM.

"Silence does not confirm anything at all.  You are so wrong here.  Do you even have any basis for your imaginative claims?  Cite a source for us.

... Most "orthodox Mormons" (whatever that means) know nothing of either theology or philosophy"

I mix these two quotes to suggest different audiences; a limited scholarly audience and a google audience.  The limited scholarly audience is going to understand that those involved are not representing their religions or their Church organizations and are going to appreciate the scholarly ethics and language.  Right or wrong, many of the google audience are going to view this differently.  I would even suggest that a Chapel Mormon would view FAIR, BYU, MI and Bill Hamblin debating in defense OF the Church not of his own personal/professional historical work.

I know I'm horrible at this, but I want to also bring this same thinking over to the mfb/given's situation.  Even thought the Given's do not represent the Church, the Church and local leaders allow them use of their Chapels to teach their principles (to the theology/philosophy unaware members).  Does this not imply some level of acceptability of the Church to what they are teaching?  Of course coming from a critics environment of discussion, with talk of factions within the FP/Q12, as well as seeing similar factions emerge from even the likes of FAIR/MAD/MDDB/FairMormon I'm very interested in seeing how this mix of seemingly conflicting factions being presented to the members is going to turn out.   All though it seems only the philosophical approach is actively being presented in member firesides at this time.  But I suppose the old Orthodox is well enough in place.

It would be wonderful to hear from insiders of what exactly these 'factional" differences are and if the contention is based on theology issues or just bad personal blood issues.

You question what orthodox Mormon even means.  There really was no question about this in our generation was there Robert?  Here is (was) an Orthodox Chapel Mormon, roughly our age, black and white with no need for nuanced philosophies for his faith to work, until he turned internet Mormon over night and freaked out.

http://mormonstories.org/thirteen-years-of-silence-matt-elggren-clay-christensen/

Listen to Clay's understanding of the issues three months ago.  That's 99% of every High Priest in my home ward.

Anyway, I digress (there is much of nuance in that interview worth discussion).

"As for good, acceptable historiography, I'm open to understanding what you think is an acceptable historical methodology.  Do any of my writings pass muster with you?"

I need some time to study the links you have given me here.  A crazy week ahead but I hope to continue this after later in the week.

Of course I have nothing to offer on its acceptability but look forward to reading some heretical Robert Smith writings.

Thank you Robert

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I was 30 years old when this happened/  So much for your stereotypes.

 

We have discussed that Mormonism has no doctrine, but only a temple recommend interview to determine worthiness.

As long as you can pass that honestly, that is the sole requirement.

I also am of the firm belief that most Mormons will eventually turn away from the creedal/scholastic philosophies of the past at at least get into the mid twentieth century when they figure out that it is the only possible way to philosophically justify religious belief in general, and Mormonism in particular.

Sorry for the stereotype, of all people I should know better.  I just assumed that your many years of activity during the hay days of BRM etc. that you might personally have a struggle with the historicity issue.

"The entire point of Mormonism is that of course it allows all paradigms which do not contradict orthopraxis of a lifestyle of behaving according to what satisfies the temple recommend interview."

I'm curious for you thoughts, I hope this does not come over as offensive.  I assume you have intended and indeed given me direct answer to my somewhat rhetorical question (I would not expect you to answer it publicly because of the level of taboo).  Is this/will this be kind of like asking the FP/Q12 if they have seen Christ?  i.e. in the nuance of the pragmatism there is no need for actual discussion, or that it is left up to me to interpret your answer.  I got your answer, is it proper in this brave new world for me to say what I heard it to be?  If this would not have been such a taboo subject would you have answered it in a direct non-nuanced way?

"I also am of the firm belief that most Mormons will eventually turn away from the creedal/scholastic philosophies of the past at at least get into the mid twentieth century when they figure out that it is the only possible way to philosophically justify religious belief in general, and Mormonism in particular."

I'm interested in your thoughts on my scattered words to Robert trying to feel out for thoughts on the factional divisions from the top on down dealing with this change which you feel will become acceptable to current Chapel Mormons.

Thanks Mark

Edited January 25, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, salgare said:

Sorry for the stereotype, of all people I should know better.  I just assumed that your many years of activity during the hay days of BRM etc. that you might personally have a struggle with the historicity issue.

"The entire point of Mormonism is that of course it allows all paradigms which do not contradict orthopraxis of a lifestyle of behaving according to what satisfies the temple recommend interview."

I'm curious for you thoughts, I hope this does not come over as offensive.  I assume you have intended and indeed given me direct answer to my somewhat rhetorical question (I would not expect you to answer it publicly because of the level of taboo).  Is this/will this be kind of like asking the FP/Q12 if they have seen Christ?  i.e. in the nuance of the pragmatism there is no need for actual discussion, or that it is left up to me to interpret your answer.  I got your answer, is it proper in this brave new world for me to say what I heard it to be?  If this would not have been such a taboo subject would you have answered it in a direct non-nuanced way?

"I also am of the firm belief that most Mormons will eventually turn away from the creedal/scholastic philosophies of the past at at least get into the mid twentieth century when they figure out that it is the only possible way to philosophically justify religious belief in general, and Mormonism in particular."

I'm interested in your thoughts on my scattered words to Robert trying to feel out for thoughts on the factional divisions from the top on down dealing with this change which you feel will become acceptable to current Chapel Mormons.

Thanks Mark

Well I am flattered that you include me with the Givens, which is totally undeserved and I do not understand what taboo you are talking about.  I make none of the distinctions between types of Mormons that you do, and reiterate for the thousandth time that all you need to do to be fully LDS is have a temple recommend.I see no other nuances.  Some human beings are better educated than others, some are smarter than others and those tend to be independent variables. Some are artists and some are plumbers, some write well and others don't, these are differences between people including Mormons but that has nothing to do with any of the issues you allegedly raise.  I do not understand any of that.  I never bought into BRM, though I joined the church in 1979.  I read his book, and thought "Well that is going to change" and I was right.  No biggie.

Now I am telling you that we are going to lose scholasticism.  It will happen.  It is happening as we speak.  It is inevitable. I look forward to that day, though I will probably not see it. I speak with folks at Mormon conferences, and virtually all see the world as I do.

I believe in the historicity of the BOM, I just see that as a religious belief.  I believe that there really was a Nephi, etc.in the same way that I believe that temple work is efficacious for the dead.  I take it on faith.

So I am sorry that I do not understand your question, but I don't.

I have a nack for being on the cusp of every change of my generation.  I was a "hippie" before they were called that, I got political and was a "yippie" before others, I saw the return to spiritualism of the new post-postmoderns as a reaction reaction to positivism and scientism.  This IS the direction the church is going.  We are getting rid of scholasticism and developing an Alma 32 spiritual epistemology.  It has been there from the beginning, and Joseph affirmed it.

I will answer any question I can, but as you know I have trouble with your writing style.  Spell it out form me.  No hints or nuances, just straight declarative sentences saying what you mean.  Subject, verb, object.  No colors.

if you are quoting someone say "Robert said- quote..." or use the quote function provided.  Anything else is very confusing for me little logical brain that wants everything laid out nicely for it to work.

Edited January 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

We don't have much of a scholastic tradition, just our flavour of fundamental Protestant approach we dubbed scriptorian.

[salgare]

Mark,

I thought I was starting to be able to understand your language as well.  I have tried, but apparently I have fallen short.   You demand of me to adjust my language to your requirements and yet seem unwilling to give my words any time and consideration.

Based on the skills and accomplishments you have listed along with my own take that here is a smart man with some wisdom to impart I'm still left wanting with such simplistic statements as the Gospel is what you want it to be as long as you meet the Temple Recommend requirements.  I guess all my years of working in the temple and looking for deeper symbolic meanings has intrigued me with this pragmatism which you hold to, assuming their is something deeper to what you are saying.  But now I'm getting that it really is not any deeper than this Temple Recommend Requirements being the foundation and only requirement for what you foresee the upcoming Church to be.  

If I view this from my corrupted organization viewpoint, I guess I can see the organization being 100% behind this; remain paying and sustaining the leaders, don't cause any waves and we are all good.  

Looking at this from a God the Father, Christ the Son grab a hold of the iron rod view ... this feels very wrong.

I have read enough of Robert's first link (the thumbnails one) to see he quotes Givens extensively.  I'm not sure why I assumed he would be an old school orthodox member, but of course there is no such thing in this brave new world.  Except of course for 99% of my HP group who are just like Clay and have not seen the light yet.  btw have you looked at that, are you willing to look at that? here is the link again: http://mormonstories.org/thirteen-years-of-silence-matt-elggren-clay-christensen/

All I can say is that there are going to be a lot of casualties between today's reality and your prophesies of the upcoming Church.  But of course the Baby Boomer orthodox members are growing old and the hope/focus is on the youth. 

Givens has been a godsend for this purpose.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...

In the first link (thumbnails)

You start with what I assume is an attempt at showing physical evidence:

"The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as to the blatant physicality of the Plates, along with offhand observations of others who had physical contact with the Plates, is also of prime epistemological importance, leading Terryl L. Givens to observe that 

'I can see no reason to compel a non-literal reading of the Testimony of the Eight, other than sheer reluctance to accept supernaturalism. And that is a reluctance I cannot argue with. That is why the only alternative to a literal reading that I do not think is easily dismissible is Humes more general argument against miracles: the reliability of witnesses is more easily impugned than the reliability of natural laws.' "

I'm fairly clueless as to what Givens said there, but I assume the Hume's reference is saying that the physical plates (natural law) is more reliable than the easily impugned witnesses.  And yet your stated physical evidence is based on easily impugned witnesses?

Leaving this you move on to the focus of probabilities and start with the same statement from a woman you base one of the other link presentations on.

 "Implausibility & Bayesian Probability…

Since the origin story of the Book of Mormon is by its very nature preposterous, all the more reason for an affirmation of its authenticity to be taken seriously."

My memory is so frustrating, I had totally forgotten about the Bayesian intuition discussions at MDB on proving negatives. i.e.  Hamblin trying to deal with non-existent (to date) physical archaeological and linguistic evidence.

An example EAllusion noted:

 "When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince."

Maybe Bayesian Probability is the inverse of Bayesian intuition?  If so, this is a much earlier statement (2011) on Bayesian analysis (same?) by Aristotle Smith

"I don't think Bayesian analysis will affect Mormon apologetics much at all. Bayesian analysis requires a couple of things that I don't think the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS have ever really done. First, it requires you to actually have a hypothesis about some states of affairs. Second, it requires you to be able to rationally decide what counts as evidence given that hypothesis. If you don't have both of these, you can't really do a Bayesian analysis of a given situation.

Take the Book of Abraham for instance. What is an actual coherent hypothesis about the Book of Abraham that the apologists are actually willing to state? They'll throw out a ton of explanations, many of which are mutually contradictory, but they won't actually give a coherent hypothesis. But even more telling, what counts as actual evidence in favor of the Book of Abraham, given the hypothesis? Pretty much anything, because practically anything counts as evidence when you claim half a dozen or so competing hypothesis are the hypothesis. Likewise, what would count as negative evidence, given the hypothesis? Pretty much nothing for the same reason."

It seems Aristotle's prediction of Bayesian not being of interest to apologist failed.

 

 

[Gervin]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When Terryl Givens and Mark Bukowski turn philosophical/theological, I find them both well worth reading, not because that provides a "plausible pro-historicity" base, but because it provides the only rational and meaningful approach to Mormon theology/philosophy (which have nothing directly to do with archeology and history, which must be evaluated on their own merits).

It appears that Mark Bukowski takes exception to your characterization that archaeology and history must be evaluated based "on their own merits:"

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe in the historicity of the BOM, I just see that as a religious belief.  I believe that there really was a Nephi, etc.in the same way that I believe that temple work is efficacious for the dead.  I take it on faith.

 

 

[Calm]

Quote

It appears that Mark Bukowski takes exception to your characterization that archaeology and history must be evaluated based "on their own merits:"

Or what he is talking about is what is important to him in the scriptures, that which impacts on the salvific aspects of our beliefs and that can't be dealt with by archaeology (such as the resurrection of Jesus in the NT and the visit of Jesus to the Nephites/Lamanites postdeath, what the BoM and other scriptures teach about the Atonement, etc.).

[cinepro]

FWIW, this video has been popping up all over my Facebook feed from friends and relatives that have shown no previous interest in apologetics.  It really seems to be catching on with a certain subset of church members.