The State of the Evidence

[Freedom]

38 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think our very different perspectives might in part be a function of scope. The apologetic arguments that you espouse play well within the limited (and shrinking) scope of a true believing audience such as this forum.  However, there is a much larger world out there that I am sure you are aware of that consists of scientists, philosophers, researchers, historians and just plain folks who are seekers who value critical thinking and open discussion of ideas. The process of testing, hypotheses and falsifiable theories might not be perfect, but it works, and it is self correcting.  Its in this world (the one with the blue sky) that that most apologetic arguments don't find acceptance.  The methodology of starting with a conclusion and working backwards ignoring any data that does not support the conclusion does not result in very many widely accepted theories. 

And I assume that at some point you will share with us this other scholarship?

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.

I think you're confusing him with Rodney Meldrum. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think our very different perspectives might in part be a function of scope. The apologetic arguments that you espouse play well within the limited (and shrinking) scope of a true believing audience such as this forum.  However, there is a much larger world out there that I am sure you are aware of that consists of scientists, philosophers, researchers, historians and just plain folks who are seekers who value critical thinking and open discussion of ideas. The process of testing, hypotheses and falsifiable theories might not be perfect, but it works, and it is self correcting.  Its in this world (the one with the blue sky) that that most apologetic arguments don't find acceptance.  The methodology of starting with a conclusion and working backwards ignoring any data that does not support the conclusion does not result in very many widely accepted theories. 

The shoe is on the other foot, Sunstoned.  It is precisely your "working backwards" from a predetermined conclusion which flaws your claims here.  Ignoring data which does not support that predetermined conclusion is the problem.  In other words, your apriorism is the main bar to intelligent discussion.  I cite my sources and provide reasonable logic.  I am not interested in special pleading, and let the chips fall where they may.  I follow standard Egyptology and linguistics.  I have noticed that the nay-sayers do not, and that they are deathly afraid of substantive discussion.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 7/3/2016 at 0:14 AM, Nevo said:

I feel the same way about apologetic approaches, which likewise seem to focus on "targeted bits" to the exclusion of the big picture. Never mind that the Book of Mormon is textually dependent on the New Testament, here's a single verse that matches a variant reading in an early Greek manuscript! 

In the Book of Mormon we have a Bible-like book written in pseudo-KJV idiom that theorizes that American Indians are Israelites who must be brought to a knowledge of their true origin. The agent that God will use for this reclamation, preparatory to Christ's second coming, will be named Joseph Jr. He will be a seer—one who has a gift from God to "translate all records that are of ancient date." In addition to bringing the Indians to "the knowledge of the covenants which [God] has made with [their] fathers," the book he brings forth will also convince them of the truth of the Bible "unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Ne. 3:11–12). This divinely appointed agent will not only translate; he will also be a prophet-savior, "great like unto Moses," with power to bring the Lord's covenant people unto salvation. The Book of Mormon foregrounds America as a new promised land, "a land of liberty" to the righteous. If white Americans do not repent, they will be destroyed by the Indians. The book will come forth at a time of "many churches" and "secret combinations," a time when miracles are doubted and when "priests . . . shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance." 

If one had to hypothesize a nineteenth-century author, the internal evidences of the book point to someone who came of age in post-revolutionary America during a crisis of religious authority, who is familiar with Second Great Awakening revival language (e.g., "sing the song of redeeming love") and teachings (anti-Universalist rhetoric) yet who rejects Calvinism and is deeply skeptical of religious institutions. The book's frequent condemnations of wealth and luxury and worldly learning also suggest an author on the social, religious, and economic margins of American society. The author accepts the Bible as literal history (Adam and Eve, the Flood, Tower of Babel) and is evidently concerned about challenges to the Bible's authority and growing skepticism about miracles and spiritual gifts (deism, atheism, etc.). Like many of his contemporaries, the author also believes the western tribes of Indians are a scattered remnant of Israel who must be brought to a knowledge of Christ and that Isaiah prophesied of this (see, e.g, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews). He also lives at a time when Indians are still sufficiently numerous as to pose an existential threat to white Americans. He expects the imminent end of the world and that the Indians will figure prominently as agents of God's judgment against those who reject the gospel. There are other clues about the author's wordview: he thinks of white skin as normative and dark skin as suggestive of a divine curse and appears to accept rural folk beliefs about "slippery treasures" and treasure guardians and seer stones. I would submit that Joseph Smith is a pretty good match for this hypothetical nineteenth-century author.

So I keep quoting Kuhn on how paradigm choice always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved," and the importance of making a paradigm choice about "which paradigm is better" using values and arguments that are not paradigm-dependent.

And 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:

Quote

Although, to the casual observer, most of them seem insignificant or meddlesome, a closer examination shows that most are quite meaningful and subtle. The differences are consistent with the introduction of the Sermon into Nephite culture, with its covenant-making context, and with dating the text to a time before when the suspected factional alterations or additions were made to the Sermon on the Mount. (Welch, 112)

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

John Tvedtnes talks about his experiences in Jerusalem with Jewish students who made the connections to the Messiah Ben Joseph Tradition before he brought it up.

Quote

In the late 1970s, while teaching with the Brigham Young University Jerusalem program, I was invited to give a series of lectures (in Hebrew) on the subject of Mormonism at the University of Haifa. In one of the lectures, I displayed a chart outlining Joseph Smith’s major accomplishments. I intended to speak about each item on the list and, at the end, suggest that Joseph Smith fit the qualifications for the Messiah of Joseph expected by the Jews. But that turned out to be unnecessary. By the time I got through the top third of the list, I heard whispering among a group of orthodox Jewish students in the audience. They were saying, mashiah ben Joseph, “Messiah the son of Joseph.” [17]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1890301/posts

I've long been fascinated at how 19th Century explanations so often loose 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

Read Robert Smith on this charge and consider Kuhn:

Quote

"Probably the single most prevalent claim advanced by proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis. . . . Claims of this sort . . . succeed if the new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor." (Kuhn, 153-54.)

Robert Smith's essay is notable for providing a quantitative precision far far better than the competition.

And 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. 

Quote

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 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, which violated its essential premises.

  

Quote

A close reading of View of the Hebrews suggests that, while some aspects of this reconstruction could be debated, it is generally so complex as to be quite inflexible, based as it is on a relatively conservative reading of the biblical text and a number of suppositions so interdependent that if one should prove false, the whole model would collapse. Any modifications would have to be relatively small and insignificant, which explains why the basic outlines of the model remained virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries’ worth of discussion. 

See Hedges here, reviewing BYU's publication of View of the Hebrews. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1441&index=12

He notes:

Quote

 The churchmen did not, however, at any time debate the possibility that the Indians’ ancestors knew of Christ’s birth before the event, had engaged in such New Testament practices as baptism in Old Testament times, and had been visited by Christ after his resurrection. This was because the mere suggestion of these things would have done violence to their understanding of the Bible, contemporary evidence from Indian cultures themselves, and other parts of the model.

And there is the kind of stuff that believers have come up with that skeptics regularly ignore even when it does

Quote

Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.

Clearly even someone as bright as David Wright did not see Margaret Barker coming, which is understandable since we didn't see it either.  And things like Larry Poulson's take on Limhi's explorers, Mormon's Codex, Nibley to the Astons and Wellington and Potter on Lehi's jurney, Peterson on "Nephi and His Asherah", Thomasson and Hawkins on "Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon", Welch on Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, chiasmus and other forms, and the Temple as a unifying context for the Book of Mormon, the Narrative of Zosimus and 1 Nephi, and even my stuff. Alma compared to NDE literature, Eliade compared to 3 Nephi, Goff on Allusion and type scenes, McGuire on the allusiveness in the story of Laban, pointing only to one side of two separate David stories woven together in the MT, and much much much more, from literally hundreds of believing scholars.

We're occasionally told that the real authorities will tell us what is really going on in the Book of Mormon, by virtue of their wisdom and objectivity, but Coe keeps getting more out of touch and embarrassing from 1973 to PBS and then the Dehlin interview.  And the essays in The New Mormon Challenge all began behind the curve, not one contributor getting fully up to speed with the best LDS scholars before trying to tell us we're ignorant dupes.

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith. (Kuhn, 157-158)

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 4, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[jkwilliams]

What exactly is the Kuhnian crisis that apologetics is supposed to solve with its improved qualitative precision?

Kuhn argues that a paradigm shifts because the old one doesn't account for the anomalies that are provoking the crisis. That is what is is missing here. 

No offense, but your invocation of Kuhn makes it sound like, when the old paradigm doesn't get the results you want, just shift the paradigm and how and what you evaluate. 

Please help me understand how there is any kind of Kuhnian crisis here. 

[Stargazer]

I picked #2.

I have had compelling personal evidence through personal revelation, something that was very recently strongly reinforced.  But my testimony does not rely upon external evidence, and I don't consider any of it compelling, but suggestive only.  

The suggestive evidence includes such things as Nahom, the Land Bountful lying at the end of a due east track known today as a recognized trade route eastward of Nahom, and the existence of multiple successive civilizations in Mesoamerica.  All this suggests that the Book of Mormon has a number of things right.  Outside of the Book of Mormon, I find that the great and inexplicable rising of interest in genealogy (post visit of Elijah) and the return of the Jews to the Holy Land (post dedication of that land), as suggestive of the truthfulness of the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and of the Bible.

All of these suggestive evidences (and others) can easily be argued against.  But they are all trumped in my mind by the exquisite personal revelation I have had over the years that testify to me that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church upon the earth, and most important of all, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Eternal God, whose sacrifice gives me the ability to have my sins overcome through His blood and my repentance, and not only be forgiven, but if I am valiant, to be exalted by Him.

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What exactly is the Kuhnian crisis that apologetics is supposed to solve with its improved qualitative precision?

Kuhn argues that a paradigm shifts because the old one doesn't account for the anomalies that are provoking the crisis. That is what is is missing here. 

No offense, but your invocation of Kuhn makes it sound like, when the old paradigm doesn't get the results you want, just shift the paradigm and how and what you evaluate. 

Please help me understand how there is any kind of Kuhnian crisis here. 

I'm talking about how people make decisions about Mormonism and belief, and have offered in various places, examples that represent, in one direction or another, the kinds of decision that Kuhn describes as not "paradigm-dependent", that is, not ideologically self-referential.  That is, where the proposed solution make a case for "better" based one or the other of the values that Kuhn describes as providing what objectivity there is in paradigm choice.  Robert Smith's paper on the "Land of No Return" is an example of an apologetic response to a specific argument, and in comparison with Kuhn's discussion of the most important values applied in paradigm choice, strikes me as that kind.  I'm not talking about a general crisis.  I'm talking about how Kuhn casts light on individual decisions, and a wide range of arguments that I have studied for thirty years in light of his approach.  And there is a difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm, according to a specific "problem field, methods, and standards of solution" and paradigm testing, in which the rules of the game are at issue, that is which problem field, which methods, which standards of solution apply.  

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. (Kuhn, 109-110)

As far as what anomaly provokes the crisis, that is an individual issue.  You've raised the specter of KJV Language as a dominant issue and supplemented that with some high-level generalizations about 19th Century concerns and the Book of Mormon. These are your key issues.  We use keys to open and close doors to facilitate or limit movement.  I've said that to me, language is not an key issue at all, but rather, a distraction from most substantial issues.  And I think the high level generalizations involved in situating the Book of Mormon fall apart in close readings against ancient contexts, which, of course, involves a very different problem field, method, and standards of solution.  What makes an issue key?  I surveyed Kuhn in Paradigms Crossed:

Quote

What makes an anomaly “that normal science [or faith] sees as a puzzle” into what “can be seen from another viewpoint as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis?”53 There is no comprehensive answer. (Part of what makes any issue “key” involves the door that you intend to open.) But Kuhn does highlight three issues:

1. Issues for Fundamental Generalizations

Sometimes an anomaly will clearly call into question explicit and fundamental generalizations of the paradigm.54

An anomaly without apparent fundamental import may evoke crisis if the applications that it inhibits have a particular practical importance.⁶⁹

The development of normal science may transform an anomaly that had previously only been a vexation into a source of crisis.⁷²

Your comment to the effect that "your invocation of Kuhn makes it sound like, when the old paradigm doesn't get the results you want, just shift the paradigm and how and what you evaluate."    

Kuhn observes that paradigm crisis is handled in three ways. First, normal science handles the crisis. Second, the problem is labeled and set aside for a future generation.  Third, a new paradigm emerges with the ensuing battle for acceptance.  This happens to be how science works.  In practice, a paradigm always involves a network of observations and assumptions.  Sometimes the change involves a fundamental assumption, like going from Ptolemy to Copernicus.  Other times, the change in assumption is small, as in going from Copernicus assuming circular orbits to Kepler's elliptical orbits.  Notice that those assuming circular orbits were not getting the results they wanted.  Were they wrong or failing as rational beings to make a change within a network of observations and assumptions that happened to lead to the results they wanted?  Is not Kepler's model better than that of Copernicus, as Copernicus' while not initially better than Ptolemy, at least far more promising?

In Paradigms Crossed, I discuss what is behind this kind of thought, which I don't think is at the level of comprehension at which we ought to function. 

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith. (Kuhn, 104)

It is one thing for a person involved in a paradigm community to dismiss an argument as being "not us."  It is quite another to explore and strive to make a case that answers the question "why us?"

In paradigm choice, which is a choice of community life as much as it is a choice about how a person conceives of reality, both the rules of the game and the community are at stake. And my argument has never been about just "getting the results you want" but getting an argument that is "better" in terms of problem definition, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (including the discovery of unexpected novelty unanticipated by a rival paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.  This set of values happens to correspond with Alma 32, which was for me, an unanticipated novelty, something, I notice that Alexander Campbell did not discuss or see or weigh in the balance.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 4, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
Kuhn as source of quote

[jkwilliams]

Again, your reading turns Kuhn on his head. You write in "Paradigms Crossed":

Kuhn describes how scientists make comparisons and make a tentative faith decision based on values, rather than rules, which means that conclusions among individuals will differ.

Except Kuhn doesn't say that at all. Paradigms are adopted and used because they explain the observable; a shift comes when enough anomalies are observed that can't be explained by the paradigm. This is the crisis, which you mentioned yourself above. Faith enters into it only when people stubbornly cling to the paradigm--and its rules--despite the mounting evidence that it doesn't work.

By turning this around to emphasize "faith" as the motivation behind the paradigm, you use Kuhn to dismiss current fields of study as mere faith-based beliefs, and the solution is apparently to open your mind to a different paradigm. 

But there's no crisis of anomalies pushing a paradigm shift toward Mormon beliefs.

For my money, although it sounds erudite, you're just using Kuhn as an excuse for diverting attention away from evidence you don't like. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

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

Read Robert Smith on this charge and consider Kuhn:

Robert Smith's essay is notable for providing a quantitative precision far far better than the competition.

Thank you for that, Kevin.  I was not aware that the Maxwell Institute had dredged up an old copy of that 1980 piece.  However, see now a revised, modern version of my “Evaluating the Sources of 2 Nephi 1:13-15: Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 21/2 (2013):98-103, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/8Smith_Evaluating%20Sources%20of%202%20Nephi.pdf .

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

 

And there is the kind of stuff that believers have come up with that skeptics regularly ignore even when it does

Clearly even someone as bright as David Wright did not see Margaret Barker coming, which is understandable since we didn't see it either.  And things like Larry Poulson's take on Limhi's explorers, Mormon's Codex, Nibley to the Astons and Wellington and Potter on Lehi's jurney, Peterson on "Nephi and His Asherah", Thomasson and Hawkins on "Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon", Welch on Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, chiasmus and other forms, and the Temple as a unifying context for the Book of Mormon, the Narrative of Zosimus and 1 Nephi, and even my stuff. Alma compared to NDE literature, Eliade compared to 3 Nephi, Goff on Allusion and type scenes, McGuire on the allusiveness in the story of Laban, pointing only to one side of two separate David stories woven together in the MT, and much much much more, from literally hundreds of believing scholars.

The  upshot is that (aside from Margaret Barker) non-Mormon scholars have gotten into the act and commented openly on their intriguing response to Mormon Scripture -- including the late Matthew Black (responding at Cornell Univ to the LDS book of Enoch) and Birger Pearson (responding at BYU to the same material), both having been prompted to do so by LDS scholar Gordon Thomasson.  Indeed, when Matthew Black came to BYU in January 1977, he had a chance to discuss those matters personally with Hugh Nibley.  We also see this sort of non-Mormon respect for Mormon scholarship when they are published in standard non-Mormon venues.  John Tvedtnes, for example, is repeatedly invited to take part  in professional Jewish forums in Jerusalem, and even has his contributions published in important Jewish volumes:

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:787-788, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:195-196, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

We're occasionally told that the real authorities will tell us what is really going on in the Book of Mormon, by virtue of their wisdom and objectivity, but Coe keeps getting more out of touch and embarrassing from 1973 to PBS and then the Dehlin interview.  And the essays in The New Mormon Challenge all began behind the curve, not one contributor getting fully up to speed with the best LDS scholars before trying to tell us we're ignorant dupes.

This is precisely what those two evangelical scholars were trying to tell their compatriots at the 1997 annual meeting of the Evangelical Society, later published as Carl Mosser & Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205, online at  http://www.academia.edu/185247/_Mormon_Scholarship_Apologetics_and_Evangelical_Neglect_Losing_the_Battle_and_Not_Knowing_It .

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

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, your reading turns Kuhn on his head. You write in "Paradigms Crossed":

Kuhn describes how scientists make comparisons and make a tentative faith decision based on values, rather than rules, which means that conclusions among individuals will differ.

Except Kuhn doesn't say that at all. Paradigms are adopted and used because they explain the observable; a shift comes when enough anomalies are observed that can't be explained by the paradigm. This is the crisis, which you mentioned yourself above. Faith enters into it only when people stubbornly cling to the paradigm--and its rules--despite the mounting evidence that it doesn't work.

By turning this around to emphasize "faith" as the motivation behind the paradigm, you use Kuhn to dismiss current fields of study as mere faith-based beliefs, and the solution is apparently to open your mind to a different paradigm. 

But there's no crisis of anomalies pushing a paradigm shift toward Mormon beliefs.

For my money, although it sounds erudite, you're just using Kuhn as an excuse for diverting attention away from evidence you don't like. 

It sounds to me like you aren't responding to what I have been saying for over 30 years, but what it would have been convenient for your arguments for me to have been saying. 

The passage about faith in Science is actually a quote from Structure.  I thought it was obviously from Kuhn.  I'll edit the previous post to make it explicit.  This quote:

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.

And paradigm choice is more than about what is observable.  They influence not only what we do observe, but what we imagine is worth observing and what such observations can and might mean.

For instance, "science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that the paradigm has partially determined. As a result, scientists with different paradigms engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations. The measurements to be performed on a pendulum are not the ones relevant to the case of constrained fall." (Kuhn, 126).  Just so, the measurements that Nibley proposed, that the test for a purported ancient document is to place it in the context it claims for itself is different than the measurements that McMurrin proposed (which was "Why bother reading it?  You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation", or that Alexander Campbell ("any local similarities demonstrate local dependence, and anything odd or unexpected demonstrates Joseph's ignorance").  This sort of thing accounts for the dramatic difference between Robert Price's approach to the Book of Mormon (in American Apocrypha) and Margaret Barker's at the 2005 Joseph Smith conference.  Price cites the appearance of the Book of the Law in Josiah's day as a model pious fraud, prefiguring in the Bible account what Joseph Smith did later.  In contrast, Margaret Barker sees Josiah's time as a relevant historical context against which to test the Book of Mormon.  And it turns out that what Price sees as evidence of Joseph Smith's method, unnaturally and ignorantly blending divergent concepts from Matthew and John in 3 Nephi, turns out in Margaret's approach, as developed in an important essay published in Price's own Journal, shows that transfiguration, the priesthood, and ascent, all belong together.  Paradigms determine to large extent what a scholar imagines, examines, measures, and therefore, concludes.

And I have never argued that faith is the motivation behind a paradigm. That strikes me a flimsy basis for the choice.  Rather my argument has been that faith is always present in any paradigm choice.  For instance, someone who argues that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in response to 19th century inspirations must presume that they will be able to explain what looks like the presence of authentic eye-witness details "somehow", perhaps "someday", or far simpler, simply refuses to perform the kinds of investigation in which such details might emerge.   "Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm for all sorts of reasons, and usually for several at once." (Kuhn, 152)   The best reasons are, as I keep saying, problem definition, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. 

 Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 4, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
Fixing a bit of dyslexia in the McMurrin quote

[waveslider]

To me there is no question as to there being overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of the Book Of Mormon. Unfortunately much of it isn't even seen by most. There also is a lot of false propaganda based off of a very limited view. You would have to be omniscient to see all the evidence.

The Holy Spirit Of Truth, is by far the single most important evidence to me as to the truthfulness of anything. In contrast, "science," or in other words, "leaning upon the arm of flesh," is rarely, if ever 100 percent conclusive about anything. It's always, "right," until it isn't anymore. As soon as new evidence is found discrediting the old view of scientific truth, it is replaced with the knew, so called, "settled science." On and on this fully accepted scientific process continues, "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I received my testimony I was quite convinced that the BOM was completely false, based off of the so called, "evidences," that I had come across, and studied. I distinctly remember my conversation with God in prayer, as I accepted a challenge proposed to me to just read it and pray about it, every morning and every night, for a month. Weeks into my challenge I got the distinct answer that, "It is true." I then started to say, "but what about....." I was cut short each and every time I started to ask. I got the distinct words, each and every time, "Don't worry about it. I'm God and I'm telling you it's true. This is why you are to study these things every day of your life. You will then be able to see how it can be true, even though you have found these things, causing you to question me, at this time."

Sure enough, all these many years later I found the lies, twisted truths and misconstrued facts in each and every thing that caused my initial disbelief, and some.

My testimony stands as one more witness of it's truth, in every way, both historically and spiritually. Anyone who thinks that there is proof of fraud, isn't seeing the true facts for what they are. There is truth, and even if no one else were to believe that truth, it still wouldn't cause it to be false.

I didn't read all of the comments on this thread, because after the first three pages, of the fifteen pages, I saw a bunch of useless banter, which didn't answer the original question definitively enough. So I, at the risk of repeating something someone else may have said, figured I would just cut to the Chase.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

McMurrin.............................. "You don't get angels from books and translate them by revelation", .....................................................

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

You may have meant "you don't get books from angels.............."

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

To me there is no question as to there being overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of the Book Of Mormon. Unfortunately much of it isn't even seen by most. There also is a lot of false propaganda based off of a very limited view. You would have to be omniscient to see all the evidence.

The Holy Spirit Of Truth, is by far the single most important evidence to me as to the truthfulness of anything. In contrast, "science," or in other words, "leaning upon the arm of flesh," is rarely, if ever 100 percent conclusive about anything. It's always, "right," until it isn't anymore. As soon as new evidence is found discrediting the old view of scientific truth, it is replaced with the knew, so called, "settled science." On and on this fully accepted scientific process continues, "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I received my testimony I was quite convinced that the BOM was completely false, based off of the so called, "evidences," that I had come across, and studied. I distinctly remember my conversation with God in prayer, as I accepted a challenge proposed to me to just read it and pray about it, every morning and every night, for a month. Weeks into my challenge I got the distinct answer that, "It is true." I then started to say, "but what about....." I was cut short each and every time I started to ask. I got the distinct words, each and every time, "Don't worry about it. I'm God and I'm telling you it's true. This is why you are to study these things every day of your life. You will then be able to see how it can be true, even though you have found these things, causing you to question me, at this time."

Sure enough, all these many years later I found the lies, twisted truths and misconstrued facts in each and every thing that caused my initial disbelief, and some.

My testimony stands as one more witness of it's truth, in every way, both historically and spiritually. Anyone who thinks that there is proof of fraud, isn't seeing the true facts for what they are. There is truth, and even if no one else were to believe that truth, it still wouldn't cause it to be false.

I didn't read all of the comments on this thread, because after the first three pages, of the fifteen pages, I saw a bunch of useless banter, which didn't answer the original question definitively enough. So I, at the risk of repeating something someone else may have said, figured I would just cut to the Chase.

That is all well and good for those who do not wish to spend a lifetime of scholarly analysis, because that is what it takes for those who want to seriously examine the secular evidence pro & con.  And most people have neither the time nor inclination to devote that much time and energy to the effort.  Yours is a wise choice, but not the only choice.  To each his own.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, your reading turns Kuhn on his head. You write in "Paradigms Crossed":

Kuhn describes how scientists make comparisons and make a tentative faith decision based on values, rather than rules, which means that conclusions among individuals will differ.

Except Kuhn doesn't say that at all. Paradigms are adopted and used because they explain the observable; a shift comes when enough anomalies are observed that can't be explained by the paradigm. This is the crisis, which you mentioned yourself above. Faith enters into it only when people stubbornly cling to the paradigm--and its rules--despite the mounting evidence that it doesn't work.

By turning this around to emphasize "faith" as the motivation behind the paradigm, you use Kuhn to dismiss current fields of study as mere faith-based beliefs, and the solution is apparently to open your mind to a different paradigm. 

But there's no crisis of anomalies pushing a paradigm shift toward Mormon beliefs.

For my money, although it sounds erudite, you're just using Kuhn as an excuse for diverting attention away from evidence you don't like. 

Although you appear to misunderstand both Kuhn and Christensen, it occurs to me that you may want to consider the cognitive science views of Prof Guy Claxton on the value of intuition for the very best scientists -- listen to the interview of Claxton by Doug Fabrizio on Radio West, July 1, 2016, podcast online http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/intelligence-flesh-1 at 19:34 - 21:19.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have meant "you don't get books from angels.............."

Yep... the dyslexia of haste.  Thanks.  I fixed it.

Kevin C.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, waveslider said:

To me there is no question as to there being overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of the Book Of Mormon. Unfortunately much of it isn't even seen by most. There also is a lot of false propaganda based off of a very limited view. You would have to be omniscient to see all the evidence.

The Holy Spirit Of Truth, is by far the single most important evidence to me as to the truthfulness of anything. In contrast, "science," or in other words, "leaning upon the arm of flesh," is rarely, if ever 100 percent conclusive about anything. It's always, "right," until it isn't anymore. As soon as new evidence is found discrediting the old view of scientific truth, it is replaced with the knew, so called, "settled science." On and on this fully accepted scientific process continues, "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I received my testimony I was quite convinced that the BOM was completely false, based off of the so called, "evidences," that I had come across, and studied. I distinctly remember my conversation with God in prayer, as I accepted a challenge proposed to me to just read it and pray about it, every morning and every night, for a month. Weeks into my challenge I got the distinct answer that, "It is true." I then started to say, "but what about....." I was cut short each and every time I started to ask. I got the distinct words, each and every time, "Don't worry about it. I'm God and I'm telling you it's true. This is why you are to study these things every day of your life. You will then be able to see how it can be true, even though you have found these things, causing you to question me, at this time."

Sure enough, all these many years later I found the lies, twisted truths and misconstrued facts in each and every thing that caused my initial disbelief, and some.

My testimony stands as one more witness of it's truth, in every way, both historically and spiritually. Anyone who thinks that there is proof of fraud, isn't seeing the true facts for what they are. There is truth, and even if no one else were to believe that truth, it still wouldn't cause it to be false.

I didn't read all of the comments on this thread, because after the first three pages, of the fifteen pages, I saw a bunch of useless banter, which didn't answer the original question definitively enough. So I, at the risk of repeating something someone else may have said, figured I would just cut to the Chase.

You clearly do not understand the scientific method and how good science is and should be open to doubt, criticism, testing and a willingness to cast of prior knowledge or theories when new I knowledge is found.   This is quite the opposite of most religions which teach that faith is paramount and Mormonism that teaches faith and a personal subjective metaphysic  witness is paramount. In general religion  does not encourage testing and comparing claims of competing truth claims.   The message is To doubt your doubts and hold to the iron rod.  Science says embrace your doubts and prove all conclusions or overturn them.

This is fine and if it works for people,as long as they are not hurting themselves and others then great.   

I just wanted to point out that you are misrepresenting science. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

The reality as I see it is that John mischaracterizes a trend that has been around for 200 years sometimes now called post-modernism which really means just post Enlightenment.  We have had this exact discussion many times before. Kuhn is not an originator, but makes clear trends of thought as old as Kant, which have been accepted now for 200 years by philosophers on both sides of the Atlantic in both phenomenology and in analytic philosophy -Wittgenstein, Rorty,James, Dewey, Heidegger, and too many others to name.

Kuhn derived his basis from Polanyi, who got it from James and Dewey, and refined it. Popper should be included as well.

Rorty combines it all skillfully and  makes it clear in his discussions on faith and religion. 

The LDS philosopher Falconer is a phenomenologist, Paulsen wrote a wonderful essay on the god of Abraham Isaac and William James which is a classic.

Though Kuhn makes the core theory understandable, he is but one voice in this trend in LDS theology.  I have tried many times to get John to see this, to no avail, and it is now nice to see Kevin making the attempt, but I am not optimistic. 

[mfbukowski]

Paulsen on James :

"James’s pragmatic philosophy is grounded on his conception of a human being as a goal-positing, interest-fulfilling organism, whose rational activities are subservient to her practical and emotional aspects:

The mind [is] an essentially teleological mechanism. I mean by this that the conceiving or theorizing faculty . . . functions exclusively for the sake of ends that . . . are set by our emotional and practical subjectivity altogether. It is a transformer of the world of our impressions into a totally different world—the world of our conception; and the transformation is effected in the interests of our volitional nature, and for no other purpose whatsoever.

(James 1979b, 94–95; emphasis in original)

James thus sees our cognitive activities—concept formation, belief acquisition, theory construction, and so on—as instruments molded by our desires and interests whose natural endpoint is action or conduct. Their role is to redirect us into experience better prepared to overcome obstacles to what we will. Based on these assumptions, our beliefs, theories, and concepts are pragmatically meaningful to the extent that they contribute to the achievement of our concrete or practical ends (Suckiel 1982, chaps. 2–3). 6"

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

This kind of thinking is what goes back to Kant, and is the basis for this trend in Mormonism which grows out of the Romanticism of the period.

Edited July 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you're confusing him with Rodney Meldrum. 

While i disagree with Meldrum on his "Heartland" hypothesis. He does beleive the Book of Mormon is about a real people. .

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, waveslider said:

To me there is no question as to there being overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of the Book Of Mormon. Unfortunately much of it isn't even seen by most. There also is a lot of false propaganda based off of a very limited view. You would have to be omniscient to see all the evidence.

The Holy Spirit Of Truth, is by far the single most important evidence to me as to the truthfulness of anything. In contrast, "science," or in other words, "leaning upon the arm of flesh," is rarely, if ever 100 percent conclusive about anything. It's always, "right," until it isn't anymore. As soon as new evidence is found discrediting the old view of scientific truth, it is replaced with the knew, so called, "settled science." On and on this fully accepted scientific process continues, "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I received my testimony I was quite convinced that the BOM was completely false, based off of the so called, "evidences," that I had come across, and studied. I distinctly remember my conversation with God in prayer, as I accepted a challenge proposed to me to just read it and pray about it, every morning and every night, for a month. Weeks into my challenge I got the distinct answer that, "It is true." I then started to say, "but what about....." I was cut short each and every time I started to ask. I got the distinct words, each and every time, "Don't worry about it. I'm God and I'm telling you it's true. This is why you are to study these things every day of your life. You will then be able to see how it can be true, even though you have found these things, causing you to question me, at this time."

Sure enough, all these many years later I found the lies, twisted truths and misconstrued facts in each and every thing that caused my initial disbelief, and some.

My testimony stands as one more witness of it's truth, in every way, both historically and spiritually. Anyone who thinks that there is proof of fraud, isn't seeing the true facts for what they are. There is truth, and even if no one else were to believe that truth, it still wouldn't cause it to be false.

I didn't read all of the comments on this thread, because after the first three pages, of the fifteen pages, I saw a bunch of useless banter, which didn't answer the original question definitively enough. So I, at the risk of repeating something someone else may have said, figured I would just cut to the Chase.

I would have given you a reputation point for this post, but you're too new in the forum, so I have to content myself with giving you a "virtual" rep point in the form of this quote!

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

You clearly do not understand the scientific method and how good science is and should be open to doubt, criticism, testing and a willingness to cast of prior knowledge or theories when new I knowledge is found.   This is quite the opposite of most religions which teach that faith is paramount and Mormonism that teaches faith and a personal subjective metaphysic  witness is paramount. In general religion  does not encourage testing and comparing claims of competing truth claims.   The message is To doubt your doubts and hold to the iron rod.  Science says embrace your doubts and prove all conclusions or overturn them.

This is fine and if it works for people,as long as they are not hurting themselves and others then great.   

I just wanted to point out that you are misrepresenting science. 

The scientific method is simple. I understand it very clearly. It's so simple that I understood it since the 1st grade. It is nothing more than observing something, making an educated guess as to what is causing the observation, in other words forming a theory. Then trying to prove or disprove said theory.

I also know what good science is, and unfortunately I don't see it often enough in mainstream science. (For example the global warming lie, that the last twenty years of data disprove, so much so that they now call it global change. They almost entirely ignore the fact that we are connected electromagnetically to the Sun, yet our overuse of fossil fuels are supposed to be the single most affecting element in global change, ignoring the the changes in all the climates of the other planets in our solar system, directly correlating to the huge changes in our Sun. In other words bad science just because of a consensus instead of relying upon real data. But I digress)

You clearly do not understand the tenets of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. I have seen encouragement to test it's truthfulness as long as it's been around. Perhaps you should look up Moroni 10:3-5.

You also don't seem to realize that to solely believe in science, as presented to the Western civilization is only placing science as another religion. The prophets and high priests only where a different set of religious clothing in the form of lab coats and the robes of academia.

No matter what form of religion one may chose to worship, critical thinking is a must, and cherry picking facts just won't cut the mustard. Perhaps you should realise that holding to the iron rod (the word of God) isn't the Scriptures as much as being led by revelation, the source of all real truth. Just because the religion of science discredits God and the Holy Spirit of Truth doesn't mean they don't exist.

Perhaps you might be scared to find real truth and hold to the religion of science to help you feel secure in remaining close minded to a more pure form of truth, but I'm assuming so please forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

I don't feel I'm misrepresenting science at all just because I can critically think about it, and it's imperfect processes for finding truth. When I grew up Pluto was a planet, because science said so. Now it isn't because science says so, even though new data wasn't found, only the interpretation of already existing data as to what defines a planet. I don't think I have misrepresented science in the least bit in my previous post.

[waveslider]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I would have given you a reputation point for this post, but you're too new in the forum, so I have to content myself with giving you a "virtual" rep point in the form of this quote!

Thank you!

[consiglieri]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:14 PM, Nevo said:

I feel the same way about apologetic approaches, which likewise seem to focus on "targeted bits" to the exclusion of the big picture. Never mind that the Book of Mormon is textually dependent on the New Testament, here's a single verse that matches a variant reading in an early Greek manuscript! 

In the Book of Mormon we have a Bible-like book written in pseudo-KJV idiom that theorizes that American Indians are Israelites who must be brought to a knowledge of their true origin. The agent that God will use for this reclamation, preparatory to Christ's second coming, will be named Joseph Jr. He will be a seer—one who has a gift from God to "translate all records that are of ancient date." In addition to bringing the Indians to "the knowledge of the covenants which [God] has made with [their] fathers," the book he brings forth will also convince them of the truth of the Bible "unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Ne. 3:11–12). This divinely appointed agent will not only translate; he will also be a prophet-savior, "great like unto Moses," with power to bring the Lord's covenant people unto salvation. The Book of Mormon foregrounds America as a new promised land, "a land of liberty" to the righteous. If white Americans do not repent, they will be destroyed by the Indians. The book will come forth at a time of "many churches" and "secret combinations," a time when miracles are doubted and when "priests . . . shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance." 

If one had to hypothesize a nineteenth-century author, the internal evidences of the book point to someone who came of age in post-revolutionary America during a crisis of religious authority, who is familiar with Second Great Awakening revival language (e.g., "sing the song of redeeming love") and teachings (anti-Universalist rhetoric) yet who rejects Calvinism and is deeply skeptical of religious institutions. The book's frequent condemnations of wealth and luxury and worldly learning also suggest an author on the social, religious, and economic margins of American society. The author accepts the Bible as literal history (Adam and Eve, the Flood, Tower of Babel) and is evidently concerned about challenges to the Bible's authority and growing skepticism about miracles and spiritual gifts (deism, atheism, etc.). Like many of his contemporaries, the author also believes the western tribes of Indians are a scattered remnant of Israel who must be brought to a knowledge of Christ and that Isaiah prophesied of this (see, e.g, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews). He also lives at a time when Indians are still sufficiently numerous as to pose an existential threat to white Americans. He expects the imminent end of the world and that the Indians will figure prominently as agents of God's judgment against those who reject the gospel. There are other clues about the author's wordview: he thinks of white skin as normative and dark skin as suggestive of a divine curse and appears to accept rural folk beliefs about "slippery treasures" and treasure guardians and seer stones. I would submit that Joseph Smith is a pretty good match for this hypothetical nineteenth-century author.

Brilliantly put!

Thank you for looking at the forest and seeing . . . the forest.

I would give you a rep point but am currently restricted from doing so by the moderators.

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

The scientific method is simple. I understand it very clearly. It's so simple that I understood it since the 1st grade. It is nothing more than observing something, making an educated guess as to what is causing the observation, in other words forming a theory. Then trying to prove or disprove said theory.

I also know what good science is, and unfortunately I don't see it often enough in mainstream science. (For example the global warming lie, that the last twenty years of data disprove, so much so that they now call it global change. They almost entirely ignore the fact that we are connected electromagnetically to the Sun, yet our overuse of fossil fuels are supposed to be the single most affecting element in global change, ignoring the the changes in all the climates of the other planets in our solar system, directly correlating to the huge changes in our Sun. In other words bad science just because of a consensus instead of relying upon real data. But I digress)

You clearly do not understand the tenets of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. I have seen encouragement to test it's truthfulness as long as it's been around. Perhaps you should look up Moroni 10:3-5.

You also don't seem to realize that to solely believe in science, as presented to the Western civilization is only placing science as another religion. The prophets and high priests only where a different set of religious clothing in the form of lab coats and the robes of academia.

No matter what form of religion one may chose to worship, critical thinking is a must, and cherry picking facts just won't cut the mustard. Perhaps you should realise that holding to the iron rod (the word of God) isn't the Scriptures as much as being led by revelation, the source of all real truth. Just because the religion of science discredits God and the Holy Spirit of Truth doesn't mean they don't exist.

Perhaps you might be scared to find real truth and hold to the religion of science to help you feel secure in remaining close minded to a more pure form of truth, but I'm assuming so please forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

I don't feel I'm misrepresenting science at all just because I can critically think about it, and it's imperfect processes for finding truth. When I grew up Pluto was a planet, because science said so. Now it isn't because science says so, even though new data wasn't found, only the interpretation of already existing data as to what defines a planet. I don't think I have misrepresented science in the least bit in my previous post.

Now you are insulting the intelligence of Stargazer.

History of Pluto as a planet.

SEE http://www.space.com/43-pluto-the-ninth-planet-that-was-a-dwarf.html

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Now you are insulting the intelligence of Stargazer.

History of Pluto as a planet.

SEE http://www.space.com/43-pluto-the-ninth-planet-that-was-a-dwarf.html

Sorry?  I didn't notice my intelligence being insulted. 

As to Pluto and its planet-ness, that is simply a matter of definitions, not science.  After the discovery of Ceres in 1801 it was widely proclaimed as a planet, but 50 years later, after numerous other similar-sized bodies were found orbiting the sun in similar orbits, decided that another word was required to describe them all, and Ceres and its fellows were redefined as asteroids, a new word coined by the famous astronomer Herschel. Now we have minor planets, Kuiper-belt object, trans-Neptunian object, scattered-disc objects, and so forth.  The bodies themselves remain the same; what we call them and how we define them is the only difference.  They are, and have always been, concentrations of matter that orbit the sun.