The State of the Evidence

[Kevin Christensen]

Deciding that some textual issue is a decisive an unanswerable argument against the historicity and/or inspiration of the Book of Mormon is not the same thing as providing a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon.  Particularly when the definition of the textual issues, whether the authenticity of the end of Mark quotation or the appropriateness of using standard Biblical language in an "inspired" translation to be used by people who accepted the KJV as authoritative, involves something other than a set of indisputable, self-interpreting facts.   Rather there are networks of assumptions and schools of thought that have been employed to address problems in the service of the interests of particular ideologies. That is why I cited A. Don Sorenson's survey of the existence of different schools of thought regarding the Sermon on the Mount, and why I cited John Welch's ground breaking work on the unity of the Sermon when considered in the context of the temple. 

I've noticed that those who fixate on such problems tend to do just that.  Fixate.   Occasionally a flight of highly skilled pilots turn themselves into bits of blackened landscape and junk because local target fixation causes them to loose sight of the larger perspective, and the location of the horizon. And sometimes we forget that scholars are providing interpretation and contextualization, and not an indisputable picture of what was, exactly what Jesus said to whom and why based on "Just the facts" and not a bit of supposition in the service of a controlling ideology.

Or do we really know exactly what Jesus said and to whom and when and why because we have an exact transcription of every bit of it, from birth to death and then some, also on video as a check on the transcriptions, as well as Mark's original Copyright application at the Jerusalem Library, notarized by Herod, Pilate, Josephus and Saul of Tarsus?  Wouldn't that be something?  It would then be intellectually respectable to have faith because we'd have absolute certainty to back it up.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 1, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

So, the current state of the evidence is such as described by you and your stake president, based solely on science and linguistics -- with a strict bifurcation of religion and science.  That is why you say "there's no way to prove religious truth. That is not how faith works," and perhaps consider Alma 32 on "knowledge" to be inapplicable.  That is fine by me, since you relegate all such considerations to "the spiritual side of things" anyhow.

What piques my curiosity, though, is why then the OP never really comes to grips with hard evidence?  Rather than ignoring it?  I'm not even sure whether this thread evinces any understanding of what secular, scientific evidence is, or might be.  Since that is my specialty, I am a bit disappointed.

I started this thread not to expound on my beliefs about the evidence but to ask what you folks think. I thought I was pretty clear that I was leaving it up to you to decide what the evidence is and how compelling it is. 

I'm not sure why you're unhappy that the OP didn't come to grips with anything other than the question it asked, but I'm sorry to disappoint. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is no way to know. But textually it didn't exist until many decades afterwards, and it didn't exist in the oldest versions of Mark, and almost certainly does not represent a verbatim account of the teachings of Jesus. It was, rather, a composition of the community, based on their traditions about Jesus. Mark is a product of that community. It is not a product of Jesus. 

Not sure about the absolute, total distinction between Jesus and the later community which worships him, but it is true that all the Gospels are "a composition of the community, based on their traditions about Jesus."  There is no way for us now to establish whether any contemporary rabbis actually said the verbatim words attributed to them (Jesus and Paul were both Pharisaic rabbis of Beth Hillel), since they were not codified in the Mishna until centuries later.  The same applies to the words attributed to Socrates by Plato.

There are a variety of theories about early traditions of Jesus which may have circulated in the form of a list of sayings (such as the Gospel of Thomas), or a Hebrew biography later rendered in Greek (Flusser & Lindsey).  Robert L. Lindsey even suggested that the original ending of Mark is to be found in Matthew 28:9-20.  Most scholars believe that Matthew copied a lot from Mark.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe JLHPROP is saying that it doesn't matter if it was a product of Jesus as long as it is an accurate reflection of His teachings and doctrine. 

It almost certainly doesn't represent a word for word account of the teachings of Jesus. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I started this thread not to expound on my beliefs about the evidence but to ask what you folks think. I thought I was pretty clear that I was leaving it up to you to decide what the evidence is and how compelling it is. 

I'm not sure why you're unhappy that the OP didn't come to grips with anything other than the question it asked, but I'm sorry to disappoint. 

Reading more carefully, John, you might have noticed that it was not the OP which disappointed me, but rather the thread itself which I found disappointing.  Your paranoia overwhelmed you again.  It really isn't all about you, but about the evidence.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reading more carefully, John, you might have noticed that it was not the OP which disappointed me, but rather the thread itself which I found disappointing.  Your paranoia overwhelmed you again.  It really isn't all about you, but about the evidence.

I was just trying to explain what this thread was intended for. If you're unhappy with where it went, you're right, that's not about me. 

One thing I find interesting is that Alma 32 seems to have only one possible outcome. If someone says they experimented on the word, and it didn't grow within them or draw them closer to God, they must have done something wrong. 

You're right, though, that I haven't been reading carefully today. Lots going on.

Edited June 30, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

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

One thing I find interesting is that Alma 32 seems to have only one possible outcome. If someone says they experimented on the word, and it didn't grow within them or draw them closer to God, they must have done something wrong. 

Not sure that Alma 32 actually says that "they must have done something wrong."  Indeed, one cannot in my view ask more than that of someone who is willing to give it a shot.  I'm certainly not going to sit in judgment of their negative conclusion, if that is the result, any more than I would fault a scientist in a lab for reaching negative results.  That's not my call.

But,  since this thread is about secular evidence, we might want to leave that aside for the nonce.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that Alma 32 actually says that "they must have done something wrong."  Indeed, one cannot in my view ask more than that of someone who is willing to give it a shot.  I'm certainly not going to sit in judgment of their negative conclusion, if that is the result, any more than I would fault a scientist in a lab for reaching negative results.  That's not my call.

But,  since this thread is about secular evidence, we might want to leave that aside for the nonce.

I'm just talking about what I've heard from other people about my own experience. I know other people have been told similar things: if it doesn't work for you, you did something wrong.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

It almost certainly doesn't represent a word for word account of the teachings of Jesus. 

And as I said, I think that JLH is saying that that doesn't matter as long as it accurately reflects His doctrine. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

If Christ appeared to Warren Jeffs today and Warren Jeffs reported him as quoting Mark 16 using KJV language does that in any way invalidate Jeff's vision?

It isn't a question of what God is capable of doing, it is invoking God's ability to do anything in order to support a particular side of an argument that is the problem, especially with regards to the OP. The OP is asking if one did not have a testimony would you believe the evidence. So to answer that God can do anything he wants is to miss the point of the question. If you did not have a testimony of the God's involvement in translating the Book of Mormon, you would not find arguments that God did it compelling any more than you find Warren Jeffs claims of direct revelation from God, compelling.

You have certainly hit upon the problem of infinite regress in such claims that God can do anything, Steve.  However, there are other avenues of (secular) inquiry into the truth claims made by the LDS faith which are useful and compelling.  The OP is, after all, asking us whether faith is the only source of affirmation of belief, or are there compelling sources of evidence which can be called upon to buttress such belief.  Of course, we could ask that question of any religious faith.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And as I said, I think that JLH is saying that that doesn't matter as long as it accurately reflects His doctrine. 

There is no way to really know. But the issue here is textual dependence, and it's true that textual dependence of the BOM on documents not yet written during the time frame of the BOM narrative has some implications about how we would go about dating the Book of Mormon. 

That says nothing about its value as scripture, of course.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just talking about what I've heard from other people about my own experience. I know other people have been told similar things: if it doesn't work for you, you did something wrong.

Yes, of course, there will always be people who say that about Moroni 10:4-5 also.  It is a personal matter and can't be second-guessed by others. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just talking about what I've heard from other people about my own experience. I know other people have been told similar things: if it doesn't work for you, you did something wrong.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion for someone who it has worked for, just not very informative about what it is that could have gone wrong.

If it has worked for somebody... anybody... then there must be a right way to do it.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is no way to really know. But the issue here is textual dependence, and it's true that textual dependence of the BOM on documents not yet written during the time frame of the BOM narrative has some implications about how we would go about dating the Book of Mormon. 

That says nothing about its value as scripture, of course.

I agree. If the BOM had to be dependent on the bible, then that opens a can of worms. 

But for those who don't believe it's dependent (or that it has to be) the argument seems moot. 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, I'm getting the implications it, I'm not sure you are. How could God know what He was going to say ahead of time, ahead of the time it was recorded by man. I'll remind you of a verse, in a book that is really not accepted by the scholars.

 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

And that God who "is more intelligent than they all" thought it a good idea to make large sections of the Book of Mormon translation look like it was cribbed directly from the KJV?

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, irrelevant.
The only question that should be asked is "did Christ say it?"
 

And the overwhelming evidence is that Christ NEVER said the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.

Yet it appears almost word for word the same in the Book of Mormon.

And the overwhelming evidence is that Christ never said the long ending of Mark.

And yet it appears exactly word for word the same in the Book of Mormon.

Am I detecting a pattern . . .?

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

What piques my curiosity, though, is why then the OP never really comes to grips with hard evidence?  Rather than ignoring it?

What piques my curiosity is how your comments never really come to grips with the hard evidence that large swaths of BOM text are obviously dependent on the KJV Bible.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reading more carefully, John, you might have noticed that it was not the OP which disappointed me, but rather the thread itself which I found disappointing.  Your paranoia overwhelmed you again.  It really isn't all about you, but about the evidence.

The majority of posters on this thread are doing everything they can to avoid the evidence.

[consiglieri]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree. If the BOM had to be dependent on the bible, then that opens a can of worms. 

But for those who don't believe it's dependent (or that it has to be) the argument seems moot. 

But so far NOBODY has produced a reasonable explanation for WHY the BOM is dependent on the KJV Bible.

NOBODY.

The arguments are all unreasonable; by which I mean that no reasonable person would believe them.

The only new argument to be added is that God can do anything.

Which is no argument at all.

Because the same argument could be used for every unreasonable argument under the sun.

Quakers living on the moon?  Unreasonable.  But God could make it happen.

Is the earth flat?  Unreasonable.  But God could make it happen.

Book of Mormon not dependent on KJV Bible?  Unreasonable.  But God Could make it happen.

See what I mean? 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have certainly hit upon the problem of infinite regress in such claims that God can do anything, Steve.  However, there are other avenues of (secular) inquiry into the truth claims made by the LDS faith which are useful and compelling.  The OP is, after all, asking us whether faith is the only source of affirmation of belief, or are there compelling sources of evidence which can be called upon to buttress such belief.  Of course, we could ask that question of any religious faith.

I agree that question could be asked of any religious faith.  It could also be asked of irreligious faith, that is, atheism.  Atheism's claims are, in many ways, more audacious even than those of the LDS Church.  I can grasp the agnostic approach of "We don't know one way or another if God exists."  But atheism is another ball o' wax.  That the denizens of this Big Blue Marble, as finite and flawed and blinkered as we are in power and awareness and duration and perspective, can presume to affirmatively declare that nowhere in the entirety of the universe/multiverse/existence is there a supreme being . . . well, that's just brassy.

This affirmative declaration - that God does not exist - is the sine qua non of atheism.  And it is not based on "evidence" one whit.  It is based on . . . oddly enough . . . faith.  A dank, depressing, nihilistic faith that God does not exist, that there is no plan, no existence prior to or after death.  A faith not predicated on evidence, but on the presumed absence of evidence.  It is a faith based on our finite and flawed "If I Can't See It I Will Deny It's Existence"-type of reasoning.   But it is a faith nonetheless.  It is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2016 by smac97

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But so far NOBODY has produced a reasonable explanation for WHY the BOM is dependent on the KJV Bible.

NOBODY.

I seriously doubt that I am the first, but here goes.  A reasonable explanation for WHY the BOM is dependent on the KJV Bible is because Joseph had one handy and it suited his purposes in translating portions of what was written in the BOM.

As the translator he was as free to use any tools that were available to him to convey what the BOM had on its pages and he was more familiar with the KJV Bible as an example of sacred text and with that particular translation than any other translation of the Bible.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree that question could be asked of any religious faith.  It could also be asked of irreligious faith, that is, atheism.  Atheism's claims are, in many ways, more audacious even than those of the LDS Church.  I can grasp the agnostic approach of "We don't know one way or another if God exists."  But atheism is another ball o' wax.  That the denizens of this Big Blue Marble, as finite and flawed and blinkered as we are in power and awareness and duration and perspective, can presume to affirmatively declare that nowhere in the entirety of the universe/multiverse/existence is there a supreme being . . . well, that's just brassy.

This affirmative declaration - that God does not exist - is the sine qua non of atheism.  And it is not based on "evidence" one whit.  It is based on . . . oddly enough . . . faith.  A dank, depressing, nihilistic faith that God does not exist, that there is no plan, no existence prior to or after death.  A faith not predicated on evidence, but on the presumed absence of evidence.  It is a faith based on our finite and flawed "If I Can't See It I Will Deny It's Existence"-type of reasoning.   But it is a faith nonetheless.  It is a faith far weaker and less reasoned than ours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good points, and I agree. But, there are forms of atheism that do not affirmatively say that God does not exist, with 100% certainty. Many will simply say they are not convinced that God exists, and therefore do not believe in God. It's subtly different from saying "I know there is no God."

The internet age has bred a lot of what I would call fundamentalist atheists, though, whose approach is on par with some of more obnoxious fundamentalist religious groups.

 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Good points, and I agree. But, there are forms of atheism that do not affirmatively say that God does not exist, with 100% certainty. Many will simply say they are not convinced that God exists, and therefore do not believe in God. It's subtly different from saying "I know there is no God."

The internet age has bred a lot of what I would call fundamentalist atheists, though, whose approach is on par with some of more obnoxious fundamentalist religious groups.

 

Good point.  And I believe the majority of them just don't know there is a God, or even what God is, than say there is no God.

All they need to realize is that we are God... the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Ahab

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Good points, and I agree. But, there are forms of atheism that do not affirmatively say that God does not exist, with 100% certainty. Many will simply say they are not convinced that God exists, and therefore do not believe in God. It's subtly different from saying "I know there is no God."

The internet age has bred a lot of what I would call fundamentalist atheists, though, whose approach is on par with some of more obnoxious fundamentalist religious groups.

Hmm.  By definition, an "atheist" is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

I guess I can see your point.  I'm not sure i fully grasp the distinction between "I deny that God exists" and "I disbelieve - that is, I am not convinced - that God exists."  I suppose the former is more definitive and the latter a bit milquetoast.

That said, regardless of whether an atheist affirmatively "denies . . . the existence of a supreme being" or simply "disbelieves . . . the existence of a supreme being," both positions still require faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  By definition, an "atheist" is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

I guess I can see your point.  I'm not sure i fully grasp the distinction between "I deny that God exists" and "I disbelieve - that is, I am not convinced - that God exists."  I suppose the former is more definitive and the latter a bit milquetoast.

That said, regardless of whether an atheist affirmatively "denies . . . the existence of a supreme being" or simply "disbelieves . . . the existence of a supreme being," both positions still require faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, absolutely every conclusion technically requires some faith, even if it's faith in our ability to accurately understand the nature of what is being discussed. But I don't think being unconvinced that God exists requires the same kind of leap of faith that we usually talk about in religious circles. Rather, it's more like being unwilling or unable to take a leap of faith. 

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Gray