A Reason for Faith

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Too much skeptical or cynical behavior also causes much mischief, in assuming the worst without investigation, causing a lack of trust and a failure to explore possibilities.  For instance, I noticed that the those who built the CERN supercollider did not say, "First show us proof of the Higgs boson, and then we'll see about spending billions of dollars and decades of effort by thousands of people, show us proof and then we'll build it."

My life experience teaches me to appreciate Joseph Smith's insight that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."

And my life experience also provides me with several ways to privilege Joseph Smith's insights, and to credit the Book of Mormon.  I started, of course, by experimenting on portions of the word, watching the results carefully over time, noting the expansion of my mind, moments of enlightenment, the fruitfulness of the experiments, sometimes in my seeing things and making connections that no one ever had before myself, sometimes in learning from other scholars people things that I never would have found on my own, considering the simplicity and beauty, the enlargement of my soul, and the future promise.  Among other things, I noticed that the epistomology in Alma 32 is the same as that described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Others pointed out how closely Joseph Smith's thought anticipated Process Theology.  And there are all sorts of remarkable convergences between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world that I can't help but notice, tend to be discovered by people who experiment upon the word, giving time and nurture in good soil, rather than by those who insist on coercive proof before investing any effort, and showing by that lack of effort of effort, the lack of even a desire to believe. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

This is what is so remarkable about the gospel. By living its precepts one gains new insights and intelligence. When one does not live the gospel, these insights  cease.

One can never know that unless he lives it, and learns it for himself.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

The usual: archeology, anthropology, linguistics, and dna. Also, internally, the book fits in nicely with 19th century Christianity and where it was heading at the time. Finally, there are a lot of internal mistakes such as implausible population growth, logistical problems with their warfare, etc. that make it look like a 19th century creation.

Is this the view of professional anthropologists such as Brant Gardner, John Sorenson, Mark Wright, or of anti-Mormon polemicists?  Because none of the items you mention will pass muster with professionals.

[James Tunney]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To me it was all clearly straight revelation. No translation no need for it. I believe the plates existed but function merely as a catalyst for Joseph to receive Revelation because he thought that he needed them. I think that is clear in the case of the book of Abraham where we have the papyrus which is clearly not a translation in the ordinary sense. I think the idea that Revelation has anything to do with historical or scientific evidence is mistaken.

What I did not understand in the original question was how anyone could believe that God would deliberately deceive his children. The test of faith comes in living everyday and doesn't need to be complicated with such silliness.

This is my point. I don't think God would intentionally obscure in order to test faith. However, this is precisely what one needs to believe if one believes in Joseph Smith's religion. The book of abraham catalyst theory is a good example of this as either Joseph Smith actually believed he was translating the Egyptian symbols into English and God allowed Joseph to be deceived or Joseph himself was deliberately deceiving. Section 19 of the D&C is another example of God's apparent use of deception in Joseph Smith's mind. In it God deceptively uses the term "endless" in order to promote certain behavior.

[James Tunney]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is this the view of professional anthropologists such as Brant Gardner, John Sorenson, Mark Wright, or of anti-Mormon polemicists?  Because none of the items you mention will pass muster with professionals.

Dr. Michael Coe from Yale thoroughly discredits your mormon apologists.  If one doesn't privilege the book of mormon, it seems to me that the limited geography theory isn't probable, although still possible, as almost anything is possible.

[Robert F. Smith]

31 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Dr. Michael Coe from Yale thoroughly discredits your mormon apologists.  If one doesn't privilege the book of mormon, it seems to me that the limited geography theory isn't probable, although still possible, as almost anything is possible.

The BofM should not be privileged in any way, and can be examined in a fully dispassionate, scientific way -- which you have obviously not done.  As for retired anthropologist Mike Coe, he is certainly qualified to discuss any aspect of Mesoamerican archeology.  I challenge you to compare his actual professional opinions on Mesoamerica with those facts internal to the BofM and draw objective conclusions.  If you replace that approach with religious folderol, you run the risk of ignoring the facts on the ground, which you appear to have done here.

See John Sorenson's open letter to Coe at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe .

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

This is my point. I don't think God would intentionally obscure in order to test faith. However, this is precisely what one needs to believe if one believes in Joseph Smith's religion. The book of abraham catalyst theory is a good example of this as either Joseph Smith actually believed he was translating the Egyptian symbols into English and God allowed Joseph to be deceived or Joseph himself was deliberately deceiving. Section 19 of the D&C is another example of God's apparent use of deception in Joseph Smith's mind. In it God deceptively uses the term "endless" in order to promote certain behavior.

I would suggest you study social constructivism and the deflationary theory of truth. You are a logical positivist, a position long ago debunked. Sorry I haven't the time to get into it with you. Look up all three on Wikipedia for starters. I have posted here extensively on all 3, if you care.

All these objections have been handled thoroughly on this board many times, sorry. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Dr. Michael Coe from Yale thoroughly discredits your mormon apologists.  If one doesn't privilege the book of mormon, it seems to me that the limited geography theory isn't probable, although still possible, as almost anything is possible.

The real key here is that we are the ones who deceive ourselves. I suggest you look more into the idea that anything is possible with the Lord. While doing so consider the possibility that you are the one who is deceived - question your own assumptions.

Edited June 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[James Tunney]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The real key here is that we are the ones who deceive ourselves. I suggest you look more into the idea that anything is possible with the Lord. While doing so consider the possibility that you are the one who is deceived - question your own assumptions.

I think you are the one who should do so.  Questioning assumptions led me to my rejection of mormonism and I always question whether or not I am wrong for doing so.  This is why I engage in this blog in order to see if there is something to move me off of my conclusions.  However, in my view, one has to suspend disbelief in order to continue in mormonism.  One has to believe that process doesn't matter.  One has to engage in circular reasoning to get there or maintain belief.  Nevertheless, for what it's worth, questioning assumptions as well as so-called authority is a goal we should all have.

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest you study social constructivism and the deflationary theory of truth. You are a logical positivist, a position long ago debunked. Sorry I haven't the time to get into it with you. Look up all three on Wikipedia for starters. I have posted here extensively on all 3, if you care.

All these objections have been handled thoroughly on this board many times, sorry. 

I think I distrust authoritarian organizations that want to impose their version of truth on others, especially when they demand so much time and money in exchange for what amounts to an amorphous psychological state dependent on authority.  I think the child needs to be able to turn into an adult and leave the nest.  Mormonism doesn't want that. It purports to want to train its members as a good natured parent would and basically serving as a proxy for God.  However, it wants to keep its adherents in a state of learned helplessness.  Sure one can think for themselves and espouse seemingly contradictory philosophies, however, in a certain area, the thinking has been done and criticism, even if valid, is not allowed because that is basically criticizing God himself.  I just don't buy it.  I don't think God put us here to submit to man-made authority.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I think I distrust authoritarian organizations that want to impose their version of truth on others, especially when they demand so much time and money in exchange for what amounts to an amorphous psychological state dependent on authority.  I think the child needs to be able to turn into an adult and leave the nest.

I agree generally, and am glad that the LDS faith doesn't impose its version of truth on others, and does not require money or time of its members -- except as part of their free will offering, if they are so disposed.  Moreover, unlike top-down organizations like the Church of Scientology, no amorphous psychological state is created or imposed making one dependent on authority.  The LDS faith emphasizes free agency (free choice) and asks only that members know for themselves whether it is the true faith -- by the power of the Holy Spirit, through prayer and experimentation.  Governance of the LDS Church is horizontal rather than vertical.

  Mormonism doesn't want that. It purports to want to train its members as a good natured parent would and basically serving as a proxy for God.  However, it wants to keep its adherents in a state of learned helplessness.

Unlike the Amish, the LDS faith has no insular & isolated, education-deprived community upon which it depends for blind adherence to religious precepts.  Indeed, it is precisely the LDS faith which has the highest level of education among its most faithful members (going against the usual assumption).  It is the opposite of "learned helplessness," and LDS members are among the most willing to be part of the larger society, in any country in the world.

  Sure one can think for themselves and espouse seemingly contradictory philosophies, however, in a certain area, the thinking has been done and criticism, even if valid, is not allowed because that is basically criticizing God himself.  I just don't buy it.  I don't think God put us here to submit to man-made authority.  

No LDS member in his right mind believes that criticizing an LDS leader is the same as criticizing God himself.  God certainly did put us all on Earth to submit to man-made authority.  Read Article of Faith #12, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

[canard78]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what is so remarkable about the gospel. By living its precepts one gains new insights and intelligence. When one does not live the gospel, these insights  cease.

One can never know that unless he lives it, and learns it for himself.

"By living its precepts one gains new insights and intelligence."

Agreed. Living precepts leads to greater insights.

"When one does not live the gospel, these insights cease"

It depends. I no longer attend any Mormon meetings and don't live the Mormon version of any gospel. But that doesn't mean I don't live by precepts. I've recently been studying and applying Chinese philosophy and am gaining insights from doing so. 

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Didn't Oaks say on the PBS documentary that one shouldn't ever criticize the leadership even if the criticism is true?  He also recently said that the church doesn't seek or give apologies.  Isn't that troubling to you given the obvious mistakes made with the priesthood ban?  Maybe more people should have said something back in the day?  But how could they without risking loss of membership or censure.  Obviously you can choose to see things differently but no one should be privileged like this.  

[Guest]

On June 3, 2016 at 10:49 PM, James Tunney said:

I don't find any reason to privilege Joseph Smith or today's leaders over anyone else. So, faith, or assuming someone is correct or assuming the best mormon view of its history or anyone's history is simply not possible. I think mormons are great people but they dont get a free pass. Faith requires one to assume a conclusion prior to getting evidence when it should be the other way around. Too much trusting behavior causes too much mischief, too much fraud. Show me some evidence and I will give it a fair hearing.

To little faith and trust is how Satan "leads us down with flaxen cords, until binds us down with the chains in hell". Also what "free pass" are you speaking of? Certainly not the lack of any pass while our people were being murdered, rapped, robbed of civil liberties , while our homes and Temples burned. All of the crimes for just having faith, with not a single conviction of those who committed these crimes. The truth is those who do not trust and have faith are the one's who commit the mischief and fraud against those who do. "Free pass", that's funny! 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Didn't Oaks say on the PBS documentary that one shouldn't ever criticize the leadership even if the criticism is true?  He also recently said that the church doesn't seek or give apologies.  Isn't that troubling to you given the obvious mistakes made with the priesthood ban?  Maybe more people should have said something back in the day?  But how could they without risking loss of membership or censure.  Obviously you can choose to see things differently but no one should be privileged like this.  

Elder Oaks is as entitled to express his opinion as I am, with the proviso and full understanding that he holds a position as a prophet and member of the Twelve, a group which has seen its own apostasies and strong disagreements from within.  This has always been true, with some apostles being excommunicated, and others being disciplined in other ways (removal of seniority, for example), all being subject to the same need for repentance as you and me.  There is not now and has never been a reason to privilege them beyond their calling, and that applies to any priesthood or office-holder in the LDS Church.  You are, however, ignoring the basic question, which is whether God intends that we treat each other with love and deference, and whether we are able to maintain the high ethical and moral demands of our faith even when it becomes tough -- even when God makes tough demands on the Body of Christ and upon the brotherhood of his priesthood.

This life is a hard test for all of us, and, when push comes to shove, are we able to stand on holy ground?  Are we able to resist temptation?  The temptation to conform, for example.  For Elder Orson Pratt it meant having to vociferously oppose the racism of Pres Brigham Young, the Prophet and primus inter pares.  Pratt took a strong hit for that and other disagreements (in the short term), but was proved right in the longview.  Today in the Church, it is Pratt's theological view which has prevailed.  Moreover, I have the personal satisfaction of knowing that many of my ancestors were active abolitionists, that some even worked on the Underground Railroad in order to end slavery, and that others fought on the Northern side in our great Civil War.

Many point fingers and find fault with the Mormons for this or that, but, as Pres Dieter Uchtdorf put it:    

Quote

        Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.
        Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.
        And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.   LDS General Conference, October 5, 2013, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

"By living its precepts one gains new insights and intelligence."

Agreed. Living precepts leads to greater insights.

"When one does not live the gospel, these insights cease"

It depends. I no longer attend any Mormon meetings and don't live the Mormon version of any gospel. But that doesn't mean I don't live by precepts. I've recently been studying and applying Chinese philosophy and am gaining insights from doing so. 

Sounds fine to me if it works for you.  I was a Buddhist for a while before I was Mormon, studied Taoism, and was a necessary part of my spiritual development in my opinion.  For me it helped me understand that spirituality has nothing to do with science, something we find unfathomable in the West.  We are too hung up on Cartesianism still in the West, which actually started with Plato and his division between the mental and the physical.

The Eastern religions would never make that distinction.

Rorty actually makes the point that philosophy as we know it in the West was largely invented to handle the religion vs science debate.  Mormonism can be seen as "process philosophy" and in fact parallels Eastern philosophy in many ways- yin and yang parallels "opposition in all things", personal revelation through prayer and listening to the spirit parallels many meditative practices and even an open canon parallels the idea that religious beliefs include a process of change and progression through layers of truth. The parallels are too numerous to mention.  In fact I think Eastern religions are closer to Mormonism than Creedal Christianity is- our perspective is decidedly Eastern when you get down to brass tacks.  We have our gurus and teachers who are inspired - we call them "prophets".

In a lot of ways the same stuff.  I suppose if one was hung up on the historical problems and the whole science vs religion schtick some Mormons believe, as a false relic from their Protestant roots, Eastern religions would be a good direction.

The problem I found is that I am culturally Western and could not really BE "Eastern" no matter how hard I tried.  The paradigms are just too vastly different, and are central even to the languages of the East.  I wasn't quite ready to learn Chinese.  Those cultures were just too alien to me to dive into it thoroughly. 

My understanding of Mormonism from a pragmatic perspective is much more comfortable to me as a Westerner.

Besides I cannot give up on Christ, the atonement and love as the remedy for mankind.  Eastern philosophy is not at all service oriented, nor does it strive to make the world a better place.  Those are too important to me

Edited June 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, James Tunney said:

........................................................................................................................  If one doesn't privilege the book of mormon, it seems to me that the limited geography theory isn't probable, although still possible, as almost anything is possible.

I'm not sure whether this is a general statement about the BofM, or whether you are actually addressing the limited geography theory as such.

However, whenever one reads a book with a narrative account of purported cultures or civilizations (whether fact, pure fiction, or a historical novel), the question of the author's sources is always in play.  Scholars know, for example, that Homeric epic (Iliad and Odyssey) has a specific geography and takes place in the Heroic Age (2nd millennium BC Mycenean Greece), despite all the fictional events which take place.  How do they know this?  Via conformity of the geographical names and comments made in the epic poem, and via correlation with known historical and archeological facts.  The same applies to biblical literature, in very much the same way.

So, when addressing the same question for the Book of Mormon, we must ask similar questions, and answer them in a similarly serious way.  The apriori assumption that it is pure fiction can of course be made, as most people wrongly assume also to be the case for the novels of George R. R. Martin  -- Game of Thrones -- which are actually based on very specific historical events and very specific geography, with some very free adaptations by Martin, who is frank and open about it all:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj9fn4L4Njk , and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJK0TiIcbXw .

The point is that, although Martin is explicit about his sources and how he molded them, neither Joseph Smith nor any of his contemporaries knew anything about the civilizations of Mesoamerica, and could not have made any such systematic comparison.  That the BofM ends up matching archeological reality (as it does) is astonishing to say the least.

.

[Teancum]

Thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps you could answer me this question (it may seem off topic but it is the main reason I think mormonism isnt correct). Anyway, do you believe God intentionally obscures or misleads in order to test faith?

On 6/4/2016 at 6:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry I do not understand the question.

Mormonism does not hold that position.  That presumes that there is a world beyond our understanding which we cannot perceive that God would "obscure". 

Of course we have trials caused by circumstances that we cause or that are beyond our control.  Those become tests if we allow them to be.

 

Mormonism certainly does hold the position that God intentionally obscures to test faith.   "We will prove them now herewith...."  LDS doctrine teaches God intentionally caused His spirit children to forgot the entire pre earth life and to be born into a fallen world where there will be opposition in all things.  Why?  To prove that we will obey God while not in God's presence.   Further Mormonism teaches that there is no witness from God to the truth of something until after a trial of our faith.   Further it is clear that God either allows us to be tried in various ways or intentionally afflicts us (book of Job,D&C 121).  Further according to John Taylor Joseph Smith taught:

 

Quote

“I heard the Prophet Joseph say, in speaking to the Twelve on one occasion: ‘You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God, and (said he) God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.’ … Joseph Smith never had many months of peace after he received the truth, and finally he was murdered in Carthage jail.”  John Taylor, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Aug. 21, 1883, p. 1.

Mormonism is steeped with the idea that God will test us to our limits, that we will be tested similar to Abraham was although our Abrahamic tests will be different. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism certainly does hold the position that God intentionally obscures to test faith.   "We will prove them now herewith...."  LDS doctrine teaches God intentionally caused His spirit children to forgot the entire pre earth life and to be born into a fallen world where there will be opposition in all things.  Why?  To prove that we will obey God while not in God's presence.   Further Mormonism teaches that there is no witness from God to the truth of something until after a trial of our faith.   Further it is clear that God either allows us to be tried in various ways or intentionally afflicts us (book of Job,D&C 121).  Further according to John Taylor Joseph Smith taught:

 

Mormonism is steeped with the idea that God will test us to our limits, that we will be tested similar to Abraham was although our Abrahamic tests will be different. 

So?  Now you distort the idea of a test into "obscuring the truth?"

So if a high school teacher does not give out the answers to a test he is now some kind of bad guy and lying to his students??  Or what?  What's the point?  Just throwing random eggs at cars for fun?

Absurd.

i thought your questions were better than that- now you are just grasping at straws as a drive-by to score points or something- I can't figure it out.

A test is in no way "obscuring the truth" in any way that is morally or ethically relevant to anything.  

Edited June 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, James Tunney said:

It answered religious controversies from that time period such as infant baptism etc.  See generally http://ww

I've always thought Alexander Campbell's 1831 essay to be interesting.  He actually interprets the relevance and applicability of the Book of Mormon as evidence against it, as though the last thing a revelation from God should do would be to resolve Great Controversies.  Would Campbell have been happy with the untranslated plates he could not read but which would be, rather than relevant and useful,  incomprehensible therefore safely irrelevant with respect to "the Great Controversies"?

Nibley in his 1953-54 essay on "New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study" cited Blass on the science of detecting spurious documents. 

Quote

To illustrate this claim and not to undertake a thorough investigation at this time, let us briefly apply to the Book of Mormon the main rules put forth by Friedrich Blass in his classic work on hermeneutics and criticism, which remains the “standard work” on the subject.3 The rules given by Blass are all obvious enough to experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon.

To begin with, says Blass, “We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it.” You always begin by assuming that a text is genuine. 4 What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? One can hear the screams of protest: “How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!” Yet to the experience of the centuries Blass adds perfectly convincing reasons for his shocking rule. It is equally biased to accept or reject a text at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress.

Jacoby, the foremost authority on Greek historical writing, observes that no great historical writing was ever produced “sine ira et studio” 5—in other words, without partiality—one must take a stand on something if one is to lift or move anything. An open mind is not a mind devoid of opinions, but one that is willing to change opinions in the face of new evidence. If we must assume something about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the outset, why not assume that it is false, as its critics regularly do? Because, says Friedrich Blass, once you assume that a document is a fake, no arguments and no evidence to the end of time can ever vindicate it, even if it is absolutely genuine. Why is that? Because “there can be no such thing as an absolutely positive proof.”6 The only possible certainty lies in the negative; for example, if we know for sure that a crime has been committed by a woman, the negative fact that a suspect is not a woman completely exonerates him; but on the other hand the fact that one is a woman proves neither guilt nor innocence. Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.

Whoever refuses to accept the original claim of a document’s origin “is under obligation,” says Blass, “to supply in its place a credible explanation” of its origin.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=5

It turns out that both verification and falsification have their limits, and I've written about that at length in the Review several times.  

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

Critics from Campbell to Coe always violate these rules when attacking the Book of Mormon, and of course, none provided a better explanation, where "better" according to Thomas Kuhn ought to be most concerned with testable predictions, accuracy, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics as well as future promise, and not particularly concerned with the blanket pronouncements of favored authorities. "Joseph Smith did it 'somehow'" is not particularly testable, does not make accurate predictions, is not comprehensive in explaining things like the Arabian Journey, or Benjamin's discourse in light of Ancient Festivals, or compared to the San Bartolo Murals, or the experiences of the witnesses, or the content of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or Larry Poulson's and Brant Gardner's FAIR Presentations.

So where Campbell assumes fraud from the start, one of his 1831 evidences is that the Book of Mormon is too Christian before Christ, and Margaret Barker in 2005, starts out by saying:

Quote

Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context—the reign of King Zedikiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi? King Zedikiah [a son of Josiah] was installed in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.)

I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions, and I must emphasize that. I’m a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament. Until some Mormon scholars made contact with me a few years ago I would never have considered using Mormon texts and traditions as part of my own work.

Since that initial contact I have had many good and fruitful exchanges and have begun to look at these texts very closely. I’m still, however, very much an amateur in this area. What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar—“Are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem about 600 B.C.E?”[1]

---

[1] Margaret Barker “Joseph Smith and Pre-exilic Religion” in BYU Studies 44/4 (2005), 69

 And unexpectedly, and completely unknown to Campbell, compared to Barker's First Temple Theology, the Book of Mormon very neatly fits the Jerusalem.

In the Coe interview with Dehlin, I noticed that Coe at one point contrasts the strict monotheism of the Jews with the importance of the Great Mother figure in Mesoamerica.  For him, that was proof that there could have been no Hebrew influence.  In the comments section at Mormon Stories, I pointed the existence of books like Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, and Dever's Did God Have a Wife? and Peterson's essay on "Nephi and His Asherah" which collectively tend to undermine Coe's assumptions and demonstrate that despite his expertise on things Mayan, he's out of touch with developments on the Ancient Near East.  Dehlin deleted my comments as his way of demonstrating what he means by calling for open discussion.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Brant Gardner]

On 6/5/2016 at 8:11 AM, James Tunney said:

Dr. Michael Coe from Yale thoroughly discredits your mormon apologists. 

I find that all too often the Internet encourages people to take very simplistic views of complex issues. This is one of those cases. For example, I agree with many of the specific reasons Coe has mentioned about problems with the way the Book of Mormon has been compared to history. However, I don't agree that what he has said has anything to do with every approach to that topic. I can't fault him for not keeping up on the more recent work, he has no reason to be interested. However, the blanket statement that he has "thoroughly descredit[ed]" work on Book of Mormon historicity indicates both a lack of understanding of what Coe has actually said as well as the current state of the arguments.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So?  Now you distort the idea of a test into "obscuring the truth?"

So if a high school teacher does not give out the answers to a test he is now some kind of bad guy and lying to his students??  Or what?  What's the point?  Just throwing random eggs at cars for fun?

Absurd.

i thought your questions were better than that- now you are just grasping at straws as a drive-by to score points or something- I can't figure it out.

A test is in no way "obscuring the truth" in any way that is morally or ethically relevant to anything.  

Oh stop whining because someone challenges your self created notions of Mormonism.  My comments were fair and valid and in no way what you describe.

your example to refute me is absurd.  The teacher may not give our the answers to the test.   But the teacher does not cause the student to forget everything they have learned then say take the test.   

But then you know that already don't you.

[Rivers]

I've been reading the book. I just finished the article on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon by Kent P. Jackson. He presented arguments for and against the multiple authorship theory and ultimately took a stance on single authorship.  

Is David Bokovy the only LDS scholar who agrees with multiple authorship of Isaiah?

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

I've been reading the book. I just finished the article on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon by Kent P. Jackson. He presented arguments for and against the multiple authorship theory and ultimately took a stance on single authorship.  

Is David Bokovy the only LDS scholar who agrees with multiple authorship of Isaiah?

I'm comfortable with multiple authorship.  Nibley made a case in Since Cumorah, originally published in the Improvement Era.  Welch discussed possibilities at length in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. The difference between my view and Bokovoy's is, I don't think the divisions between First and Second are so secure, chapter by chapter, nor the Exilic dating.   And after writing my chapter on Isaiah issues in Paradigms Regained, I read Barker's "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song", which makes a very strong case that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which means it had to have written by First Isaiah in Jerusalem.  If a person or a school of thought neither notices nor accounts for that case, I don't count it a very persuasive or comprehensive explanation.  Barker's The Older Testament and her Isaiah commentary in the Eerdman's show her using the classic divisions, yet, her essay on the fourth servant song rattles the cage on that chapter.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

 

 

[James Tunney]

On 6/6/2016 at 8:36 AM, Brant Gardner said:

I find that all too often the Internet encourages people to take very simplistic views of complex issues. This is one of those cases. For example, I agree with many of the specific reasons Coe has mentioned about problems with the way the Book of Mormon has been compared to history. However, I don't agree that what he has said has anything to do with every approach to that topic. I can't fault him for not keeping up on the more recent work, he has no reason to be interested. However, the blanket statement that he has "thoroughly descredit[ed]" work on Book of Mormon historicity indicates both a lack of understanding of what Coe has actually said as well as the current state of the arguments.

I appreciate your point of view. Have any of the current arguments been submitted to peer review in popular academic journals? Would you or any of your colleagues be willing to engage Dr. Jenkins and answer the questions posed to Dr. Hamblin last year? What is the evidence you have for historicity? Is it mere possible parallels? How probable are these parallels? What do outside academics say about these parallels?

FYI: You earlier restored a link that was removed by an administrator because of temple content. You will be banned the next time.

[Kevin Christensen]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I appreciate your point of view. Have any of the current arguments been submitted to peer review in popular academic journals? Would you or any of your colleagues be willing to engage Dr. Jenkins and answer the questions posed to Dr. Hamblin last year? What is the evidence you have for historicity? Is it mere possible parallels? How probable are these parallels? What do outside academics say about these parallels?

FYI: You earlier restored a link that was removed by an administrator because of temple content. You will be banned the next time.

This is basically an iteration of a common place meme.

Brant recently published a book called Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History.  

http://gregkofford.com/products/bofm-as-history

Read it.  It might help more than asking Dr, Jenkins what to think.  

In discussions about the Book of Mormon, it is also important to understand how ideology works, and how scholars travel in schools of like-minded individuals.  Margaret Barker commented on Journals recently:

Quote

Third, remember that your ideas may not be well received by established people; this does not mean that your ideas are wrong. They may be, but then so may be the ideas of the established person and s/he will not welcome any really serious threats. This is the problem with peer-reviewed journals; the ‘peers’ can often be the establishment perpetuating itself. There does, however, have to be a way of ensuring that the quality of independent scholarship is maintained. This is something that needs to be worked out. Being published is not necessarily an indication of the quality of your scholarship; a publisher is running a business and s/he publishes what will sell. 

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2012/11/by-margaret-barker-what-do-i-say.html

One of the things that I learned from Coe's essays and interviews on the Book of Mormon from Dialogue in 1973 to PBS decades later and to Dehlin a few years ago, is that being an expert in his own field doesn't translate to expertise on the Book of Mormon.  Frankly, it was embarrassing.  If you got hauled into court, would you be wise to trust your case to the objectivity of the prosecution?  How would you feel if a judge threw out your lawyer, your evidence, your arguments, and the keys to your cell, on grounds that anyone arguing on your behalf was obviously not objective and should not be even heard.

Jenkins is willing to play according to his rules, his judges, his arena, his readings, his definitions, his ball, his audience, etc.  Kuhn observes that a paradigm amounts to a "group licensed way of seeing" and Jenkins insists on licencing where we can look, who can speak, and what there is to see.   RT's recent blog essays illustrate to me what happens when you think ideology only happens to other people.

I have to turn elsewhere to see this sort of thing, for instance:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Models/Limited/Poulsen_2004

Or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Footsteps-Lehi-Evidence-Journey-Bountiful/dp/0875798470

A few years back John Welch wrote about the nature of evidence:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

One of the things I learned on the playgrounds of Adelaide Elementary back in the 1960s is that anyone can dismiss anyone else's argument and evidence simply by saying, "So what?"  But that is their choice and their problem.  

Over several decades of serious interest, I have seen a great deal that critics leave unaccounted for and unexplained.  I have take close looks at several arguments against the Book of Mormon, and personally find them comparatively weak and shallow.  

This for instance:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=7

When I observed that the work of non-LDS Bible scholar had profound implications for the Book of Mormon, I sent a copy of my book to her.  One of the after effects was this:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/7066/6715

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA