The State of the Evidence

[Calm]

Nevo, I am curious and I am thinking you and Robert Smith are my current most likely fount of wisdom in this area.

If one were to start from scratch looking at the evidence used to created the timeline of authors, if the premise that revelation could exist and God may have given detailed information to prophets beforehand, how much wider would that set the timing or are there other aspects that lock it down to current mainstream timelines without those dating methods being used...such as environmental events being described in a variety of countries at the same time so calendars can be linked usefully.

And is dating of events that secure?  I keep thinking of Jesus' birth and the alleged events attached to that which have created confusion, not lined up the dates.

I don't know everyone's areas of interest so if you have studied this in depth (not just depending on google, since I can do that :)), feel free to share your interpretation of where we stand.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

My position to the OP:  I find it rather compelling (aspects of the Restoration), extremely compelling (nature of God based on my personal experience with God), and a significant, but not overwhelming by any means given my view of humans group of church related caspects the benefit of the doubt based on the first two but at the moment sees stuff as needing a lot more evidence to become compelling (not mentioning these so no tempting rabbit trails, but generally what I see as policies and practices attempting to implement eternal doctrine and failing).

So it is a mix of all of them, but all with the condition that the most compelling evidence for me (because it is intimate and personal) has little to compel another to see it the same way.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree with Sperry that their reasons for arguing in favor of multiple Isaiahs *always* stem from a complete denial of the existence or possibility of actual predictive prophecy. A corollary to this is the stylistic arguments, where scholars argue what could or could not have been written by Isaiah (a favorite is that the exuberance and jubilation of Deutero-Isaiah must have been written by someone other than Isaiah, because he couldn't have written in that tone (even though he is writing of the Second Coming and other such topics).

Thanks for at least being the first to actually address the Deutero-Isaiah issue. Your response, then, is that you consider the evidence for it unpersuasive. I don't share that opinion, but I suppose reasonable minds can disagree. There are still, after all, a few Evangelical commentators that argue for a single author (e.g., John Oswalt). In any case, I don't think Sperry is very reliable guide on the subject. Anyone wishing to study the current arguments for Deutero-Isaiah would do well to consult a modern critical commentary. Here I am in full agreement with Grant Hardy: "Latter-day Saints . . . have never undertaken the sort of phrase by phrase analysis in Hebrew that characterizes works like Joseph Blenkinsopp's three-volume Anchor Bible commentary (2000–3), which reveals just how much of what we see in Isaiah is best explained by the Second Isaiah hypothesis. The level of consensus on this issue, especially in a field as contentious as biblical studies, is remarkable (and certainly includes scholars who believe in inspiration and prophecy)" (Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 291n28).

So your response to the Deutero-Isaiah issue is that you don't think it's anachronistic—chapters 40–55 could have been on the brass plates—but what do you make of the New Testament passages? Obviously the NT doesn't pre-date 600 BC.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

I am looking at one page that says WWii started in 37 when Japan invaded China 

http://apjjf.org/2012/10/37/Richard-J.-Smethurst/3825/article.html

And another that says it began in Sept 39 when Europeans got personally involved. (wiki)

If a Japanese is talking about the beginning of WWII and a German is doing the same thing and they use that date to identify a personal experience they had 'I know I got engaged on the first day of WWII, if we didn't stop and pause to think we might assume it happened at the same time or we're maybe 500 years in the future where the sense of difference is blurred and maybe lost from records completely (unlikely unless government collapse and we regress in tech) so again we think something happened almost at the same time when there was two years difference.  A claim of a prediction made right before the beginning of WWII that then happened in 1938 could be a valid prediction and yet viewed as a scam by someone who dates the war starting in 39. Not realising they were using a different dating system.

I am not using this as an example of what went wrong, though someone's comment made me wonder if this is a can of worms after all?  I am using my example to demonstrate very simple things can lead to misdating and misinterpretation of what is happening when if there are few details....when there is a mass of details...in that case, they may end up confusing things like what year was Jesus actually born?

Americans call it the War of 1812, Canadians were calling it the American Invasion of Canada when we lived there. My favourite example, though not a dating example, but a labelling one...plus looking at motivations very differently in my experience.

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Calm

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't think that was what bluebell was saying.  An imperfect analogy for what I believe her point was...when two people look at a picture of a circle you can't see and one person says it is blue and the other person says it is purple, both are presenting their personal interpretation as evidence and there is no objective way to prove one right and the other is wrong...perhaps they are both wrong due to some weird form of colourblindness, perhaps both are right because they just use the same name for different colours....no, I mean the reverse.  Bottom line is we can only deal with their interpretation and unless we know all the subjective reasonings that have gone into much of the concluding, it may be best to allow that the other person may have very good reason to believe that way. . . .

Someone mentioned the possibilty that the DI timing was off due to basing it on Egyptian timelines that are now apparently suspect.  This seems a logical challenge if based on credible claims, which I have no clue about.

Hi Calm,

I suspect you've correctly intuited the argument that bluebell intended to make: that evidence doesn't "speak for itself"; it must be interpreted, and interpretations are subjective, therefore uncertain, etc. But I find it a little suspicious when epistemological nihilism is invoked to account for disconfirming evidence. If this were a thread lauding NHM/Nahom as evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I doubt very much that we'd see believers leading off with: "Evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true..."

(I agree with you that SteveO's claim about chronology would be a logical challenge if it were true. But I don't think there's any serious question about when Jerusalem was destroyed, or when Isaiah prophesied, etc.)

Edited June 29, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

Too bad I lent my sister Hardy's book.  I read it at a time of low memory retention due to misprescribing, I think the projectile vomiting finally convinced them and my protests to please find another family of Meds to try stuck.  I would enjoy reading it much more now.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Calm

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not familiar with this claim.  I believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone while translating The Book of Mormon.  The mechanism by which it worked is, AFAIK, unknown to us.  Could you clarify your question?

I can understand and respect your discomfort with the concept of physical artifacts being used in a way authorized by God.  To its credit, the Church is being pretty open about this:

It's not like we Mormons are the only ones called upon to believe in things that may rankle the mind of someone raised in the secular 21st century.  Moses used the Rod of Aaron for both divine purposes (to part the Red Sea) and for purposes for which it was not intended, but which still apparently had a miraculous effect (Moses used it to strike the stone at Meribah, from which water burst forth).  And then there's Manna, and the Brazen Serpent, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the floating axe head, and the Urim and Thummim, the Savior's spittle mud.  These all seem rather . . . weird to think about as I sit in my living room while typing this on a laptop.

I'm not sure what you mean by "given the origins of the book."  The origins of the book are in dispute.  Front and center.  There is no consensus about its origins, so we cannot take those origins as a "given."

The claim to historicity has evidence both for and against.  I readily acknowledge this.  

But I don't think there is a "dearth of evidence for historicity."  I think there such evidence exists.  

I don't think so.  The book is not presented as "fiction," either in its content or by Joseph Smith.  To call it "inspired fiction" is to reject what the book and Joseph claim it to be.  

I will elucidate: Historicity matters vis-à-vis The Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel.  It is an essential component of my faith. On this point I agree with Joseph Smith, who said (emphases added): "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."

The historicity of God, the "idea that he actually exists," is a dealmaker for me.  The absence of it is a dealbreaker.  If God does exist, then I can continue with an inquiry as to His "character, perfections, and attributes," His relationship to and plan for us, and so on.  But if God does not exist, if He's just a piece of "fiction" that makes people feel good, then I would not stay in the LDS Church.  

Similarly, I think I would find little remarkable value in the precepts found in The Book of Mormon absent an concomitant belief in its historicity.   The value of the text lies principally in its testimony of Jesus Christ.  Absent historicity, the text's value diminishes significantly.  As President Hinckley put it (speaking broadly of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling): "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud."

My view is that rejecting the BoM's historicity necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture.  Consider the following observations (emphases added):

• Elder Oaks: "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)
• In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I agree with these sentiments.  I think historicity is integral to meaningful acceptance of The Book of Mormon, of Joseph Smtih, and of the Restored Gospel generally.

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess you're right? The "gift and power of God" "translation" through the medium of a rock is completely plausible and reasonable to believe. That's why Joseph Smith and the church de-emphasized it for so many years.

[bdouglas]

20 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I guess you're right? The "gift and power of God" "translation" through the medium of a rock is completely plausible and reasonable to believe. That's why Joseph Smith and the church de-emphasized it for so many years.

I first learned about it (the seer stone) from B. H. Roberts "Comprehensive History Of the Church" which I purchased from Deseret Book in the 1980s. (Roberts relates an interesting story, told by Martin Harris, about the time Martin substituted another stone for Joseph's seer stone when he wasn't looking and what subsequently happened.) But now that I think about it, this wasn't the first I'd heard about the seer stone. I think I actually first learned about it from a BOM class at BYU for returned missionaries.

Edited June 29, 2016 by bdouglas

[James Tunney]

12 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I first learned about it (the seer stone) from B. H. Roberts "Comprehensive History Of the Church" which I purchased from Deseret Book in the 1980s. (Roberts relates an interesting story, told by Martin Harris, about the time Martin substituted another stone for Joseph's seer stone when he wasn't looking and what subsequently happened.) But now that I think about it, this wasn't the first I'd heard about the seer stone. I think I actually first learned about it from a BOM class at BYU for returned missionaries.

So are you trying to imply that seer stones were widely known throughout the church? Did the uproar last August prove this? Do you know what gaslighting is? 

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

So are you trying to imply that seer stones were widely known throughout the church? Did the uproar last August prove this? Do you know what gaslighting is? 

There is a line from a story I like by Saul Bellow. One character says to another character (not a verbatim quote, but the sense is there): “From Euclid to Newton there were only straight lines. But then we got curves.”

The church, in the history that was generally taught, was all "straight lines". We didn't get "curves", any more than a 4th grader gets taught calculus, because it was believed that would confuse some of us (church lesson materials have always been geared to the weakest, or least knowledgeable). Of course, for anybody who was interested, the curves were always there——in B. H. Roberts' history and numerous other sources. All anybody had to do was go to a library or any place LDS books were sold.

But then suddenly the internet arrives and members get the "curves" whether they want them or not, and some are freaked out, just as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity freaked out people who'd grown up believing Euclid and Newton's Mechanics (all straight lines) constituted the final word.

Some people blame the church for this. They say, “You hid the curved lines from us!”

And the church, or church leaders say, “You weren't ready for curved lines, and so we taught you arithmetick and pre-algebra." 

Does this constitute hiding? Does a 4th grade teacher's keeping Calculus from students who are still struggling with multiplication tables constitute "hiding"? I don't think so. As I said, for anybody who wanted to dig deeper, it was always there, in any library or bookstore.

Edited June 29, 2016 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

Does God dump everything on us all at once, or in His wisdom does he keep some things back? Instead of seeing sinister motives on the part of church leaders who chose to emphasize some things and deemphasize others, I see compassion and a keen understanding of the capacity of the average church member.

Edited June 29, 2016 by bdouglas

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/27/2016 at 0:41 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. 

This is a very common notion among well-educated Mormons, John.  I have heard it and seen it in print many times, and find it not at all surprising.  Especially since the LDS Church has long based its efforts at conversion on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not on arguing theology or archeology.

The key point to be made, however, is that (in this context) those who are not conversant with the highly technical issues of linguistics, history, archeology, and the like, are easy prey for those who make attacking the faith their prime motivating factor.  I see nothing wrong with discussing all possible issues by anyone and everyone, come what may.  Only that during such discussion a focus on actual secular science be maintained and that it not become merely a shouting match -- everyone understanding all the while that instant expertise in those technical areas is beyond the reach of most ordinary Mormons and anti-Mormons.  Both sides in the debate can do little more than nibble around the edges of the issues.  Thus, the kind of advice you have received from that stake president and others makes sense to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided.

It is overwhelmingly against.

What throws the balance one way or the other?

(Everybody, repeat after me . . .)

The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

Aside from the silly notion that the KJV Bible in English could be present on the Brass Plates (I am sure that you don't really mean that, Counselor), you make assumptions about the nature and date of a theoretical text engraved on the Brass Plates (presumably in Egyptian) which may or may not be true.  Even if, for example, we accept the theory of an Isaianic School which continued to add to his work for a century or more after his death, there is no guarantee that Second Isaiah is post-exilic (and thus post Lehi).  Moreover, even if we are discussing NT language in the BofM, we must always bear in mind that the potential translator (whether Joseph or some earlier character) may be steeped in KJV language and metaphor -- choosing to use that to deliver the otherwise foreign meaning to us in modern times.  We do not even have to fully adopt Blake Ostler's midrashic expansion theory of the BofM in order to suggest that.

Rather than stand on such moot points, wouldn't it be better (and more decisive) to focus on secular science and history where some headway can be made?  I still don't get your almost automatic assumption that the evidence "is overwhelmingly against."  Is this view based on just the KJV quotations and allusions, or do you have more substantive issues to declaim?

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Quote

14 hours ago, drums12 said:

I'm really getting tired of people with superficial knowledge of issues surrounding the BofA claiming that it's a closed case (not saying this is you HJW).  The critics have one the battle of popular opinion.  But read "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham" by our own Robert F Smith, and you'll realize it's far from that simple.

It is simple to see that the church doesn't know what to make of the BoA translation. They seem to acknowledge that the provenance isn't what it claimed to be (ie. the words of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus), nor does the translation offered by JS match scholarly translations of the text. Is the church's knowledge on this superficial? They don't know how to define "translation" in this regard so they offer theories. All of the many theories make things complicated, but that doesn't mean it's not relatively simply to see that the BoA wasn't "translated" in the traditional sense, nor does it come from the papyrus, nor was it written by Abraham's own hand.

You just proved Drums' point, HappyJack, which is that the actual evidence means little to you, and you will not respond to a substantive argument about it.  It is easy to make the sort of false statements you make here, without a care in the world whether they match reality.  All you really need is a mere wave of your hand to dismiss the real issues.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[rongo]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for at least being the first to actually address the Deutero-Isaiah issue. Your response, then, is that you consider the evidence for it unpersuasive.

Yes.

I don't share that opinion, but I suppose reasonable minds can disagree.

I do, too.

 In any case, I don't think Sperry is very reliable guide on the subject.

Why? Isn't your answer to this really just another matter of opinion on which reasonable minds can disagree?

So your response to the Deutero-Isaiah issue is that you don't think it's anachronistic—chapters 40–55 could have been on the brass plates

Correct. Nevo, do you believe that there were actual brass plates (and gold plates)? Do you believe that Lehi and Nephi were real people who really existed, for that matter? I think people's actual response to these questions is a "key indicator" of where they fall on the "Isaiah question."

—but what do you make of the New Testament passages? Obviously the NT doesn't pre-date 600 BC.

Joseph Smith's mother said that Joseph was the least inclined and prone to read out of all her children. Witnesses to the translation uniformly insist that no manuscripts or books were present or used during the translation process. Yet, large swaths of KJV Bible passages are in the Book of Mormon text (and in the Doctrine and Covenants as well. One finds phrases such as "clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army of banners," and many others like it, for instance, throughout D&C). I think this is significant, and circumstantial evidence of the First Vision and Moroni's visits. Joseph was so changed and affected by his experiences, and Bible quotations from heavenly messengers, that he went and read the Bible --- and remained deeply impacted by this. From this, he received super-human memory recall, and couched his translation in KJV language he had immersed in. When dictating concepts and similar passages, he used KJV language, often with phenomenal recall. 

Paraphrasing Hugh Nibley in a Church News article, when angels visit people in the NT and quote scripture, do they quote from some mysterious Urtext? Do they give their own translation of the ultimate original? No, they don't --- they quote the Septuagint, the accepted version of the scriptures to the people they were speaking. This is what the existence of KJV language is to the audience of the Book of Mormon, and while there are KJV NT passages in the Book of Mormon, there are also key differences (such as in the version of the Sermon on the Mount recorded in 3 Nephi). Nibley also makes the point that Moroni/Mormon's use of Paul's discourse on charity in Moroni 7 harks back to a source that predates Paul; i.e., that both Paul and Mormon/Moroni were quoting an original.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Well, I guess anyone can choose their own reality where whatever they believe is real is real.  However, at a certain point belief in a given reality becomes an absurdity.  I'm sure you look at other religions that way.

I don't look at other religions that way at all.

I can disagree with a belief system while acknowledging that it's reasonable given different interpretations of scripture and other evidence. 

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is a very common notion among well-educated Mormons, John.  I have heard it and seen it in print many times, and find it not at all surprising.  Especially since the LDS Church has long based its efforts at conversion on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not on arguing theology or archeology.

The key point to be made, however, is that (in this context) those who are not conversant with the highly technical issues of linguistics, history, archeology, and the like, are easy prey for those who make attacking the faith their prime motivating factor.  I see nothing wrong with discussing all possible issues by anyone and everyone, come what may.  Only that during such discussion a focus on actual secular science be maintained and that it not become merely a shouting match -- everyone understanding all the while that instant expertise in those technical areas is beyond the reach of most ordinary Mormons and anti-Mormons.  Both sides in the debate can do little more than nibble around the edges of the issues.  Thus, the kind of advice you have received from that stake president and others makes sense to me.

Thank you, Robert. There seems to be a belief that confidence in your position means you think everyone else is an idiot. I am pretty confident in my conclusions, but I recognize that much smarter people than I am have considered the same information and reached different conclusions about Mormonism. I completely respect people like you who have wrestled with the difficult issues and emerged with their faith intact or strengthened. I wish I could have managed that. What I don't respect is the insistence by some that there is no troubling information and that those who find such things troubling are just fault-finders looking to attack the church. If anyone wanted to find reasons to believe in Mormonism, it was me, but it just didn't work. I readily acknowledge that my biases, experience, and, for want of a better term, paradigm inform how I see the evidence, and others are going to see it differently. I go back to the clear answer I received to fervent prayer: I don't have to believe in things that aren't true.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

But I find it a little suspicious when epistemological nihilism is invoked to account for disconfirming evidence. If this were a thread lauding NHM/Nahom as evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I doubt very much that we'd see believers leading off with: "Evidence is often subjective, it's really hard to state as fact that any one evidence proves something true..."

If someone said that the only way to interpret the NHM/Nahom evidence was to believe the BOM I would definitely lead off with that. 

This thread is a great example of how some people can't even correctly interpret what someone means while they are having a current discussion with them. Anyone who thinks that their (or someone else's) interpretation of historical evidence is beyond reproach and the only rational interpretation is delusional.  

Evidence is subjective. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are oodles of people on this board who are very, very familiar with the evidence, pro and con, and who strongly believe in The Book of Mormon.  And there are also people who are similarly informed but go diametrically the other way.  

I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

 

Totally agree. Reasonable minds can disagree on most things. The disagreement doesn't mean one person is better than the other, they just view the world, Mormonism, historicity, whatever, through a different lens.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You just proved Drums' point, HappyJack, which is that the actual evidence means little to you, and you will not respond to a substantive argument about it.  It is easy to make the sort of false statements you make here, without a care in the world whether they match reality.  All you really need is a mere wave of your hand to dismiss the real issues.

Care to elaborate how I'm making Drum's point?

Care to explain from my statement why the "actual evidence means little to [me]"?

Can you explain which statement was false and provide a reasoned response about why it's false?

Can you provide evidence that I don't "care" about reality?

 

You worked a lot a attack into a short post. Please back it up a little by explaining your POV about why I'm wrong and why my motives are bad.

Are you claiming that the church still teaches that the BoA was translated in the traditional sense of the word "translate" from papyrus written by Abraham's own hand? Really?

Edited June 29, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for at least being the first to actually address the Deutero-Isaiah issue. Your response, then, is that you consider the evidence for it unpersuasive. I don't share that opinion, but I suppose reasonable minds can disagree. There are still, after all, a few Evangelical commentators that argue for a single author (e.g., John Oswalt). In any case, I don't think Sperry is very reliable guide on the subject. Anyone wishing to study the current arguments for Deutero-Isaiah would do well to consult a modern critical commentary. Here I am in full agreement with Grant Hardy: "Latter-day Saints . . . have never undertaken the sort of phrase by phrase analysis in Hebrew that characterizes works like Joseph Blenkinsopp's three-volume Anchor Bible commentary (2000–3), which reveals just how much of what we see in Isaiah is best explained by the Second Isaiah hypothesis. The level of consensus on this issue, especially in a field as contentious as biblical studies, is remarkable (and certainly includes scholars who believe in inspiration and prophecy)" (Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 291n28).

So your response to the Deutero-Isaiah issue is that you don't think it's anachronistic—chapters 40–55 could have been on the brass plates—but what do you make of the New Testament passages? Obviously the NT doesn't pre-date 600 BC.

Many years ago, when I was working for the church, I had more than two hours on the bus every day, so I read the scriptures on the way to work and the teachings of the prophets on the way home. One morning, I read where Enos says he was raise in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I thought it was odd that he, a pre-Christian-era Nephite would be quoting Paul, so I undertook a systematic study over several months of the places where the New Testament was quoted by Nephites before the birth of Christ. I noticed a pretty consistent pattern: the KJV quotations were used as jumping-off points for doctrinal or inspirational exposition, and often the exposition was constrained by the English rendering of the Bible quotation. At the time I considered it pretty clear that these expositions were of modern origin because they were textually dependent not only on the New Testament, but a particular English and Protestant-restorationist reading of the New Testament. I know some people have tried to work this out to maintain the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, such as Blake Ostler's "modern expansion" theory, but that's just too cute by half, for me anyway. 

Coincidentally, about that time, Alan Goff was the Gospel Doctrine instructor in our ward in Orem, and he spent an hour discussing Deutero-Isaiah, which I had not heard of before. As I recollect, he didn't have an easy answer for how it ended up in the Book of Mormon.

One thing I notice in this thread and others is that people seem to think it's arrogant to believe that our conclusions are right and others are wrong. But that is human nature. Of course we believe we are right. I read a study not long ago about how people acknowledge that they could be wrong about any number of things in the abstract, but when it comes to specifics, no one believes they are wrong about anything. Yes, I think my conclusions are correct, which is why I believe them. I respect that others have reached different conclusions. Believing their conclusions are wrong doesn't make me arrogant or evil.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The evidence for and against the BOM's historicity is not evenly divided.

It is overwhelmingly against.

What throws the balance one way or the other?

(Everybody, repeat after me . . .)

The presence in the Book of Mormon of lengthy passages from the KJV Bible that would not have been present on the brass plates when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

It feels to me that many a member who assumes an apologetic stance on this issue do so because they want to see possible explanations in response to criticisms as evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Just because it's possible that deutero-Isaiah made its way into a book claiming an older origin, it certainly doesn't mean that possibility is evidence for the book. 

In this way, apologetics has thrown in an interesting wrinkle for discussions like this.  Responses to criticism seem to be interpreted as evidence in favor, when they really should just be seen as explanations to provide room for faith. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

.........................................................What I don't respect is the insistence by some that there is no troubling information and that those who find such things troubling are just fault-finders looking to attack the church. If anyone wanted to find reasons to believe in Mormonism, it was me, but it just didn't work. I readily acknowledge that my biases, experience, and, for want of a better term, paradigm inform how I see the evidence, and others are going to see it differently. I go back to the clear answer I received to fervent prayer: I don't have to believe in things that aren't true.

There will continue to be movement both in and out of the LDS faith (and all other faiths), as there has been in the past.  This tells us little about the faith, but rather is more an indicator of the temper of our times, and of the socio-psychological needs of people in general.  All of which begs the substantive question of the nature of the evidence, or of our response to epistemological issues.  I'd like to see us make more headway there.  For example, is an appeal to the Holy Spirit a vaild epistemic correlate for many, or simply a dead end?  Are logic and science legitimate tools for inquiry about the faith?  I take a positive view of all that, while others are very negative.

The statement by you that "I don't have to believe in things that aren't true," seems Kantian (a categorical imperative), but meaningless in this context -- since it again begs the truth question:  How do we know what we know.  On this board, Mark Bukowski has the best handle on the answer to that question.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

There will continue to be movement both in and out of the LDS faith (and all other faiths), as there has been in the past.  This tells us little about the faith, but rather is more an indicator of the temper of our times, and of the socio-psychological needs of people in general.  All of which begs the substantive question of the nature of the evidence, or of our response to epistemological issues.  I'd like to see us make more headway there.  For example, is an appeal to the Holy Spirit a vaild epistemic correlate for many, or simply a dead end?  Are logic and science legitimate tools for inquiry about the faith?  I take a positive view of all that, while others are very negative.

The statement by you that "I don't have to believe in things that aren't true," seems Kantian (a categorical imperative), but meaningless in this context -- since it again begs the truth question:  How do we know what we know.  On this board, Mark Bukowski has the best handle on the answer to that question.

Kantian or not, that was the answer I received to fervent prayer. The meaning was absolutely clear to me on that December day in the woods. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Care to elaborate how I'm making Drum's point?

Care to explain from my statement why the "actual evidence means little to [me]"?

Can you explain which statement was false and provide a reasoned response about why it's false?

Can you provide evidence that I don't "care" about reality?

You worked a lot a attack into a short post. Please back it up a little by explaining your POV about why I'm wrong and why my motives are bad.

Are you claiming that the church still teaches that the BoA was translated in the traditional sense of the word "translate" from papyrus written by Abraham's own hand? Really?

You might begin with a substantive response to my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  As Drums suggests, and as your automatic responses indicate, you are unconcerned with hard evidence, instead attributing false positions to the LDS Church and its Scripture.  It is easy enough to cite and quote your sources, if you are serious about such questions.  That is how real discussion proceeds.