The State of the Evidence

[Rajah Manchou]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm thinking in terms of Brant and Larry for directions.  Brant here:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

And Larry here:

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbomgeography.poulsenll.org%2F

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

I'm impressed by the efforts in the papers, but the explanation only opens up more uncertainty about how the geography fits. For example, where does that directional system place the Sea East and all the cities on the east coast? Is it the Gulf of Mexico (Sorenson) or the Atlantic (Norman, Hauck, Anderson, Roylance). Where does Paulsen place it? Where does Gardner place it? Where do you place it? There seems to be no consensus and after searching high and low I can't find a definitive Mormon's Map in Mesoamerica. 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And of course, the Malay hypothesis does not spent a great deal of time accounting for this constraint on the text, from an interview that Joseph says was repeated four times, to make sure he remembered. He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Anything not found in the text is not a constraint on the text. Joseph Smith's history, the Wentworth Letters, T&S or anything published after 421 AD was not inscribed on the plates. But even if we allow extratextual commentary we have Moroni telling Joseph that the plates are a record of those former inhabitants of the Americas and "the source from whence they sprang". All existing evidence to date informs us that the former inhabitants of this continent originated in Asia. So a natural, evidence-based, interpretation would read: 

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of [the American] continent, and the [Asian] source from whence they sprang."

That's the paradigm shift, and with that shift all anachronisms (silk, elephants, horses, swords, metallurgy, etc.) are resolved and also the Book of Mormon falls in line with the overwhelming evidence that all native people in the Americas came via Asia. Since the text itself does not constrain us to the New World we have no justification for making guesses beyond the latest research into the Jewish diaspora. If the evidence eventually leads to Guatemala or the Heartland, great. But that hasn't happened yet and no matter how much we might appeal to Kuhn or Kant, the dominant paradigm isn't based in history. If it was, where is the map? 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

...................... I specifically selected King Benjamin both because it is filled messages I still am happy to believe, independent of his historical reality, but even moreso because I thought it fair to select a character from the BoM who I knew had received extensive attention from the LDS apologetic community.

Robert, I agree with your caution about the word "conclusive" - it's a fair point. How about "reasonably convincing" instead? Are you, for example, reasonably convinced that William I invaded the British Isles in 1066? Are you reasonably convinced that he was an actual leader in history who reigned over a large nation and influenced its culture, politics etc?

What are the evidences for the existence of William I? There are many, many sources of evidence for William I as a king of England.

When one has historical continuity with the past, of course it is easy to come up with far more convincing accounts of past events and people.  That necessarily goes without saying, and William the Conqueror is only one of a long line of characters we place in sequence -- even if our full understanding may be flawed in some way.  Even with continuity, however, when we go far enough into the past we are left without specific names of rulers, but only with movements of ethnic groups (such as the Norsemen, Angles, and Saxons) into new areas -- such that we only dimly understand the full implications of the societal pressures.  Legend, linguistics, and archeology combine to give us a picture of migration and settlement patterns.  We do not need to know the names of their leaders to know when and  how such events took place over time.  Occasionally, a written account may help, such as that of the Venerable Bede, in reconstructing the history of England.

How about King Benjamin? I'll start by acknowledging that the extra 1200 years or so of history between him and William I makes it more difficult to reach back through time to find evidences for his existence. But here's the question: if it weren't for the Book of Mormon's publication, would there be anything at all in the great bank of historical evidence that would lead a careful historian to describe the reign of King Benjamin? Anything at all?

I don't dispute that you can take the Book of Mormon and find convincing parallels and similarities to both New and Old world events and texts. But that's not the same as what I've asked. What evidence, outside of the Book of Mormon, would lead someone to describe the man, King Benjamin, that you believe lived in the Americas around 200 B.C. The Book of Mormon is the only source for his existence. What you're then left with is a process of needing to bolster the BoM's credibility as a source instead of being able to draw on multiple other sources that also describe the events, teachings, approach of this leader.

"Anything at all?"  Your plaintive cry misses the point that there is plenty of evidence -- just not the sort of evidence for a William the Conqueror which we have in our history of Western Civilization.  If you are wedded to solely and only that sort of evidence, then "goodbye" to any kind of reasonable evidence for the existence of entire peoples in world prehistory,  including the existence of legendary leaders whose names we know only via ancient myth and epic.  Were they all just inventions of some fertile mind somewhere?  Or were they based sometimes on actual people whose real existence has been lost in the mists of time?  Historiography is not  limited only to those matters upon which we have secure and well-based (if flawed) sequential accounts.  We can extrapolate from the circumstantial evidence in many cases, just as we do for the Book of Mormon.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The Atlantic review was a pretty good summary.  I still think the book does pretty good at comparing and contrasting faith against science and how science is not faith based or a religious proposition which is what the poster to whom I recommended the book was saying.

 

On that we can agree.  We really must see them as separate paradigms, so that religion is not speaking about science and vice versa.

Lately I have been taken by the idea that what both Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo were arguing about was science.  BOTH believed that religion was science and science was religion- both believed that there COULD BE an single account of all reality that included God and religion with all that is knowable.

We know now that that just plain doesn't work.

Believers need to learn this and scientists need to learn this.  Why the word has not gotten out is why we have silly discussions about evolution and religion and discussions like this one about history and religion.

Bellarmine was wrong- the sun does not rotate around earth and no, the scriptures do not say that.  No religionist would dare bring up that point, but yet we hear discussions today about evolution and the scriptures- that is the same discussion settled 500 years ago.

That was when religion was on top and in authority, now science is on top and in authority

But we still have Dawkins making the same mistake from the other side.  There is no God because we cannot find him with a telescope. Galileo did not find him.  Dawkins and Bellarmine are fighting the same battle - just on different sides.

That question is or should be over forever.   Kant, Hume, Hegel and all who came after them shattered that weird dichotomy forever, I guess it just hasn't trickled down yet to the common man.

Both sides represent ridiculous misunderstandings.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gervin said:

So, you would argue that historical studies never provide any conclusive evidence to show that Herod Agrippa II, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Abraham Lincoln, and Joseph Smith actually existed as humans on this earth.  You want a history that's not "too demanding."  I get it; there is no Book of Mormon history to make a plausible case for the existence of any of the characters mentioned.  I prefer to put a lot of demands on historical narrative.  

I gave you my criteria for a substantive discussion.  You don't measure up.  Sorry.

Yeh, I'm sure that you are sorry . . .  About what I'm not sure, except that you indulge in the fallacy of the call to perfection, even though no perfect arguments exist.  You'd have a whole lot more credibility, were you to deal (as canard does) in specific discussion of historical events.  You gave no actual criteria for substantive discussion, and have not engaged in any of it.  Apriorism is the hallmark of your approach to any BofM issue, with no room for any evidence of any kind -- unless it meets your a priori criteria (whatever they may be).  The result must be negative from the get go, or it just doesn't measure up.  Wonderful hirstoriosophy, Gervin.  Just wonderful.

[rongo]

On 7/5/2016 at 7:56 AM, Gray said:

Okay, I took this to another forum where I lurk. It's an Academic Biblical Studies hangout group. I asked for examples, and was given this one:

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, a Catholic Biblical commentary compiled by multiple Catholic scholars. Relevant quote from the book: 

The canonical book of Isaiah consists of 66 chapters, but it has long been recognised that chaps. 40-55 and 56-66 are collections that date from exilic and post-exilic times; → Deutero-Isaiah, 21:3, 50. Chapters 1-39 consist of several smaller collections, some of which are products of complex development. The authentic words of Isaiah are found mainly in chaps. 1-11 (largely from the days of Ahaz) and 28-32 (largely from the days of Hezekiah). Authentic words of Isaiah are also found among the "Oracles against the Nations" (chaps 13-25) and perhaps also in the historical appendix (chaps 36-39, taken from 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19). The "Apocalypse of Isaiah" (chaps 24-27) and the collection in chaps 34-35 date wholly from later periods.

They did note that there are still some ultra conservative scholars who try to argue that Isaiah was written by a single author. 

Thanks for working on the "friendly CFR," Gray. I'm not browbeating *you* here, but note that it's interesting that this was all that the "Academic Bible Studies" group could come up with. It's not even an example of evidence put forth for multiple Isaiahs over centuries that does not rely on the underlying assumption that prophecy is impossible; rather, it's a very brief overview of the lines of cleavage between 1st and 2nd Isaiah (which we all know). 

In fact, it's interesting what this brief quote does say. "The authentic words of Isaiah are found mainly in chap[ters that are] largely from the days of Ahaz . . . [and] the days of Hezekiah." The apocalyptic chapters "date wholly from later periods." That was my point: the primary assumption of "higher" criticism is that the "real" Isaiah could only write of things contemporary to Ahaz and Hezekiah (i.e., his own time period); anything mentioning things later than that (including much later, like the return from exile, 1st and 2nd comings of the Messiah, Cyrus, etc.) have to be from someone else. Perceived stylistic or theological differences are secondarily sought for to bolster the original assumption that prophecy is impossible.

I appreciate the effort, but I still firmly believe that no modern "higher" critics (including Bokovoy and Hardy) produce anything that wasn't said 75 years ago in support of multiple Isaiahs. And, modern "higher" critics still operate under the primary assumption that prophecy doesn't really exist, and look for stylistic and theological evidence to bolster this.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks for working on the "friendly CFR," Gray. I'm not browbeating *you* here, but note that it's interesting that this was all that the "Academic Bible Studies" group could come up with. It's not even an example of evidence put forth for multiple Isaiahs over centuries that does not rely on the underlying assumption that prophecy is impossible; rather, it's a very brief overview of the lines of cleavage between 1st and 2nd Isaiah (which we all know). 

In fact, it's interesting what this brief quote does say. "The authentic words of Isaiah are found mainly in chap[ters that are] largely from the days of Ahaz . . . [and] the days of Hezekiah." The apocalyptic chapters "date wholly from later periods." That was my point: the primary assumption of "higher" criticism is that the "real" Isaiah could only write of things contemporary to Ahaz and Hezekiah (i.e., his own time period); anything mentioning things later than that (including much later, like the return from exile, 1st and 2nd comings of the Messiah, Cyrus, etc.) have to be from someone else. Perceived stylistic or theological differences are secondarily sought for to bolster the original assumption that prophecy is impossible.

I appreciate the effort, but I still firmly believe that no modern "higher" critics (including Bokovoy and Hardy) produce anything that wasn't said 75 years ago in support of multiple Isaiahs. And, modern "higher" critics still operate under the primary assumption that prophecy doesn't really exist, and look for stylistic and theological evidence to bolster this.

You were originally asking for "conservative scholars who believe in the supernatural (i.e., actual, predictive prophecy, reality of the resurrection, reality of OT and NT miracles, etc.) who are on record as accepting multiple authorship of Isaiah." I provided one example of that - unless you think Catholicism is too liberal to accept the reality of prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc?

David Bokovoy lists multiple reasons to believe that Isaiah was written by multiple authors. I don't agree with your re-framing of that as mere window dressing around the issue of rejecting prophesy. It's true that the supernatural is out of bounds to the professional historian, but the issue here is larger than that. 

As an untutored amateur I note that Deutero Isaiah's discussion of Cyrus is not framed as a prophecy but rather as a commentary on current events. 

[Gervin]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, I'm sure that you are sorry . . .  About what I'm not sure, except that you indulge in the fallacy of the call to perfection, even though no perfect arguments exist.  You'd have a whole lot more credibility, were you to deal (as canard does) in specific discussion of historical events.  You gave no actual criteria for substantive discussion, and have not engaged in any of it.  Apriorism is the hallmark of your approach to any BofM issue, with no room for any evidence of any kind -- unless it meets your a priori criteria (whatever they may be).  The result must be negative from the get go, or it just doesn't measure up.  Wonderful hirstoriosophy, Gervin.  Just wonderful.

del

Edited July 7, 2016 by Gervin

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You were originally asking for "conservative scholars who believe in the supernatural (i.e., actual, predictive prophecy, reality of the resurrection, reality of OT and NT miracles, etc.) who are on record as accepting multiple authorship of Isaiah." I provided one example of that - unless you think Catholicism is too liberal to accept the reality of prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc?

The author(s) of the Catholic article, if you asked them and they answered openly, wouldn't believe in the reality or possibility of predictive prophecy. That's something only fundamentalist rubes like TBMs and evangelicals believe. While Catholic doctrine teaches the resurrection, and I'd like to think that believing Catholic scholars believe in a literal resurrection, this hasn't been my experience (my experience includes ordained Catholic priests. Granted that my sample size is hopefully not representative of the Catholic Church as a whole . . .). Belief in literal physical miracles in the OT and NT (and in our day as well), such as raising the dead, healing profoundly sick, walking on water, calling down fire from the sky, etc., is likewise limited in our day to fundamentalist rubes. Even a belief in a global flood among LDS in general is embarrassing to the "higher" critics among us . . .

David Bokovoy lists multiple reasons to believe that Isaiah was written by multiple authors.

Can you list general examples (just a few)? I generalized Sperry's list to three: denial of prophecy (i.e., perceived anachronism), literary style, and theology. Does he break any new ground that the old guard over the last 75 years didn't already cover?

I don't agree with your re-framing of that as mere window dressing around the issue of rejecting prophesy.

There would be no discussion if people agreed on everything . . .

It's true that the supernatural is out of bounds to the professional historian, but the issue here is larger than that.

Or, it could be just that simple. I think it is.

As an untutored amateur I note that Deutero Isaiah's discussion of Cyrus is not framed as a prophecy but rather as a commentary on current events.

What, specifically, do you find in chapter 45 that is framed "not . . . as a prophecy but rather as a commentary on current events?" Granted, Isaiah doesn't say "I hereby prophesy that Cyrus shall come forth;" he speaks thus: "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him." There's nothing inherently "current events commentary" about this unless one doesn't believe it is possible to be writing this long before Cyrus and Persia were on the scene.

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I still firmly believe that no modern "higher" critics (including Bokovoy and Hardy) produce anything that wasn't said 75 years ago in support of multiple Isaiahs. And, modern "higher" critics still operate under the primary assumption that prophecy doesn't really exist, and look for stylistic and theological evidence to bolster this.

And I'm still firmly of the belief that you're wrong  Not to belabor the issue, but John Goldingay is one prominent Evangelical commentator who believes in predictive prophecy and yet supports the Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis:
 

Quote

Isaiah himself does speak about the future. He envisages Yahweh acting to punish Judah, looks beyond that event to Yahweh's restoring Judah, and speaks of a day when Yahweh will grant Judah a 'new David,' the person who will later be termed the Messiah. But in doing so, he speaks about what Yahweh will do. These events will happen in the future. In Isaiah 40–55 the difference is that the prophecy speaks in terms of what Yahweh is doing in the present. Now it is possible to imagine Yahweh transporting Isaiah into the distant future so that he speaks as if he is living then, and Yahweh certainly could do so, but it looks an odd thing for Yahweh to do.

— John Goldingay, The Theology of the Book of Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 14–15.

 

Quote

Isaiah 39, set in Isaiah's own day, envisages the future deportation of Judeans to Babylon. Isaiah 40–55, however, is set in the time after the deportation has happened. It does not say, 'In days to come God will send a message of comfort to people who have been punished,' in the manner of a passage such as 30:19–26. It says, rather, 'God is now comforting you who have been punished.' The traditional view is that these chapters were written by Isaiah ben Amoz, and we may assume that God could have revealed to Isaiah the message to be addressed to the people in Babylon 150 years after Isaiah's day. But the way the chapters themselves speak suggests that they are rather the words of comfort that God gave in the here and now of suffering through the pastoral ministry of a poet whom God called to be the new Isaiah for people who had long been under judgment.

— John Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBC 13; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 222.

 

Quote

Isaiah 1–39 contains a number of explicit references to the Judah of the eighth century BC when Assyria was the great middle-eastern power, and to the activity of a prophet called Isaiah ben Amoz in that period. Isaiah 40–55 contains a number of explicit references to the circumstances of the sixth century BC when Babylon was the great power. The Babylonian period is not spoken of as future, as if Isaiah were prophesying it, but as present, as if the prophecies come from someone contemporary with it. As the Jewish exegete Ibn Ezra noted in the eleventh century AD, the way Isaiah 40–55 speaks as if the fall of Jerusalem is long past and the contemporary question concerns the restoration of the community suggests it comes from that period, not from the eighth century BC. There are other arguments (e.g. linguistic ones) that also suggest that the chapters come from an author other than Isaiah ben Amoz, but it is the fact that they address people for whom the fall of Jerusalem is long past that remains the conclusive indication that they come from the sixth century BC (or later).

— John Goldingay and David Payne, Isaiah 40–55: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 1–2; see also, John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 5.

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Nevo

[consiglieri]

57 minutes 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

Setting Deutero-Isaiah to the side, the evidence for authenticity continues to elude the LDS Church in light of the following:

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

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

Quote

“This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation” (“Becoming True Millennials” [Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, Jan. 10, 2016], broadcasts.lds.org).

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

You meant, or should have meant, it couldn't get any more clear.

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

del

Quote

 

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.  

outtahere

waiting for someone to come out of somewhere

 

[Glenn101]

On 6/27/2016 at 2:41 PM, jkwilliams said:

A few years ago, my stake president (a biology professor) gave an address in stake conference in which he invited those who were struggling based on issues of historicity and other LDS truth-claims to make an appointment with him so he could help resolve our concerns. I did so, and after discussing my issues, he made a curious statement, that if he didn't have a testimony, he would think the church's claims (the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and so on) were obvious frauds. I was a little shocked. He gave me the names of some "experts" (his words, and I corresponded with them. Two of them made similar statements to the effect that, absent a testimony, the truth-claims don't stand on their own.

I hadn't thought of this for a while, but yesterday, one of my LDS friends made essentially the same statement. I have no issue with that, as I am not in the business of evaluating the validity of anyone's testimony and/or personal revelation, but it made me wonder if this is a common sentiment. So, no, I am not opining on the evidence or on your testimony, but I am curious as to what you think. 

John.

   I have been following this thread for some time, watching the ebb and flow, and I would like to propose a counter question. A Hypothetical question for you and any others who do not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church, the Bible, and even of God. Since this is a hypothetical, please address it as such and don't say, "that could never happen" etc.

But what would you do if you were faced with incontrovertible proof that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision?

That John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John actually appeared to Joseph Smith?

Archeological evidences were to be found proving conclusively that a man named Lehi and Nephi existed somewhere in Meso-America?

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[James Tunney]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

John.

   I have been following this thread for some time, watching the ebb and flow, and I would like to propose a counter question. A Hypothetical question for you and any others who do not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church, the Bible, and even of God. Since this is a hypothetical, please address it as such and don't say, "that could never happen" etc.

But what would you do if you were faced with incontrovertible proof that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision?

That John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John actually appeared to Joseph Smith?

Archeological evidences were to be found proving conclusively that a man named Lehi and Nephi existed somewhere in Meso-America?

 

Thanks,

Glenn

I don't know about John but I would have to reconsider.  However, sadly it's the opposite based on the evidence we know today.  Would you consider that maybe the book of mormon is not historical?  That the truth claims aren't what the church says they are?

Edited July 7, 2016 by James Tunney

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

John.

   I have been following this thread for some time, watching the ebb and flow, and I would like to propose a counter question. A Hypothetical question for you and any others who do not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church, the Bible, and even of God. Since this is a hypothetical, please address it as such and don't say, "that could never happen" etc.

But what would you do if you were faced with incontrovertible proof that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision?

That John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John actually appeared to Joseph Smith?

Archeological evidences were to be found proving conclusively that a man named Lehi and Nephi existed somewhere in Meso-America?

 

Thanks,

Glenn

No, I think it's best that you understand that there is no such thing as incontrovertible proof, even as a believer who accepts personal testimony from God.  That way you'll understand how and why faith is a necessary element of any belief system, even a belief system that rejects personal testimony from God.

And why there will always be disagreements about everything.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I don't know about John but I would have to reconsider.  However, sadly it's the opposite based on the evidence we know today.

The evidence you know, maybe, but you are wrong if you are including me in your "we".

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I don't know about John but I would have to reconsider.  However, sadly it's the opposite based on the evidence we know today.  Would you consider that maybe the book of mormon is not historical?  That the truth claims aren't what the church says they are?

Thank you for your input. As I said, the question is hypothetical. I will answer your question a little later, after I read the comments form the others.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, I think it's best that you understand that there is no such thing as incontrovertible proof, even as a believer who accepts personal testimony from God.  That way you'll understand how and why faith is a necessary element of any belief system, even a belief system that rejects personal testimony from God.

And why there will always be disagreements about everything.

My question is hypothetical. I am just asking what people who do not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church would do if they were faced with such evidence.

 

Glenn

Edited July 7, 2016 by Glenn101

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Well, I've experienced it, and I can't help that you haven't.

And I do like objective proof if I can get it.  

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

My question is hypothetical. I am just asking what people who do not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church would do if they were faced with such evidence.

 

Glenn

They would have the same options they have right now, because they already have evidence of what is true.  Not incontrovertible evidence, because there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence, but they still have evidence and they can choose to reject it or accept it.  The only 2 options, really, once presented with evidence of something.

So your "incontrovertible evidence" hypotheticals are nothing but silliness since there is no such thing as one of those things 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ahab

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

They would have the same options they have right now, because they already have evidence of what is true.  Not incontrovertible evidence, because there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence, but they still have evidence and they can choose to reject it or accept it.  The only 2 options, really, once presented with evidence of something.

So your "incontrovertible evidence" hypotheticals are nothing but silliness since there is no such thing as one of those things 

Ahab, you have no idea where I am going with this. Please reserve your judgement until I have made my point, or crashed and burned. I assure you that my hopotheticals are not silly. I don't have time to develop this right now, and was hoping to get a response from a few more who have expressed doubts based on the "state of the evidence" as in the OP.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm impressed by the efforts in the papers, but the explanation only opens up more uncertainty about how the geography fits. For example, where does that directional system place the Sea East and all the cities on the east coast? Is it the Gulf of Mexico (Sorenson) or the Atlantic (Norman, Hauck, Anderson, Roylance). Where does Paulsen place it? Where does Gardner place it? Where do you place it? There seems to be no consensus and after searching high and low I can't find a definitive Mormon's Map in Mesoamerica. 

Anything not found in the text is not a constraint on the text. Joseph Smith's history, the Wentworth Letters, T&S or anything published after 421 AD was not inscribed on the plates. But even if we allow extratextual commentary we have Moroni telling Joseph that the plates are a record of those former inhabitants of the Americas and "the source from whence they sprang". All existing evidence to date informs us that the former inhabitants of this continent originated in Asia. So a natural, evidence-based, interpretation would read: 

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of [the American] continent, and the [Asian] source from whence they sprang."

That's the paradigm shift, and with that shift all anachronisms (silk, elephants, horses, swords, metallurgy, etc.) are resolved and also the Book of Mormon falls in line with the overwhelming evidence that all native people in the Americas came via Asia. Since the text itself does not constrain us to the New World we have no justification for making guesses beyond the latest research into the Jewish diaspora. If the evidence eventually leads to Guatemala or the Heartland, great. But that hasn't happened yet and no matter how much we might appeal to Kuhn or Kant, the dominant paradigm isn't based in history. If it was, where is the map? 

Appealing to a consensus here is not only a double edged-sword, but also involves picking up the sword by the pointy bits.   I found that one of the most fascinating and to me persuasive parts of Sorenson's Mormon's Map was his detailed discussion of the military actions regarding east and west coasts, though I don't think either term appears in the Book of Mormon.  Sea East associated with the Mulekite voyage, and Sea West associated with the Nephite voyage.  John Clark has done several important essays looking at different proposed correlations, and he always ends up with Sorenson's as the best, against a specific set of criteria taken from textual requirements.  Gardner uses Sorenson's but refining the issue of directions in the same way that Poulson does.  And I'm impressed with the way that such a correlation casts light on details of specific stories in the texts. I'm very very impressed by the maps, by Sorenson's work, and the refinements in Poulson and Gardner.  As both Gardner and Poulson have said, "I can't unsee the dog."  But as I have said, I learned on the playgrounds of Adelaide Elementary that anyone can dismiss any evidence or interpretation or arguments by simply saying, "So what?" and pointing somewhere else.

And personally, I think the list of issues cited (silk, elephants, horses, swords, metallurgy, etc.) either have good solutions in Mesoamerica and the notion of translation and a realistic consideration what to expect given the state of the art, and John Clark's interesting 2005 survey of trends in resolution over time.  And if there is not a single dominant overwhelming consensus, that simply means that I should pay close attention to how I go about deciding which of a number of rival candidates is best.  

I find things like this helpful, persuasive, and worth further exploration.  It has several maps.

http://bmaf.org/articles/sidon_grijalva_or_usumacinta__allen_et_al

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Gray]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

The author(s) of the Catholic article, if you asked them and they answered openly, wouldn't believe in the reality or possibility of predictive prophecy. That's something only fundamentalist rubes like TBMs and evangelicals believe. While Catholic doctrine teaches the resurrection, and I'd like to think that believing Catholic scholars believe in a literal resurrection, this hasn't been my experience (my experience includes ordained Catholic priests. Granted that my sample size is hopefully not representative of the Catholic Church as a whole . . .). Belief in literal physical miracles in the OT and NT (and in our day as well), such as raising the dead, healing profoundly sick, walking on water, calling down fire from the sky, etc., is likewise limited in our day to fundamentalist rubes. Even a belief in a global flood among LDS in general is embarrassing to the "higher" critics among us . . .

Have you asked the authors in question, or are you guessing? This sounds like an attempt at mind reading. 

Quote

Can you list general examples (just a few)? I generalized Sperry's list to three: denial of prophecy (i.e., perceived anachronism), literary style, and theology. Does he break any new ground that the old guard over the last 75 years didn't already cover?

I don't think he's broken new ground. Of course if you exclude every point except denial of prophesy (which isn't a point taken by believing scholars who take the mainstream position of multiple authorship of Isaiah), that supports your general contention that it's all about denial of prophesy. But that would be a textbook example of special pleading. 

One very striking example that should make it obvious that Isaiah was written by multiple authors:

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/

 

Bokovoy wrote:

Quote

The historical Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the second half of the eighth century BCE. His prophetic call narrative (Isaiah 6) dates the experience to the year king Uzziah died, i.e. sometime during the 740’s. At this time, the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were both in existence, although the north was destroyed by the Assyrians in the later part of Isaiah’s prophetic career. As a result, the Assyrians are the only enemy mentioned in his oracles (7:17, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5,12; the prophecy against Babylon in chapter 13 is a later addition). During Isaiah’s ministry, the Babylonians had not yet become a significant world power. For Isaiah, it was Assyria that Yahweh had chosen as “the rod of his anger” to afflict the covenant people for their wickedness (10:5).

Even though Isaiah predicted judgment against his people, he held fast to a view scholars refer to as “the inviolability of Jerusalem.” Isaiah believed that Jerusalem was a sacred place that could not be annihilated by its enemies. This view is expressed in Is. 31:5-9:

(31:5) Like the birds that fly, even so will the Lord of Hosts shield Jerusalem and saving, protecting and rescuing. . . (8) Then Assyria shall fall, Not by the sword of man; A sword not of humans shall devour him. He shall shrivel before the sword, And his young men pine away. (9) His rock shall melt with terror, And his officers shall collapse from weakness — Declares the LORD, who has a fire in Zion, Who has an oven in Jerusalem.

Bokovoy wrote:

Quote

In contrast to this perspective, Isaiah 40 begins as a message of comfort to the Judean people since Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this was not something that the historical Isaiah believed would happen. Surely, if his theology switched so drastically we would expect some sort of statement that explained how he came to know that his earlier oracles were incorrect. In reality, chapters 40-66 never speak of the Babylonian period as a distant future reality, as if someone were prophesying about it. Instead, the Babylonian period is described as the present, historical condition. Isaiah 1-39 concludes with a focus on Hezekiah’s day, while chapter 40 presents an abrupt transition to the exilic community in the sixth century. The evidence is clear: the historical Isaiah of the earlier period would not have believed that this comfort was necessary since Jerusalem from his perspective was God’s holy city that would never be destroyed. - Bokovoy

 

 

You wrote:

Quote

 

What, specifically, do you find in chapter 45 that is framed "not . . . as a prophecy but rather as a commentary on current events?" Granted, Isaiah doesn't say "I hereby prophesy that Cyrus shall come forth;" he speaks thus: "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him." There's nothing inherently "current events commentary" about this unless one doesn't believe it is possible to be writing this long before Cyrus and Persia were on the scene.

 

See above

Edited July 7, 2016 by Gray

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Ahab, you have no idea where I am going with this. Please reserve your judgement until I have made my point, or crashed and burned. I assure you that my hopotheticals are not silly. I don't have time to develop this right now, and was hoping to get a response from a few more who have expressed doubts based on the "state of the evidence" as in the OP.

Thanks,

Glenn

Sorry, yes, you make a good point.  I should just teach correct principles while letting others learn through their own experiences while not calling that process silliness.

[jkwilliams]

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. 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by jkwilliams