The State of the Evidence

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Probably, but it is on topic as far as the evidences for Mormonism.

Well, a debate about the evidence wasn't the intent of the thread, but OK. Have at it. 

[guerreiro9]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

There is no sense ignoring the elephant in the living room.

We may as well start with the Sermon on the Mount, where Matthew 5-7 is reproduced in 3 Nephi 12-14.

This is a thorny problem because it is not a short passage, but three chapters long.

Making it even more difficult is the scholarly consensus that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount in the first place!

Instead, the author of Matthew cobbled together a bunch of sayings of Jesus that were in circulation and formulated them into the story of a sermon given by Jesus.  This would have been done sometime around 75 CE.

So not only does a reasonable explanation have to be given for why the Book of Mormon is repeating the lengthy Sermon on the Mount.

It must also explain why Jesus is giving a three-chapter long sermon in the Book of Mormon in King James English when Jesus never gave such a sermon during his mortal ministry.

So your complaint is that teachings of Jesus given in one location and one language are the same as teachings of Jesus given in another location and another language when both are translated into English?

 

I'd hate to hear your complaint if they weren't the same...

 

-guerreiro9

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know that we can.  Which is a good thing!  

I think we can with a reasonable certainty. The alternative is to hide behind uncertainty indefinitely. In that limbo situation the status continues.....

[SteveO]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

(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.)

David Rohl in his book, Towards a New Chronology:

The Genealogy of the Royal Architects, discovered in the Wadi Hammamat, confirms that the era known as the TIP (Third Intermediate Period) has been overstretched. Furthermore, all three key genealogies linking back to the New Kingdom indicate that over a century must be removed from the chronology of the transition period between the late 19th Dynasty and the Third Intermediate Period.

The point I was trying to make, probably unsuccessfully, is that I get a little leery when scholars try and fit everything into a predetermined timeline of events.  I'll tell you right now that you're definitely more knowledgable than I on this and probably most scholarship relating to the church. 

Rohl was, I believe in a documentary concerning the historicity of the Exodus.  I can't name it off the top of my head, but in it they examine the claim that there is absolutely no evidence for the Exodus--one of the paramount events in the bible.  In short, what they found was that evidence existed, but it had all been dismissed by scholars due to the fact that the evidences had not existed during the accepted date of the Exodus.  Examples: The walls of Jericho were destroyed by earthquake, but was dismissed because the quake had occurred hundreds of years before the Exodus, there was a large Semitic population living in Goshen but had dismissed because it had existed hundreds of years before the Exodus.

So when scholars look at Isaiah and say, "this part was written at this time, and that part was written at another time", I just think they close the door on new evidence because then it has to be shoehorned into a pre existing set of criteria.  

I'm not saying this completely fixes the problem, but it seems that people (actually just one in particular) is slamming the door and saying there is absolutely no wiggle room about the issue.  I just think thats absurd.

Hope that makes sense

[consiglieri]

29 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

So your complaint is that teachings of Jesus given in one location and one language are the same as teachings of Jesus given in another location and another language when both are translated into English?

 

I'd hate to hear your complaint if they weren't the same...

 

-guerreiro9

That's the problem.

They shouldn't be the same.

Give two people the same Greek text of the Sermon on the Mount and have them translate it independently into English.

It is NOT going to be the same.

And it is certainly NOT going to be word-for-word the King James Version.

You're only digging yourself in deeper here. 

 

[consiglieri]

23 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 

So when scholars look at Isaiah and say, "this part was written at this time, and that part was written at another time", I just think they close the door on new evidence because then it has to be shoehorned into a pre existing set of criteria.  

 

On the other hand, I think we can all agree the New Testament was written after Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Give two people the same Greek text of the Sermon on the Mount and have them translate it independently into English.

It is NOT going to be the same.

They are if God is doing the translating.

Edited June 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Nevo]

35 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

So your complaint is that teachings of Jesus given in one location and one language are the same as teachings of Jesus given in another location and another language when both are translated into English?

The problem is that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount—it's a Matthean composition.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I would like a specific example as to which KJV NT passages contained in the BOM pose a problem to reason.

Here's a site that will help you get started:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/mosiah/plag_list.html

It's an anti site, but as Nicholas Frederick notes in his JBMS article, "Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology," it's "an excellent resource."

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Nevo said:

The problem is that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount—it's a Matthean composition.

Are you saying that there are no respected bible scholars who believe that Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount?

[guerreiro9]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

That's the problem.

They shouldn't be the same.

Give two people the same Greek text of the Sermon on the Mount and have them translate it independently into English.

It is NOT going to be the same.

And it is certainly NOT going to be word-for-word the King James Version.

You're only digging yourself in deeper here. 

 

Why would you expect the English translation of the Book of Mormon to be independent from the King James Version of the Bible?

I don't think there has been anything produced in English since 1611 that is independent from the King James Version of the Bible, let alone religious texts.

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

The problem is that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount—it's a Matthean composition.

... sigh, when I read pronouncements like this I always hear Yoda saying "So certain are you?"

 

When you're done with it can I borrow your book that recounts every movement and every saying ever made by Jesus?

 

-guerreiro9

[Teancum]

On June 28, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Storm Rider said:

Okay, so the Holy Spirit on one side telling me it is true and then there is the opinion of a few individuals you know.  I don't know any local members that would pick one or two, but they also are not historians or ones that may have read all of the architectural material available on the Western Hemisphere and understand all of it and it inter-relationship with the Old World.  Who am I to follow when the mind of man is so hindered, limited, and ignorant of so much?  For some strange reason I will study, pray, and follow the promptings of the Spirit.  Yeah, I know.  Such a novel approach to life.   

How do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

Experience.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The issue is not about revelation.

It is about the dependence of the Book of Mormon on KJV NT passages that were not written until 600-years after Lehi left Jerusalem.

The KJV NT passages could therefore not have been on the brass plates.

The NT records were not even in the same hemisphere from the BOM authors!

So how is it that BOM authors show a heavy dependency on KJV NT passages?

You say "revelation," as if it is a magic wand that can make the problem go away.  It is not.  And to use "revelation" in such a manner is not only cynical, it is demeaning to the whole notion of what "revelation" really is.

In short, it is not reasonable.

 

 

Oh my gosh

Joseph was inspired to use that language to convey the same ideas whoever wrote them did.

Two witnesses of the divine message and all that.  It's a confirmation to pay attention to the teachings.   I believe in BOM historicity, though I find it unnecessary- so the explanation for me is that the Lord wanted similar words revealed to the Nephites, and so they were.   Joseph recognized the teachings and just used Isaiah to "translate" them. 

Snore.  

No book of scripture is dependent on "evidence" for anything.

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On June 28, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Storm Rider said:

Okay, so the Holy Spirit on one side telling me it is true and then there is the opinion of a few individuals you know.  I don't know any local members that would pick one or two, but they also are not historians or ones that may have read all of the architectural material available on the Western Hemisphere and understand all of it and it inter-relationship with the Old World.  Who am I to follow when the mind of man is so hindered, limited, and ignorant of so much?  For some strange reason I will study, pray, and follow the promptings of the Spirit.  Yeah, I know.  Such a novel approach to life.   

Here are some claims from competing truth claims.  How does one reconcile such things? 

“Here are some truth claims of different religions, taken from their theology:

Seventy-five million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of a galactic confederation, brought billions of humanlike beings to Earth in a giant spaceship that resembled a Douglas DC-8. Paralyzed and then preserved in antifreeze, their bodies were piled up around the bases of volcanoes and destroyed by exploding hydrogen bombs within the craters. Their escaped souls, called “thetans,” were captured, taken to a giant cinema, and forced to watch movies for about a month, implanting in the thetans bad ideas like Catholicism. The thetans then escaped, affixing themselves to the bodies of those who survived the explosions. Humans afflicted with thetans can be diagnosed only with special devices that measure skin conductance.

You don’t believe that, right? But that is official doctrine of the Church of Scientology, concocted by the science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and seen as gospel by his church and its adherents, many of them paying thousands of dollars to learn these “truths.” If you don’t accept that story, why not?

How about this one?
In 1827, New Yorker Joseph Smith, guided by an angel named Moroni, unearthed a binder of golden plates written in strange characters. With the help of his hat and a “seer stone, Smith translated the plates into English.

 This transcription, the Book of Mormon, claims that Jesus visited North America and that Native Americans are the descendants of people from the Middle East who migrated to North America.

If that doesn’t seem credible—and it does to the faith’s fifteen million adherents—remember that the Book of Mormon begins with the sworn testimony of eleven witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates. These were actual, living people—giving the Book of Mormon far more historical credibility than the Bible or the Quran.

Here’s another:
Illness and deaths are illusions—purely the result of faulty thinking—and even “diseases” like diabetes and cancer can be overcome by proper belief.

That’s the doctrine of the Christian Science church, founded in 1879. As we’ll see, hundreds of people have died relying on this theology rather than receiving proper medical care.

Most of the world’s believers reject these claims as blatantly false. But that’s only because these three religions are fairly new. They were founded in the last two centuries, and we see their origin not as divine but as obvious fabrications of humans—in the case of Joseph Smith, of a con man[…]”

“But if you look with equally critical eyes at the doctrines of older faiths, their tenets seem equally bizarre. Islam, for instance, claims that Muhammad was accosted by two angels who split open his breast, extracted his heart, and purified it with snow, rendering him suitable to be God’s prophet. The angel Gabriel then commanded him to recite, which he did for twenty-three years, producing the Quran. And, of course, the Christian mythology includes stories of talking serpents, worldwide floods, virgin births, and a divine prophet who, after resurrecting the dead and healing the blind, was resurrected himself. The obvious question is this: why are believers in mainstream religions, like Islam and Christianity, less critical of their own faiths than of others?

One reason is that most mainstream faiths have been around for millennia. Because we weren’t there when they were founded, we can’t dismiss their divine origins as readily as we can for Scientology or Mormonism. Their persistence has given them an aura of credibility, somehow making their claims seem less contrived.”

Excerpt From: Jerry A. Coyne. “Faith Versus Fact.” Penguin Publishing Group, 2015-04-21. iBooks. 
 

 

 

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Experience.

This is meaningless to anyone but yourself and for all we know you have been deluded.

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh

Joseph was inspired to use that language to convey the same ideas whoever wrote them did.

Two witnesses of the divine message and all that.  It's a confirmation to pay attention to the teachings.   I believe in BOM historicity, though I find it unnecessary- so the explanation for me is that the Lord wanted similar words revealed to the Nephites, and so they were.   Joseph recognized the teachings and just used Isaiah to "translate" them. 

Snore.  

 

Dude, you're talking like Jesus had "other sheep" or something...

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is meaningless to anyone but yourself and for all we know you have been deluded.

Correct. 
You asked "How do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you?"

Proving that to anyone else is irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

The Holy Spirit is the good donald duck inside you.  If the voice is telling you something that is good and grows within you it is the HS.

Alma 32

The other side is the bad donald duck inside you.

Simple enough?  Get it now?  Obviously there is no objective way to characterize it that will be the same for you.

It's that nasty old dualism inside you making you want objective evidence of the HS.   Read the Rorty quote below until you understand it and call me in the morning.

The spirit is not "out there" to be recognized in that way.  Alma 32 says it is the voice which teaches you to do good and you get to figure that out for yourself

     "Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."  

The influence of the HG is not "out there" it is expressed in our hearts, inside us.  He is "out there" but descriptions of his effects are not.

Only descriptions of the HG can be true or false, based on Alma 32- their influence in our lives as we experience them, and express them.  The HG itself- unaided by the describing activities of the human mind- cannot.

Edited June 30, 2016 by mfbukowski
getting it right

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The Holy Spirit is the good donald duck inside you.  If the voice is telling you something that is good and grows within you it is the HS.

Alma 32

The other side is the bad donald duck inside you.

Simple enough?  Get it now?  Obviously there is no objective way to characterize it that will be the same for you.

It's that nasty old dualism inside you making you want objective evidence of the HS.   Read the Rorty quote below until you understand it and call me in the morning.

The spirit is not "out there" to be recognized in that way.  Alma 32 says it is the voice which teaches you to do good and you get to figure that out for yourself

I will tell you what,.  You read the book I quote above. And I will read Rorty.  

As for the BoM I am as familiar with it as you are. 

Simple enought for you?  

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct. 
You asked "How do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you?"

Proving that to anyone else is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant when you expect others to follow your personal experiences that seem to trump evidence.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

It is not irrelevant when you expect others to follow your personal experiences that seem to trump evidence.

I expect nobody to do anything.  Other than recognize that I believe my personal experiences and act accordingly.

People have their agency to do whatever they want, no matter how wrong they are.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

So your complaint is that teachings of Jesus given in one location and one language are the same as teachings of Jesus given in another location and another language when both are translated into English?

 

I'd hate to hear your complaint if they weren't the same...

 

-guerreiro9

Yep. that is exactly the point!

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't read the whole thread, but, as others likely have pointed out, one possibility is that the state of the evidence neither compels belief nor compels disbelief. Hence, faith.  As for the state of my own faith, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." And, "I know not the meaning of all things, nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children," and so forth.  The questions for me are, "Does living the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ [to the extent that I do so, recognizing that, often, I fall short] bear good fruit in my life?  Does it make me happy?"  If the answer to those questions is, "Yes," what else matters?