The State of the Evidence

Robert F. Smith · July 7, 2016

18 hours ago, Gervin said:

In your Mulek paper that you enjoy directing people to, you quote some knowledgable non-LDS scholar who seems to indirectly confirm your conclusions ... yet he's anonymous. If non-LDS scholars don't want to be named, then it doesn't say much for their credibility. If you pass off an anonymous quote as having some weight, it doesn't speak highly of your scholarly methods. This isn't the only issue I have with your conclusion, but I don't want to debate the merits of your argument. Time's too precious.

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

That was David Noel Freedman, whom I had known since 1969 (when I first met him in Jerusalem). The quote is exact, and he said it to me at BYU as we walked together across that old bridge from the Wilkinson Center to the Law School. The same had been said to me years before by Joseph Schultz, history professor and head of Judaic Studies at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, when I was studying under him there. However, since any Hebraist would likely have said the same thing, and since I did not want to embarrass any non-Mormon scholars, I never approached Freedman to ask permission to quote him. Freedman was kind enough to write the Preface for Chiasmus in Antiquity, a book on which John W. Welch and I collaborated, and which featured several non-Mormon scholars.

Because of the extremist views of people like yourself, who like to heap opprobrium on anything Mormon, I am very hesitant to ask such honest scholars to say anything publicly, and so do not even ask for it. What I find very helpful are the standard scholarly statements made by such academics in the course of their own research projects.

Kevin Christensen · July 7, 2016

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm really busy this week, so just a few comments.

If the argument is that we are "theory-laden," or biased toward the accepted paradigms of "normal science," I would think that's a given. The problem, of course, is that there need to be a couple of conditions before a paradigm shift can occur: there need to be anomalies that can't be explained by the prevailing paradigm, and at least as important, there needs to be a competing paradigm that is "better" in "doing science" and explaining the anomalies than the prior paradigm. On the one hand, I see people like Robert saying that they are using the tools of "normal science" to show the plausibility of Book of Mormon claims, so I'm not sure that really counts as a competing paradigm. On the other, I am not seeing any anomalies that are not accounted for by the current paradigms of normal science, and even if there were such unmistakable anomalies, no one seems to be suggesting a competing paradigm, unless of course you are talking about taking a religious and spiritual approach. So, a paradigm that is "better" has not surfaced so far.

It is a clear category error to lump together all claims a religion might make as belonging to the spiritual, non-falsifiable realm, about which science, reason, logic, and so on can have very little to say. What would be the functional difference between the following two statements?

"Each morning, the Queen of England dresses in a gold spandex jumpsuit and parachutes into my backyard to bring me beans on toast for breakfast."

"My religious belief is that each morning the Queen of England dresses in a gold spandex jumpsuit and parachutes into my backyard to bring me beans on toast for breakfast."

And to answer Glenn's question, I've never asked for proof of anything. I'd settle for plausible and be happy to reconsider Mormonism based on that plausibility. For me, the telling thing is that I used to have a large "shelf" full of beliefs I either found highly implausible or, worse, morally and ethically wrong. I don't have a shelf anymore.

It seems to be that a paragraph or two pointed at "anachronism", DNA, and "Today we have science and don't need or want angels, especially if the angels talked to someone who does not live up to my personal expectations and desires" does not provide a comprehensive and coherence account of the Book of Mormon. It was Catholic scholar in the 50s who observed that the Book of Mormon has not universally been considered as one of those books that needs to be read in order to have an opinion of it. And the same could be said of the work of many LDS scholars. Kuhn himself observes that a dominant paradigm does not go about searching for anomalies that need explaining. The dominant explanation of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith did it "Somehow" and hands point vaguely towards View of the Hebrews and DNA. It's a closer look at the Book of Mormon compared to View of the Hebrews, the claims of the text versus the DNA issue in light of what actual experts on DNA provide, and NIbley's observation in 1953 that the best way to test purportedly ancient documents is to place them in the context they claim for themselves. So yes, for the vast majority of people, the Book of Mormon does not seem present a serious challenge to their worldview. But that is not because the vast majority of people have taken a close look at either the Book of Mormon text, View of the Hebrews, DNA, or the best work of LDS scholars. Most people don't bother. It's because I have done close reading and looked at the the best work of LDS scholars, and the have looked closely at competing explanations by critics that I see anomalies that are not accounted for by the current paradigms of normal science. In my view, the counter-arguments do not seriously compete, they don't rise to the challenge of being "better" in the way I measure better. And apart from a few critics who come and go, most people don't bother to read the texts, learn the game and the players, and make contributions.

Is Joseph Smith's environment + imagination = the Book of Mormon a good explanation of the Book of Mormon, or is it just a popular, largely unquestioned and un-argued one?

Just how do we explain the kinds of cultural, geographic, linguistic, literary, ritual, ethical, and other details that Joseph's head-in hat dictation over a day or two managed to weave into five chapters? Can you explain the details without acknowledging them and discussing them? I've posted links to my little essay on King Benjamin twice lately, and so far, I have not seen anyone acknowledge, discuss, or account for their presence. That strikes me as a rather telling anomaly, if the question is, if Joseph did it somehow that did not involve an angel and plates and translation, exactly how?

****ens dismissed the Mormons as "Seeing angels in an age of railways." And now we have a lot more science and technology. But no comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon. No explanation of why, for instance, two Mesoamerican cylinder seals have characters resembling those on the Anthon transcript. The lack of an explanation and the lack of acknowledgment strikes me as a demonstration of weakness in the dominant paradigm of "Joseph Smith did it somehow, don't trouble yourself over it."

“The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross-purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other needs in order to make its case. . . . The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.”48

Barbour defines paradigms.

Quote

Kuhn maintained that the thought and activity of a given scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, which he described as “standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions.” Newton’s work in mechanics, for instance, was the central paradigm of the community of physicists for two centuries. In the second edition (1970) of Kuhn’s book and in subsequent essays, he distinguished several features which he had previously lumped together: a research tradition, the key historical examples (“exemplars”) through which the tradition is transmitted, and the set of metaphysical assumptions implicit in its fundamental conceptual categories. Adopting these distinctions, I will use the term paradigm to refer to a tradition transmitted through historical exemplars. The concept of paradigm is thus defined sociologically and historically, and its implications for epistemology (the structure and character of knowledge) must be explored.⁷⁵

Nibley's work provided exemplary work, and the rise of the Maxwell Institute became a tradition transmitted through that work. Sorenson quite deliberately set out to follow Nibley's example for the Old World Context of the Book of Mormon as applied to the New World context. That is, for LDS scholars in that tradition, we started with the examples of their work as standards and work, by and large, using the same basic conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions. The community and the work generated by literally hundreds of scholars make it a paradigm by definition. It may not be dominant in the larger culture, but it exists as a real presence among LDS thinkers the live up precisely to Kuhn's definition of paradigm. There have been some attempts to define other approaches, Vogel and Metcalfe's New Approaches being an obvious candidate, and Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah another hopeful. And we have alternate approaches like Meldrum and the Malay hypothesis with different sub-communities. And the coup at the Maxwell Institute in 2012, which took the buildings but not the majority of the community of LDS scholars. Just those who could set policy towards a different agenda, towards religious studies (that is, acceptable to a larger intra- University academic culture) rather than overt apologetic (exploring and defending the claims that originally defined LDS culture, Joseph Smith's exemplary work).

When people don't share a general set of assumptions and methods, Kuhn observes, they tend to spend their time arguing about fundamentals, each trying to build arguments and communities from the ground up against the difficulty that inevitably comes from not sharing assumptions and methods, or building on the same standard examples.

Arguing "better" is not a matter of falsification (a symptom of positivism, thinking that has had it's philosophical foundation thoroughly demolished, though many try to build on that sand anyway), but of testing and assessment by means of criteria that are not paradigm-dependent, not overly self-referential.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 8, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

jkwilliams · July 7, 2016

17 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It seems to be that a paragraph or two pointed at "anachronism", DNA, and "Today we have science and don't need or want angels, especially if the angels talked to someone who does not live up to my personal expectations and desires" does not provide a comprehensive and coherence account of the Book of Mormon. It was Catholic scholar in the 50s who observed that the Book of Mormon has not universally been considered as one of those books that needs to be read in order to have an opinion of it.   And the same could be said of the work of many LDS scholars. Kuhn himself observes that a dominant paradigm does not go about searching for anomalies that need explaining. The dominant explanation of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith did is "Somehow" and hands point vaguely towards View of the Hebrews and DNA. It's a closer look at the Book of Mormon compared to View of the Hebrews, the claims of the text versus the DNA issue in light of what actual experts on DNA provide, and NIbley's observation in 1953 that the best way to test purportedly ancient documents is to place them in the context they claim for themselves. So yes, for the vast majority of people, the Book of Mormon does not seem present a serious challenge to their worldview. But that is not because the vast majority of people have taken a close look at either the Book of Mormon text, View of the Hebrews, DNA, or the best work of LDS scholars. Most people don't bother. It's because I have done close reading and looked at the the best work of LDS scholars, and the have looked closely at competing explanations by critics that I see anomalies that are not accounted for by the current paradigms of normal science. In my view, the counter-arguments do not seriously compete, they don't rise to the challenge of being "better" in the way I measure better. And apart from a few critics who come and go, most people don't bother to read the texts, learn the game and the players, and make contributions.

Is Joseph Smith's environment + imagination = the Book of Mormon a good explanation of the Book of Mormon, or is it just a popular, largely unquestioned and un-argued one?

Just how do we explain the kinds of cultural, geographic, linguistic, literary, ritual, ethical, and other details that Joseph's head-in hat dictation over a day or two managed to weave into five chapters?   Can you explain the details without acknowledging them and discussing them? I've posted links to my little essay on King Benjamin twice lately, and so far, I have not seen anyone acknowledge, discuss, or account for their presence. That strikes me as a rather telling anomaly, if the question is, if Joseph did it somehow that did not involve an angel and plates and translation, exactly how?

****ens dismissed the Mormons as "Seeing angels in an age of railways."   And now we have a lot more science and technology. But no comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon. No explanation of why, for instance, two Mesoamerican cylinder seals have characters resembling those on the Anthon transcript.   The lack of an explanation and the lack of acknowledgment strikes me as a demonstration of weakness in the dominant paradigm of "Joseph Smith did it somehow, don't trouble yourself over it."

“The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross-purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other needs in order to make its case. . . . The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.”48

Barbour defines paradigms.

Nibley's work provided exemplary work, and the rise of the Maxwell Institute became a tradition transmitted through that work. Sorenson quite deliberately set out to follow Nibley's example for the Old World Context of the Book of Mormon as applied to the New World context.   That is, for LDS scholars in that tradition, we started with the examples of their work as standards and work, by and large, using the same basic conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions. The community and the work generated by literally hundreds of scholars make it a paradigm by definition. It may not be dominant in the larger culture, but it exists as a real presence among LDS thinkers the live up precisely to Kuhn's definition of paradigm. There have been some attempts to define other approaches, Vogel and Metcalfe's New Approaches being an obvious candidate, and Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah another hopeful. And we have alternate approaches like Meldrum and the Malay hypothesis with different sub-communities. And the coup at the Maxwell Institute in 2012, which took the buildings but not the majority of the community of LDS scholars. Just those who could set policy towards a different agenda, towards religious studies (that is, acceptable to a larger intra- University academic culture) rather than overt apologetic (exploring and defending the claims that originally defined LDS culture, Joseph Smith's exemplary work).

When people don't share a general set of assumptions and methods, Kuhn observes, they tend to spend their time arguing about fundamentals, each trying to build arguments and communities from the ground up against the difficulty that inevitably comes from not sharing assumptions and methods, or building on the same standard examples.

Arguing "better" is not a matter of falsification (a symptom of positivism, thinking that has had it's philosophical foundation thoroughly demolished, though many try to build on that sand anyway), but of testing and assessment by means of criteria that are not paradigm-dependent, not overly self-referential.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Just call me Porfirio Diaz. :lol: Seriously, though, you are right that what we are talking about is testing and assessment, not logical positivism. That said, if there is a Nibley-Sorensen-and so on paradigm, whether it is "better" or not, it hardly fits the definition of "not paradigm dependent" and "not overly self-referential." And no, I don't favor a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon because I don't believe in angels; rather, I don't believe angels appeared to Joseph Smith because the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th-century origin.

Robert F. Smith · July 7, 2016

23 hours ago, Gervin said:

I'm not interested in credibility as you might define it; I find your logic, reasoning, writing and scholarship to be painfully weak. Perhaps you can show me some scholars outside of the LDS church who cite your work/papers? My guess is that there are none. No, I just like calling out bs when I see it. That's why I respond to your posts

I suppose that such full-throated condemnation makes you feel good, even though it escapes any substantive comment. If my work is of such poor quality, it should be easy for you to point out the specific, substantive weaknesses. Unless, of course, you know nothing about the subject-matter.

In addition to positive reviews by non-Mormons of my work in that Welch book on Chiasmus in Antiquity, including kind remarks about me by my non-Mormon colleagues in that volume-- acknowledging my assistance, I am frequently cited in scholarly publications by non-Mormon academics.

Robert F. Smith · July 7, 2016

On 7/6/2016 at 3:35 PM, consiglieri said:

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

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

Guess what already made it into the manual?

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

Enjoyed this post immensely, Counselor, but I also wanted to call your attention to another item in that same teacher manual:

Quote

. . . the Lord may at times emphasize certain eternal laws because of social changes and the needs of His Church or the world. ............

Point out that there are also laws in the Church that may change as directed by the Lord through His prophets. These include laws that direct the priesthood administration of the gospel and its ordinances and relate to the organization and management of the Lord’s Church and His people. Some of these laws may also be referred to as Church policies or practices. As prophets and apostles seek the Lord’s inspiration and counsel together, they may make adjustments to these laws according to the Lord’s will. These changes allow the Church to expand in an orderly way throughout the world and to address varying conditions and needs on the earth.

ETA: In his forthcoming book, Thank You for Being Late (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Nov 2016), Tom Friedman apparently argues that several hurricane forces of change are crowding in upon all of us, which require that we either adapt of get destroyed. That is, he is predicting that a kind of Malthusian reality will test the resolve and resilience of every country and people. "Survival of the fittest." Do you think that .the LDS Church can adapt?

Edited July 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

Calm · July 7, 2016

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose that such full-throated condemnation makes you feel good, even though it escapes any substantive comment. If my work is of such poor quality, it should be easy for you to point out the specific, substantive weaknesses. Unless, of course, you know nothing about the subject-matter.

In addition to positive reviews by non-Mormons of my work in that Welch book on Chiasmus in Antiquity, including kind remarks about me by my non-Mormon colleagues in that volume-- acknowledging my assistance, I am frequently cited in scholarly publications by non-Mormon academics.

Here is a cite:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pnHhCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq="Robert+f+smith"+chiasm&source=bl&ots=zuaBDSum6N&sig=VDP7hJ3bJhWAPXPk46RZTp3MPOE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9pZaPsuLNAhUT4GMKHVNBCwsQ6AEIKjAG#v=onepage&q="Robert f smith" chiasm&f=false

Calm · July 7, 2016

And another one:

http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/7687

This says it has a cite, but can't access it:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43719109?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Came up with a number of cites on "robert f smith" chiasm -mormon where the author and publisher appear through google to have nothing to do with LDS.

Kevin Christensen · July 7, 2016

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Just call me Porfirio Diaz. Seriously, though, you are right that what we are talking about is testing and assessment, not logical positivism. That said, if there is a Nibley-Sorensen-and so on paradigm, whether it is "better" or not, it hardly fits the definition of "not paradigm dependent" and "not overly self-referential." And no, I don't favor a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon because I don't believe in angels; rather, I don't believe angels appeared to Joseph Smith because the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th-century origin.

Whether the Nibley-Sorenson paradigm is better can fit the definition of not overly self-referential if two conditions are met. "Better" requires comparison with another paradigm, and the values for deciding which is better are not paradigm dependent. It's not enough to dismiss something like Welch's essay on King Benjamin's speech in light of Ancient Israelite Festivals on grounds that Welch is a believer. It's not enough to say that Nibley only found things like Lehi's qasida, or Forty Day Ministry comparisons because he went looking for them. It's not enough to say that Ben McGuire's reading of allusion in the Laban story doesn't count because it was published first at FAIR and then at FARMS. Nor, especially is it enough to say "the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th century origin."

After all as Kuhn observes:

Quote

Insofar as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigm. Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzles solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to achieve the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Kuhn, 144

Simply saying that "the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th century origin" does not demonstrate any serious paradigm testing, but rather paradigm asserting.

Information that only appears because an investigator has adopted a paradigm does not by itself rule out its value. Notice that one of Kuhn's criteria for paradigm choice is "fruitfulness"

Quote

[P]articularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Ibid., 154

I've cited David Wright's claim that the Melchizedek traditions, while older than Hebrews, have diverse sources that do not go back to the 6th Century BCE. In this light, I found it particularly persuasive to encounter Margaret Barker's demonstration that the Melchizedek traditions go back to the role of the Ancient Kings, acting as High Priests in the Temple, which makes for a single source available to Lehi.

A judgement of better must involve comparison, and the use of values that are not paradigm dependent. That is why I keep citing the list from Kuhn, involving puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise, and some open consideration of "which problems are most significant to have solved."

To say that none of the findings that have come out of the Nibley-Sorenson paradigm need to be addressed or explained at all does not involve paradigm testing. It is an ideological dismissal. It is saying, "You are not the orthodox religion," you are in some telling way, "Not us."

True paradigm testing involves risk. When I made close readings of things like New Approaches, or The New Mormon Challenge, or Deconstructing Mormonism, I made a point of involving comparison of findings from different paradigms, and applying the values that Kuhn identified as most relevant to which paradigm is better.

Given that Jack Welch did not expect to discover chiasmus, that John Tvedtnes did not expect to see a Feast of the Tabernacles, that I did not expect to be able to compare Mircea Eliade and 3 Nephi, that generations of Mormons had been told that the Book of Mormon has nothing about the temple until Welch, then Nibley,and even yours truly began to see differently. A claim that in service of the environmental theory, we can simply invoke View of the Hebrews, is not the same thing as accounting for Larry Poulson's and Brant Gardner's FAIR presentations, let alone hundreds of other studies including Welch's 1984 response. Just because we discovered things from within a paradigm, they does not mean that our discoveries count for nothing. If you can account for what we have better than we do, then by all means do so. But when what we have discovered is not even addressed, logically speaking, how can that be "better" by any standard except simple ideology.

Mormon scholars live in the house of faith. That gives us the time and inclination to take a closer look at the criticisms. Mormonism is expensive, demanding, unpopular, restrictive and controversial, which means, notions of impartial objectivity are ludicrous. But we have the advantage because we take time to nurture the seed to see what grows. I have seen and experienced way to much to be even flustered by claims that there is nothing to see here folks.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, Pa

jkwilliams · July 7, 2016

2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Whether the Nibley-Sorenson paradigm is better can fit the definition of not overly self-referential if two conditions are met. "Better" requires comparison with another paradigm, and the values for deciding which is better are not paradigm dependent. It's not enough to dismiss something like Welch's essay on King Benjamin's speech in light of Ancient Israelite Festivals on grounds that Welch is a believer. It's not enough to say that Nibley only found things like Lehi's qasida, or Forty Day Ministry comparisons because he went looking for them. It's not enough to say that Ben McGuire's reading of allusion in the Laban story doesn't count because it was published first at FAIR and then at FARMS. Nor, especially is it enough to say "the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th century origin."

After all as Kuhn observes:

Simply saying that "the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th century origin" does not demonstrate any serious paradigm testing, but rather paradigm asserting.

Information that only appears because an investigator has adopted a paradigm does not by itself rule out its value. Notice that one of Kuhn's criteria for paradigm choice is "fruitfulness"

I've cited David Wright's claim that the Melchizedek traditions, while older than Hebrews, have diverse sources that do not go back to the 6th Century BCE. In this light, I found it particularly persuasive to encounter Margaret Barker's demonstration that the Melchizedek traditions go back to the role of the Ancient Kings, acting as High Priests in the Temple, which makes for a single source available to Lehi.

A judgement of better must involve comparison, and the use of values that are not paradigm dependent. That is why I keep citing the list from Kuhn, involving puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise, and some open consideration of "which problems are most significant to have solved."

To say that none of the findings that have come out of the Nibley-Sorenson paradigm need to be addressed or explained at all does not involve paradigm testing. It is an ideological dismissal. It is saying, "You are not the orthodox religion," you are in some telling way, "Not us."

True paradigm testing involves risk. When I made close readings of things like New Approaches, or The New Mormon Challenge, or Deconstructing Mormonism, I made a point of involving comparison of findings from different paradigms, and applying the values that Kuhn identified as most relevant to which paradigm is better.

Given that Jack Welch did not expect to discover chiasmus, that John Tvedtnes did not expect to see a Feast of the Tabernacles, that I did not expect to be able to compare Mircea Eliade and 3 Nephi, that generations of Mormons had been told that the Book of Mormon has nothing about the temple until Welch, then Nibley,and even yours truly began to see differently. A claim that in service of the environmental theory, we can simply invoke View of the Hebrews, is not the same thing as accounting for Larry Poulson's and Brant Gardner's FAIR presentations, let alone hundreds of other studies including Welch's 1984 response. Just because we discovered things from within a paradigm, they does not mean that our discoveries count for nothing. If you can account for what we have better than we do, then by all means do so. But when what we have discovered is not even addressed, logically speaking, how can that be "better" by any standard except simple ideology.

Mormon scholars live in the house of faith. That gives us the time and inclination to take a closer look at the criticisms. Mormonism is expensive, demanding, unpopular, restrictive and controversial, which means, notions of impartial objectivity are ludicrous. But we have the advantage because we take time to nurture the seed to see what grows. I have seen and experienced way to much to be even flustered by claims that there is nothing to see here folks.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, Pa

Again, you assert that only apologists have tested the paradigm. And it's pretty crappy to suggest that people who tested your paradigm, found it wanting, and went through the personal hell of leaving the church just couldn't handle an expensive and demanding religion.

I don't know anyone who believes they are approaching Mormonism objectively. And God knows I've never said "nothing to see hear folks." Nor have I ever invoked View of the Hebrews.

And who hasn't addressed what you've discovered? I've been on this board off and on almost 15 years, and that is the main topic of discussion, is it not?

Ahab · July 7, 2016

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know anyone who believes they are approaching Mormonism objectively.

Hello! Or maybe it's just that you don't know that you've met people who believe they are approaching Mormonism objectively. In my case, both objectively and subjectively.

And you can believe me when I say that if I didn't have a personal testimony from God to affirm that this stuff is true that I probably wouldn't believe this stuff is true, either, then numbering myself amongst the majority on this planet who don't believe it.

Glenn101 · July 8, 2016

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And to answer Glenn's question, I've never asked for proof of anything. I'd settle for plausible and be happy to reconsider Mormonism based on that plausibility. For me, the telling thing is that I used to have a large "shelf" full of beliefs I either found highly implausible or, worse, morally and ethically wrong. I don't have a shelf anymore.

Actually you did not really answer my hypothetical question, but since you are short on time this week, I will go with James Tunney's response.

20 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I don't know about John but I would have to reconsider.

And that is to the point. If such conclusive proof were to exist, a person would have to reconsider. Let's take a proof such as Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced, i.e. that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father appeared to him in a vision. If a person were to receive such a visitation, and they informed such an one that they did indeed appear to Joseph Smith, the recipient would know two things at that point. One is that God the Father and Jesus Christ exist, and two, they corroborated Joseph's story. At that point, unbelief in the existence of God and Jesus would be superseded by knowledge. The unbeliever would still have the option of believing what God and Jesus had told him, and in following them. But the need for faith would have been overridden. And that would be antithetical to the basis of the Christian religion, i.e. faith in Christ.

Rationally, if a person accepts the premise that there is a God, and that He expects/requires that His children seek and find Him through faith, you cannot expect to find physical evidence that will prove that God does exist. It would put an end to God's plan.

This puts everybody on the same footing. The red neck hick from North Carolina (me), the erudite scholar, the uneducated person in a third world, country, my developmentally handicapped son, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, you and everybody else have the type of access, the same manner of finding out if God exists and more.

I came to this conclusion, this understanding, years ago. I had questions for sure. I wondered how the ark could have possibly been big enough to house two or seven pairs of each kind of animal with enough feed to last forty days and forty nights?

The later, an atheist acquaintance clued me in that there was no archeological evidence for the 430 (or is it 400) year sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt, When I checked it out, I found that he was correct.

Same way with the Exodus. Or the timing of the Battle of Jericho. And the universal flood. Or even a historical man Israel nee Jacob (among others). Hey. at least there is some extra-biblical, and extra "Book of Abraham" evidence for the existence of Abraham.

If I were to accept only scientific evidence, at this stage, the Bible would be just a fable.

I have out those aside, mentally, awaiting better light and knowledge.

Those who need something bordering on conclusive will not be getting it. I do not know what you mean by plausible evidence, though. Are you referring to angelic visitations, etc. or more mundane things such as the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon? I think there has been a lot of plausible evidence brought to light concerning the Book of Mormon, but, no, the signpost for Zarahemla has not ben found, yet.

So, I am not surprised when a stake president can make such a statement.

Glenn

jkwilliams · July 8, 2016

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually you did not really answer my hypothetical question, but since you are short on time this week, I will go with James Tunney's response.

And that is to the point. If such conclusive proof were to exist, a person would have to reconsider. Let's take a proof such as Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced, i.e. that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father appeared to him in a vision. If a person were to receive such a visitation, and they informed such an one that they did indeed appear to Joseph Smith, the recipient would know two things at that point. One is that God the Father and Jesus Christ exist, and two, they corroborated Joseph's story. At that point, unbelief in the existence of God and Jesus would be superseded by knowledge. The unbeliever would still have the option of believing what God and Jesus had told him, and in following them. But the need for faith would have been overridden. And that would be antithetical to the basis of the Christian religion, i.e. faith in Christ.

Rationally, if a person accepts the premise that there is a God, and that He expects/requires that His children seek and find Him through faith, you cannot expect to find physical evidence that will prove that God does exist. It would put an end to God's plan.

This puts everybody on the same footing. The red neck hick from North Carolina (me), the erudite scholar, the uneducated person in a third world, country, my developmentally handicapped son, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, you and everybody else have the type of access, the same manner of finding out if God exists and more.

I came to this conclusion, this understanding, years ago. I had questions for sure. I wondered how the ark could have possibly been big enough to house two or seven pairs of each kind of animal with enough feed to last forty days and forty nights?

The later, an atheist acquaintance clued me in that there was no archeological evidence for the 430 (or is it 400) year sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt, When I checked it out, I found that he was correct.

Same way with the Exodus. Or the timing of the Battle of Jericho. And the universal flood. Or even a historical man Israel nee Jacob (among others). Hey. at least there is some extra-biblical, and extra "Book of Abraham" evidence for the existence of Abraham.

If I were to accept only scientific evidence, at this stage, the Bible would be just a fable.

I have out those aside, mentally, awaiting better light and knowledge.

Those who need something bordering on conclusive will not be getting it. I do not know what you mean by plausible evidence, though. Are you referring to angelic visitations, etc. or more mundane things such as the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon? I think there has been a lot of plausible evidence brought to light concerning the Book of Mormon, but, no, the signpost for Zarahemla has not ben found, yet.

So, I am not surprised when a stake president can make such a statement.

Glenn

I did answer your question. You asked what I would do if there were proof, and I said I would reconsider if there were only evidence of plausibility. I don't need bordering on conclusive, just plausible.

Ahab · July 8, 2016

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I did answer your question. You asked what I would do if there were proof, and I said I would reconsider if there were only evidence of plausibility. I don't need bordering on conclusive, just plausible.

We have plausible evidence too, unless maybe you just have not seen it or been told about it, so at this point you still have 2 ootions... either to accept it or to reject it. And rejecting it includes rejecting the evidence as an example of plausible evidence.

So pick an issue, any issue, and we will tell you about some plausible evidence that we know of that supports belief on that issue.

Kevin Christensen · July 8, 2016

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, you assert that only apologists have tested the paradigm. And it's pretty crappy to suggest that people who tested your paradigm, found it wanting, and went through the personal hell of leaving the church just couldn't handle an expensive and demanding religion.

I don't know anyone who believes they are approaching Mormonism objectively. And God knows I've never said "nothing to see hear folks." Nor have I ever invoked View of the Hebrews.

And who hasn't addressed what you've discovered? I've been on this board off and on almost 15 years, and that is the main topic of discussion, is it not?

I do not assert that only apologists have tested the paradigm. It's a matter of which groups/individuals/whomever tests it "better" and means by which a person decides on better, whether in an ideologically closed way, solving a puzzle defined by a particular paradigm (whether that is McMurrin or Coe nor Riskas or Brodie) or via a deliberate test of paradigms. Over this thread, I've cited New Approaches, McMurrin, the Tanners, Brodie, Vogel, The New Mormon Challenge, and Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism. I could cite many others.

While I have had a few of my arguments addressed, Vogel, for example, once in Sunstone, and once on his website, I've had many of my arguments utterly ignored, and I'm aware of many essays and books making significant arguments that have not been addressed by those who argue that a 19th century context plus imagine provides a sufficient explanation.. For instance, who has comprehensively addressed and accounted for the studies I cited in my Meridan essay on the complexity of King Benjamin's discourse? Or who has discussed "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" by Thomasson and Hawkins? Who has come with a 19th century explanation that defines a testable puzzle, makes definite predictions, fits into a comprehensive and coherent accounting of everything else we know, is fruitful in leading to unanticipated discoveries, is simple and aesthetically appealing, and has the future promise towards solving anything and everything outstanding about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the Mormon community?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=51

Quote

In the sciences, the testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradigm with nature. Instead the testing occurs as part of the competition between two paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Kuhn, 145

In one of the very few attempts I have seen to address arguments on all sides of the Book of Mormon Historicity debates, John Charles Duffy wrote some essays for Sunstone. Despite listing a great many important works in his bibliographies (most of which I notice that I had also read), he admits

Quote

“As someone who does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I dismiss a priori much of the work FARMS scholars have done around the book.”[1]

[1] “Defending the Kingdom: Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy” Sunstone 132. (May 2004) p 43

And in his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity debates essay, all of the heavy lifting is made not by comparing and weighing arguments and evidence, but in proposing a pair of metaphors that do all the work for him.

Quote

To Illustrate the principle that evidence is invented not found, I will use examples from the essays of American literary theorist Stanley Fish, and from the novel Foucalt’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco.[1]

[1] John Charles Duffy, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates--Part II,” (Sunstone 152, December 2008) page 5

These metaphors, his standard examples for him define the puzzle to solve, the background assumptions, the methods to use, and the standard of solution, which in his case ends up as simple paradigm assertion without demonstration, without any real testing and wrestling.

Of course people have tried the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and yours truly as by their assumptions, methods, and tests and have found us wanting, as believable. But the question remains of "which paradigm is best? Which background assumptions, problem field, methods, and standards of solution are best and how do we, and how should we measure, given that at any given moment we are limited in our knowledge and are faced with a choice of commitments in how to spend a short lifetime?"

It may also be worth considering the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which I notice has some relevance for whether a person will actually be capable of dealing with what Kuhn is talking about.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

James Tunney · July 8, 2016

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I do not assert that only apologists have tested the paradigm. It's a matter of which groups/individuals/whomever tests it "better" and means by which a person decides on better, whether in an ideologically closed way, solving a puzzle defined by a particular paradigm (whether that is McMurrin or Coe nor Riskas or Brodie) or via a deliberate test of paradigms. Over this thread, I've cited New Approaches, McMurrin, the Tanners, Brodie, Vogel, The New Mormon Challenge, and Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism. I could cite many others.

While I have had a few of my arguments addressed, Vogel, for example, once in Sunstone, and once on his website, I've had many of my arguments utterly ignored, and I'm aware of many essays and books making significant arguments that have not been addressed by those who argue that a 19th century context plus imagine provides a sufficient explanation.. For instance, who has comprehensively addressed and accounted for the studies I cited in my Meridan essay on the complexity of King Benjamin's discourse? Or who has discussed "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" by Thomasson and Hawkins? Who has come with a 19th century explanation that defines a testable puzzle, makes definite predictions, fits into a comprehensive and coherent accounting of everything else we know, is fruitful in leading to unanticipated discoveries, is simple and aesthetically appealing, and has the future promise towards solving anything and everything outstanding about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the Mormon community?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=51

In one of the very few attempts I have seen to address arguments on all sides of the Book of Mormon Historicity debates, John Charles Duffy wrote some essays for Sunstone. Despite listing a great many important works in his bibliographies (most of which I notice that I had also read), he admits

And in his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity debates essay, all of the heavy lifting is made not by comparing and weighing arguments and evidence, but in proposing a pair of metaphors that do all the work for him.

These metaphors, his standard examples for him define the puzzle to solve, the background assumptions, the methods to use, and the standard of solution, which in his case ends up as simple paradigm assertion without demonstration, without any real testing and wrestling.

Of course people have tried the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and yours truly as by their assumptions, methods, and tests and have found us wanting, as believable. But the question remains of "which paradigm is best? Which background assumptions, problem field, methods, and standards of solution are best and how do we, and how should we measure, given that at any given moment we are limited in our knowledge and are faced with a choice of commitments in how to spend a short lifetime?"

It may also be worth considering the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which I notice has some relevance for whether a person will actually be capable of dealing with what Kuhn is talking about.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Kevin, how do you define "best" when you assert that the question remains of "which paradigm is best?" It seems to me that "best" is defined in terms of a desired conclusion, supporting historicity and mormon authority claims for you. Could you flesh out why I should believe in your paradigm and why it is "best?" Frankly, it seems that according to the evidence, you are the one who should shift your paradigm toward non-historicity.

Robert F. Smith · July 8, 2016

5 hours ago, Calm said:

And another one:

http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/7687

This says it has a cite, but can't access it:

That is Patricia Ann Lissner, “Chi-thinking: Chiasmus and Cognition,” doctoral dissertation (Univ. of Maryland, 2007), 122 n. 19, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=ItnDjYuIG9AC&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=lissner,+Chi-thinking:+Chiasmus+and+Cognition&source=bl&ots=gG27cr0uiw&sig=B7KgtraQxaG2MblXww1OgvFfoHM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBlabc--LNAhUW2mMKHTOMBPgQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=lissner%2C Chi-thinking%3A Chiasmus and Cognition&f=false .

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43719109?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

You may have been looking for the review by Stanislav Segert in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 46/2 (April 1984):336-338, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/43719110 . .

Came up with a number of cites on "robert f smith" chiasm -mormon where the author and publisher appear through google to have nothing to do with LDS.

The reviews not only comment favorably on my work, but also mention the piece by Welch on Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

Kevin Christensen · July 8, 2016

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Kevin, how do you define "best" when you assert that the question remains of "which paradigm is best?" It seems to me that "best" is defined in terms of a desired conclusion, supporting historicity and mormon authority claims for you. Could you flesh out why I should believe in your paradigm and why it is "best?" Frankly, it seems that according to the evidence, you are the one who should shift your paradigm toward non-historicity.

So, you are saying, for instance, that the information in my little Meridian essay on King Benjamin's discourse provides evidence that should lead me to believe that the Book of Mormon is best explained as as 19th century fiction, whether an inspired fiction or pious or impious fraud? If that is the "best" explanation of the evidence I provide and cite, how, I wonder, are you measuring best?

Quote

To the extent . . . that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent.⁴⁰

I've repeatedly cited Kuhn on how paradigms are best valued comparatively in how each generates testable puzzles, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (that is, leading to insight and observation that otherwise, from a rival paradigm, would have been overlooked), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise towards guiding research on open problems.

In Paradigms Crossed I referred to Metcalfe's essay in New Approaches

Quote

Metcalfe’s own essay provides a good example of this. He writes about King Benjamin’s oration as though it were a nineteenth-century revival, claiming that “the apex of the narrative . . . depends . . . fundamentally on a nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith” (p. 421 n. 31). He sees the four-step pattern as “(1) Revival Gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); (3) Petition for Spiritual Emancipation (v. 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstasy (v. 3)” (ibid.).

Metcalfe then remarks that “some have attempted to assert comparisons between Lehite religious awakenings and ancient Hebrew rituals” (p. 421 n. 31), referring to, but neglecting the strengths of, valuable studies by Welch, Nibley, Ostler, Ricks, and Tvedtnes,⁸⁴ and ignoring other studies such as those by Welch on the farewell address form⁸⁵ and on the complex interwoven chiastic structures,⁸⁶ and Thomasson on kingship.⁸⁷ He defends the priority of his reading by asserting that nineteenth-century camp meetings were modeled after the Israelite Feast of Tabernacles. He also leaves us to wonder why the ancient studies provide a far more comprehensive set of parallels to the ancient convocations than does comparison with the nineteenth-century sources. Nibley’s chapter alone, “Old World Ritual in the New World” in An Approach to the Book of Mormon, includes a thirty-six-step pattern, versus a four-step pattern in Metcalfe.⁸⁸

Reluctant to confront directly the undeniably more comprehensive account by “traditionalists,” Metcalfe shifts his ground and anchors his account to a “key” anomaly, claiming that traditionalists need to show “neophytes of any culture B.C.e.” experiencing a ” “revival’ conversion.”⁸⁹ This begs the question of whether ” “revival’ conversion” is an appropriate description of the Mosiah account, sidesteps serious consideration of the more comprehensive studies assembled by FARMS, and ignores the potential effect of translation factors on the language used.⁹

And I've been linking my Meridan essay that goes into more detail:

http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1644/

I notice that Grant Palmer in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins cited the same four step pattern, without attribution, and did not bother to cite any of the studies that Metcalfe did. It is certainly legitimate for him to argue for a 19th century origin, and claim Joseph Smith was influenced by a speech by an outgoing minister, but since I have numerous studies he does not mention, and likely did not even consider, I have to consider which overall explanation is better.

Quote

Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.¹²⁶

As another good example, take Coe's explanation of the Book of Mormon for the PBS interview.

Quote

In the PBS series The Mormons, Coe first puts Joseph Smith in a category consistent with Russell’s judgment: “I really think that Joseph Smith, like shamans everywhere, started out faking it. I have to believe this—that he didn’t believe this at all, that he was out to impress, but he got caught up in the mythology that he created.” ³³

The point of placing Joseph Smith in a category is that it can provide predictions and explanations for his actions. Yet as Coe describes Joseph’s accomplishment, his chosen category fails: “He made it up and dictated it nonstop. It’s very long, the Book of Mormon. . . . I mean, if it’s a work of fiction, nobody has ever done anything like this before. And I think it is fiction, but he really carried it through, and my respect for him is unbounded.” If no one in or out of the “fraud” category has done anything like the Book of Mormon, what good is the category? It becomes a mere label that explains nothing. And we still have to correlate the content predicted by Coe’s theory with Joseph Smith and the actual text.

Coe continues:

In 1841—after the Book of Mormon, actually—there was a publication in New York and London of a wonderful two-volume work called Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan by John Lloyd Stephens, an American diplomat, and his artist-companion, the British topographical artist Frederick Catherwood, with wonderful illustrations by Catherwood of the Maya ruins. This was the beginning of Maya archaeology, . . . and we who worked with the Maya civilization consider Stephens and Catherwood the kind of patron saints of the whole thing.

Well, Joseph Smith read these two volumes, and he was flabbergasted, because what he had dictated about the ancient cities in his mind, these were the ancient cities that he was talking about. They weren’t in South America, as he originally thought; they were in Central America and neighboring Mexico.

Notice that Coe has a consciously fraudulent Joseph Smith composing his text with a hemispheric setting in mind, and not even imagining a limited setting until the Nauvoo period, when he encounters the Stephens and Catherwood volume. Here we can test the claim. What New World physical setting does the Book of Mormon describe, if any?

Lawrence Poulsen recently examined all of the passages ³⁴ in the Book of Mormon that describe the river Sidon, the axis for most of the action in the Book of Mormon, and extracted the salient characteristics of that river. He then performed a computer search of a 3-D satellite map of the entire Western Hemisphere to find candidates that matched the description. For a real-world river that begins in a narrow strip of wilderness that reaches from a sea west to a sea east, that begins flowing from east to west, then turns north, and then empties into an eastern sea, he found exactly one candidate. This turns out to be the Grijalva, which several Latter-day Saint models, including John L. Sorenson’s, put forward as a candidate for the Sidon. For those who mistrust computers, just look at the passages that Poulsen uses and the details the Sidon requires. The Grijalva is the only viable candidate that meets the demands of the text. Notice that Coe’s model of Book of Mormon composition requires that this precise match happened in direct violation of the conscious conception of the author.

Think about how likely it is to spread such an accident across thirty-seven direct mentions distributed across twenty-eight verses of rapid dictation. And that amid all the complex story lines and discourses in the Book of Mormon. Then, along with that happy accident, consider the interlocking interrelations with the seven hundred other passages with geographic information on distances, coastlines, marches and tactics, the ups and downs, a massive volcanic event. Then add the numerous cultural details.³⁵ If accidentally getting just the river Sidon in Mesoamerica while imagining an undisclosed location in South America seems unreasonable, how about getting the rest of the text to fit around the Grijalva by accident as well? Coe’s approach fails as soon as we look closely at the text, which suggests that, for all his expertise in things Mayan, he has not looked closely at our text

At this point, I expect that the reason that some people are having a hard time dealing with Kuhn has less to do with the explanations and examples I have provided and more to do with Positions on the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.
....

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

For a helpful survey of the 9 Positions, see http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

mfbukowski · July 8, 2016

On 7/5/2016 at 5:44 AM, Monster said:

I could accept subjective truth if I had ever experienced it to bring some kind of concise agreement on truth. Yet here I am with a multitude of religions using basically the same source material and arriving at different conclusions using subjective truth. With objective truth you tend to at least get a consensus of truth.

But that is not true.

If you have experienced moral outrage- which is easy to do today- you have experienced "subjective truth". If you have experienced love, you have experienced "subjective truth".

If you have experienced an urge to correct a moral wrong, you have experienced "subjective truth". In fact your posts - the very fact that you are here- shows that you are motivated to share your personal "subjective truth" with us.

If you have made steps in your life to improve your life, by getting an education or even just learning enough to come up with the arguments you do come up with, you have experienced faith

The fact that most of the philosophers of science totally disagree with your view of the nature of science shows that you actually do not share their views- they understand the nature of science and what it can and cannot do.

I wish you could only understand that religion is NOT about "objective truth", but subjective truth. You have even chosen a fictitious character as your avatar- the character himself was dreamed up 50 years ago to conform to the imagination of the common man of 50 years ago who found Spock "logical"- yet the logic he spouts is not logic, but an imaginary rendering of it by writers ignorant of logic as it is understood today.

Please do me a favor if you actually want to learn about contemporary concepts of truth, and drop the logical positivism. It is dead. If you want to be an atheist, go for it- but for Pete's sake update your arguments and understanding, it will be for your own edification. Yes, the common man including members of the church cling to Cartesianism, but as a critical thinker, you need to update your concept of "truth". I suggest reading this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Quote

2. The Equivalence Schema

Perhaps because of the widespread interest in deflationism, the theory has received many different formulations. The result is that there is not so much a deflationary theory of truth as many. In recent times, however, the deflationary theory has most often been presented with the help of a schema, which is sometimes called the equivalence schema:

(ES) <p> is true if and only if p.

In this schema angle brackets indicate an appropriate name-forming device, e.g. quotation marks or ‘the proposition that …’, and occurrences of ‘p’ are replaced with sentences to yield instances of the schema. With the help of (ES), we can formulate deflationism as the view, roughly, that the instances of this schema capture everything significant that can be said about truth. Theories which depart from deflationism deny that the equivalence schema tells us the whole truth about truth. Since such theories add to the equivalence schema, they are often called inflationary theories of truth. (The equivalence schema is associated with Alfred Tarski (1944, 1958), but it is far from obvious that Tarski was any sort of deflationist. We will largely set Tarski aside here.)

Formulated in this way, deflationism does not give an explicit definition of truth, for (ES) is not a definition of anything. Indeed, some deflationists (most notably Horwich 1998b) do not provide an explicit definition of truth at all. Instead, they provide an explicit definition of having the concept of truth. To be more precise, the suggestion is that someone has the concept of truth just in case he or she is disposed to accept all (noncontroversial) instances of the equivalence schema, i.e., every sentence of the form ‘<p> is true if and only if p’ that is not paradoxical or in some other way deviant. Of course, such deflationists may think that, in saying something about what it is to have the concept of truth, they have told us what the concept of truth is. But the latter is a by-product of the former; for this reason, we can say that these deflationists are proposing an implicit definition of the concept of truth.

Read that last paragraph carefully.

And of course there is much more in the whole article

Let me emphasize one sentence from the above quote

To be more precise, the suggestion is that someone has the concept of truth just in case he or she is disposed to accept all (noncontroversial) instances of the equivalence schema, i.e., every sentence of the form ‘<p> is true if and only if p’ that is not paradoxical or in some other way deviant

Edited July 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

Ahab · July 8, 2016

On 7/5/2016 at 5:44 AM, Monster said:

With objective truth you tend to at least get a consensus of truth.

You first have to somehow figure out what objective truth is, though, and you can't get that without your own subjective idea of what objective truth is.

So first you start trying to see and understand what it is that every other person, other than you, believes is the truth, and then at some point you realive you are getting a lot of repetition as subjective ideas overlap. And then you have something like what you can find on Wikipedia, which are just summaries of opinions and beliefs regarding evidence about anything and everything, still without your own subjective ideas.

And then finally you start to add in your own subjective ideas about whatever you think you have figured out. Not because other people have made your own mind up for you, but still their ideas have helped you to have your own ideas, either in agreement or disagreement with others.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Ahab

mfbukowski · July 8, 2016

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You first have to somehow figure out what objective truth is, though, and you can't get that without your own subjective idea of what objective truth is.

So first you start trying to see and understand what it is that every other person, other than you, believes is the truth, and then at some point you realive you are getting a lot of repetition as subjective ideas overlap. And then you have something like what you can find on Wikipedia, which are just summaries of opinions and beliefs regarding evidence about anything and everything, still without your own subjective ideas.

And then finally you start to add in your own subjective ideas about whatever you think you have figured out. Not because other people have made your own mind up for you, but still their ideas have helped you to have your own ideas, either in agreement or disagreement with others.

By Jove he's got it!!

(you always have, we just sometimes disagree on the words, as one would expect)

Ahab · July 9, 2016

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

By Jove he's got it!!

(you always have, we just sometimes disagree on the words, as one would expect)

Yeah I think we generally agree on this idea although there are or may be a few nuances we don't totally agree on, yet.

And I say yet because I have some faith that eventually we will totally agree with each other.

mfbukowski · July 9, 2016

On 7/7/2016 at 1:39 PM, jkwilliams said:

Just call me Porfirio Diaz. Seriously, though, you are right that what we are talking about is testing and assessment, not logical positivism. That said, if there is a Nibley-Sorensen-and so on paradigm, whether it is "better" or not, it hardly fits the definition of "not paradigm dependent" and "not overly self-referential." And no, I don't favor a 19th-century origin for the Book of Mormon because I don't believe in angels; rather, I don't believe angels appeared to Joseph Smith because the Book of Mormon is clearly of 19th-century origin.

Quote

Logical Positivism (later also known as Logical Empiricism) is a theory in Epistemology and Logic that developed out ofPositivism and the early Analytic Philosophy movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduction of all human knowledge to logical and scientific foundations. Thus, a statement is meaningful only if it is either purely formal (essentially, mathematics and logic) or capable of empirical verification.

This effectively resulted in an almost complete rejection by Logical Positivists of Metaphysics (and to a large extent Ethics) on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Its influence in 20th Century Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, however, has been profound.

Most early Logical Positivists asserted that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences"grounded in observable facts. They supported forms of Materialism, Naturalism and Empiricism, and, in particular, they strongly supported the verifiability criterion of meaning (Verificationism), the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false.

Logical Positivism was also committed to the idea of "Unified Science", or the development of a common language in whichall scientific propositions can be expressed, usually by means of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of one science to the terms of another (putatively more fundamental) one.

The main tenets of the doctrine include:

The opposition to all Metaphysics, especially ontology (the study of reality and the nature of being), not as necessarily wrong but as having no meaning.

The rejection of synthetic a priori propositions (e.g. "All bachelors are happy"), which are, by their nature, unverifiable (as opposed to analytic statements, which are true simply by virtue of their meanings e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried").

A criterion of meaning based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work, (essentially, that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, and that thoughts, and the language used to express those thoughts, are pictures or representations of how things are in the world).

The idea that all knowledge should be codifiable in a single standard language of science, and the associated ongoing project of "rational reconstruction", in which ordinary-language concepts were gradually to be replaced by moreprecise equivalents in that standard language.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logical_positivism.html

Nevo · July 9, 2016

Kevin,

Sorry for the delay, but I'm just now getting around to responding to your post here. It's a bit long so I'll divide it into two parts.

Quote

I haven't said "never mind" regarding the Book of Mormon use of KJV language, including the New Testament. I've long acknowledged that it's obvious. As a given though, there are significant differences at times, and much in the Book of Mormon that goes beyond the New Testament. Welch has a lot on that which, I notice, you haven't brought up. For instance, in comparing the Sermon at the Temple with the Sermon on the Mount, he notices differences.

Sure there are differences. Joseph was a bricoleur. He wasn’t simply copying the Bible, he was (to use Hardy’s phrase) creatively adapting it—reinterpreting and expanding it (with midrashic abandon at times).

Quote

So it's one thing to point out that the Book of Mormon names " Joseph Jr. He will be a seer—one who has a gift from God to "translate all records that are of ancient date," and then to smile ironically at the convenience for Joseph Smith, and quite another to consider this sort of thing:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/isaiah-and-prophets-inspired-voices-old-testament/joseph-smith-found-ancient-manuscripts

By "this sort of thing," I take it that you mean that I should consider that Joseph Smith may have actually been the Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim of ancient tradition. Leaving aside for the moment whether we should expect an apocalyptic figure from the Second Temple Period to correspond to a historical person and whether Joseph Smith really was an Ephraimite, I have to say that I don’t really see it. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, perhaps one of the earliest sources to describe this figure, "mentions in passing that the Messiah ben Ephraim is a descendant of Joshua and that he will defeat Gog and Magog at the end of time." R. Dosa says that he will be killed. "The rabbis add that the Messiah ben David, when he sees that the Messiah ben Joseph has been killed, asks God to spare him this fate, and God grants his request" (see Peter Shäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012], 236–237). Joseph Smith, you will recall, was assassinated in jail in 1844. And let’s be honest: Joseph Smith embedding prophecies of himself in the Book of Mormon (and again in his translation of the Bible) is convenient. Joseph thought of himself as a prophet and wanted others to see him that way too.

Quote

I've long been fascinated at how 19th Century explanations so often lose their impressiveness when compared to ancient context. For instance, every young missionary soon runs into the claim that Joseph Smith borrowed from Shakespeare, specifically, from Hamlet, on the "land of no return." Robert Smith offers an alternative comparison for Kuhn's "which paradigm is better?"

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=17

I’ve never heard or seen anyone make that claim, not on my mission and not since. I certainly haven’t made it. But I take Robert’s point. Joseph Smith could easily have gotten the idea from Job or any number of other places. People have described death in similar terms in widely different times and places.

Quote

I spent some time exploring "anti-Universalist rhetoric" while working through New Approaches back in 1994 for "Paradigms Crossed". It's too long to quote all I had here here, but I found that when I took a close look, the picture changed:

'Ironically, Vogel pits Alma against Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797), the leader of the “Restorationist” faction of Universalism, who opposed Murray’s radical Universalism (p. 42). But rather than being anti-Universalist, Alma’s teachings seem more consistent with Winchester’s restorationist position. Some parallels should be natural because both Alma and Winchester draw on biblical precedents. Additionally, Winchester had been influenced by Benneville’s near-death vision, which again would tend to supply certain parallels to Alma.'

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

I’ve also spent some time looking at anti-Universalist rhetoric as well and I happen to think that the case for anti-Universalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon is quite strong.

A central tenet of Universalist belief was that "God, whose nature is Love . . . will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness." That’s was exactly the doctrine that Alma was trying to refute in his speech to Corianton in Alma 41: "Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness . . . O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just . . . therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all" (Alma 41:10-13, 15; emphasis added). As Grant Underwood has observed, Alma’s admonition would have struck nineteenth-century readers as a "particularly pointed" reference to Universalism, "in light of the Universalist slogan about the restoration of all to 'holiness' and 'happiness'" ("The Earliest Reference Guides to the Book of Mormon: Windows into the Past," Journal of Mormon History 12 [1985]: 78).

Alma then addresses Corianton’s concern about God’s justice in punishing sinners—a misgiving we don't encounter anywhere in the Bible: "And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind . . . concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery" (Alma 42:1). This was a question of crucial importance to the Universalism debate: how can God as a loving and merciful Parent condemn any of his children to endless misery? Alma’s response follows the traditional orthodox position. Adam and Eve became subject to death in order that "a time [might be] granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time" (Alma 42:4). However, because man had brought upon himself his fallen state by his own disobedience, "according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state . . . for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. . . . Do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit" (Alma 42:12–13, 25).

Compare this to the pulpit rhetoric against Universalism, which emphasized this life as a "state of probation" as a corrective to Universalist claims that one might still repent after death. John Cleaveland declared in 1776, for example, that "the time of life here on earth is our probation-time for eternity." Cyrus Mann’s 1818 pamphlet, The Future Punishment of the Wicked Certain and Endless, averred that "throughout the whole bible, the present is represented as our only state of probation." A sermon published in a New York Methodist periodical in 1823 lays particular emphasis on this idea: "The present is a probationary state for the kingdom of heaven. The future is a state of retribution . . . none can be saved in the future state who are not prepared for the kingdom of heaven in this."

Alma’s discussion of God’s justice and mercy in Alma 42 also resembled nineteenth-century orthodox treatments. In an 1822 sermon attacking Universalism, Timothy Merritt, a Methodist minister, argued that "if mankind are under the law of God, there must, in the very nature of things, be a penalty for the breach of the law . . . If we incur the penalty of the law by transgression, that penalty must be executed either on us or on our substitute. If on us, then no favor is shown us; but if on our substitute, the way is opened, and mercy may be extended to us." Christ’s suffering for us, in our stead, "[gave] exercise to that mercy and grace which otherwise would have been prevented by the unsatisfied demands of the law upon us." Thus, "the atonement was not made to render God merciful to us, but to satisfy the claims which his justice had against us as transgressors, and open the way by which he might extend mercy to us consistently with his character as Lawgiver and Judge."

The idea that God’s mercy cannot destroy his justice or he would cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 25) is also echoed in orthodox writings. An article appearing in the Utica Christian Magazine in 1813, for example, argued that "God’s justice is essential to his nature; therefore, God can no more disregard his justice in his conduct toward his creatures, than he can deny his own name, or destroy his moral perfection. If God had saved sinners from threatened and deserved punishment without an atonement, he would have sacrificed his justice, and have ruined his character and government." Or as Cyrus Mann put it: "Future punishment . . . is as certain to the finally impenitent, as that God is possessed of justice, or as certain as the existence of God." Josiah Priest argued along similar lines in 1826: "If God’s attributes are essential to his nature, and if God is just, [can] a being necessarily just, suspend his justice? . . . If mercy can overcome justice, what is become of Omnipotence by which justice is supported? And if it cannot, how can man be rescued from impending woe without an atonement."

The Bible, it should be noted, contains no language about this life being a "state of probation" or mercy "satisfying" God's justice or God ceasing to be God if he were to deny his justice. But all of these themes figured in anti-Universalist sermons in western New York in the 1820s. The 1820s saw a massive increase in Universalists, and Methodists and others correspondingly stepped up their attacks. The historian Whitney Cross, in his classic study of the "Burned-Over District," notes that Universalism "developed rapidly . . . with the increased tide of hill-country New Englanders who migrated in the years following 1815," so that "by 1823, there were nearly ninety Universalist congregations in western New York alone." Although, anti-Universalist hostilities weren't unique to western New York, Cross writes, "they were unique in intensity, in the same proportion that revivalism and the benevolent operations concentrated in this region" (The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850 [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1950], 18, 43–45).

Edited July 9, 2016 by Nevo

Nevo · July 9, 2016

Quote

I did read B. H. Roberts and View of the Hebrews way back, and I found the comparisons rather over-generalized and inadequate to account for the Book of Mormon.

I’m not arguing that View of the Hebrews “accounts for” the Book of Mormon. The two books are quite different and it’s entirely possible that Joseph and Oliver never saw a copy of View of the Hebrews. But the similarities are worth considering. Take, for example, the opening line of a review of View of the Hebrews that appeared in the Utica Christian Repository newspaper in May 1825: "Every thing relating to the Hebrews demands the attention of the Christian world. The signs of the times, as well as the predictions of the prophets, seem to indicate their speedy restoration. Those branches which have so long been broken off for their unbelief, are about to be grafted into their own olive tree again" (143). The "Hebrews" of the title, of course, refer to the American Indians. The review goes on to explain that the book's fourth chapter "is a commentary on the 18th chapter of Isaiah, which the writer supposes is an address to the American nation, calling upon them . . . to go as swift messengers to assist with their ships in gathering the dispersed of Judah and the outcasts of Israel, and bringing them up as a present to the Lord of Hosts to Mount Zion; and connecting, as is usual in the prophets, the return of the Jews and the introduction of the Millennium" (149). The review also mentions a curious Native tradition: "They tell you that Yohewah once chose their nation from all the rest of mankind, to be his peculiar people. That a book which God gave, was once theirs; and then things went well with them. But other people got it from them, and then they fell under the displeasure of the Great Spirit; but that they shall, at some time, regain it" (147).

Then there's the interesting fact that Samuel L. Mitchill—yes, that Samuel L. Mitchill—"believed that both North and South America had been formerly populated fundamentally by two great races, not only the 'hyperborean or inhabitants of the north,' but also the 'australasian, or inhabitants of the south." The northern, more warlike, race (Mitchill believed they were Tartars) eventually destroyed the more civilized southern race, the "final battles of extermination [being] fought in upstate New York not too far south of Lake Ontario." New York Governor DeWitt Clinton was another prominent advocate of this "New York theory." This, as I'm sure you already know, is all spelled out in some detail in Richard Bennett's JBMORS article. Bennett concludes: "Thus a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon" (Richard E. Bennett, "'A Nation Now Extinct,' American Indian Origin Theories as of 1820: Samuel L. Mitchill, Martin Harris, and the New York Theory," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 [2011]: 42, 47).

Worth mentioning?

Edited July 9, 2016 by Nevo

consiglieri · July 9, 2016

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Worth mentioning?

Wow.

Totally worth mentioning.

Am printing off Bennett's article to read later this weekend.

Thanks so much for the link!!!

Sign In

The State of the Evidence

How do you feel about evidence in favor of LDS truth-claims?
77 members have voted

1. What best describes your assessment of evidence regarding LDS truth-claims

Recommended Posts

Robert F. Smith

Kevin Christensen

jkwilliams

Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

Calm

Calm

Kevin Christensen

jkwilliams

Ahab

Glenn101

jkwilliams

Ahab

Kevin Christensen

James Tunney

Robert F. Smith

Kevin Christensen

mfbukowski

Ahab

mfbukowski

Ahab

mfbukowski

Nevo

Nevo

consiglieri

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse

The State of the Evidence

How do you feel about evidence in favor of LDS truth-claims? 77 members have voted

1. What best describes your assessment of evidence regarding LDS truth-claims

Recommended Posts

Recently Browsing 0 members

How do you feel about evidence in favor of LDS truth-claims?
77 members have voted