The State of the Evidence

[Kenngo1969]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

You won't get far on borrowed light.  You're always welcome to seek and to gain your own witness.  (See also my previous post.)    And the thing about evidence for religious truth claims is, we're all our own "triers of fact," as it were: We decide on the rules of evidence, we decide what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, and what weight we will give to any piece of evidence we decide to admit.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You won't get far on borrowed light.  You're always welcome to seek and to gain your own witness.  (See also my previous post.)    And the thing about evidence for religious truth claims is, we're all our own "triers of fact," as it were: We decide on the rules of evidence, we decide what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, and what weight we will give to any piece of evidence we decide to admit.

Based on this premise anyone can claim any special knowledge about any deity and claim special revelation.  See above my excerpts from the book Faith vs. Fact.

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Based on this premise anyone can claim any special knowledge about any deity and claim special revelation.  See above my excerpts from the book Faith vs. Fact.

And?  None of us sees matters of faith as they are: rather, we see them as we are.  I'm not terribly concerned if a Catholic places his faith in Pope Francis, a Buddhist places his faith in the Buddha, a Muslim places his faith in Mohammed, and so on, as much as I'm concerned whether these teachings bear good fruit in the lives of their adherents.  If they do that, what else matters?  In light of the fact that we see things as we are, you would be better served, rather than attempting to solve the conundrum posed by the fact that, apparently, God is speaking on some level to the adherents of each of these belief systems even though the systems themselves are not 100% compatible with one another, instead, putting all of that energy into being the best member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you can be, or, perhaps, finding another belief system that better speaks to you, fills your soul, and makes you happy.

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree..so much easier to put your fingers in your ear and go..nah..nah..nah..I have asked people who have been close to me and understand me..If the church wasn't true would you want to know?  Nobody just came out and said..it's true.but many came out and said..I wouldn't want to know.

Oh Jeanne say it ain't so. You think everyone that listens to the Holy Spirit is stupid?

[Nevo]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be some conservative Evangelical scholars that hold that view.

But there is broad agreement among critical scholars that he didn't. Here's a sampling:

• "Matthew’s Sermon was composed by the author of the rest of the Gospel. Drawing upon Q, Mark, and his distinctive tradition (M), he forged the discourse in accordance with his own interests." (Dale C. Allison, Jr., "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 1187) 

• The Sermon on the Mount was composed by the evangelist Matthew. Just as in the other parts of his Gospel, Matthew has edited the texts before him with redactional additions and reformulations. Unlike the other discourses, for this programmatic discourse of Jesus he had no source from the Gospel of Mark; he had only Mark’s brief report about Jesus’ authoritative preaching (Mark 1:21–22*; cf. 3:13*). In all probability, however, the evangelist can make use of Jesus’ programmatic discourse, the so-called Sermon on the Plain of Q 6:20–49, which immediately followed the temptation story in Q. He follows its structure; he merely places the golden rule (Q 6:31) as a summary at the end of his main section (7:12*). He has inserted into the plan of the Sermon on the Plain additional, thematically appropriate material, as he did in other discourses. Some of the material comes from other parts of the Q source (5:13–16* = Q 14:34–35 and 11:33; 5:18* = Q 16:18; 5:25–26* = Q 12:57–59; 5:32* = Q 16:17; 6:9–14* = Q 11:2–4; 6:19–21* = Q 12:33–34; 6:22–23* = Q 11:34–36; 6:24* = Q 16:13; 6:25–33* = Q 12:22–31; 7:7–11* = Q 11:9–13; 7:13–14* = Q 13:23–24; 7:22–24* = Q 13:25–27)." (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary on Matthew 1–7, rev. ed. [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007], 174–175)

• "[Matthew 5–7] is Matthew's greatest composition. It weaves together Q material with uniquely Matthean passages into a harmonious masterpiece of ethical and religious teaching." (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 178)

• "Roughly 27 percent of Matthew's discourse is shared with Luke 6:20–49, a further 33 percent has parallels elsewhere in Luke, and 5 percent in Mark, while the remaining 35 percent has no parallel in either Mark or Luke. These data, together with the preceding observations, are consistent with, and indeed provide the clearest illustration of, Matthew's method in compiling his five major discourses. A traditional unit of Jesus' teaching is adapted and massively expanded by the inclusion of other traditional sayings on related themes, some of which Matthew shares with Luke, but many of which he has derived from sources otherwise unknown to us. This discourse is thus properly described as an anthology of the teaching of Jesus relating to discipleship, compiled by Matthew into his own distinctive structure (though using as a basis the sermon outline of Luke 6:20–49), but aiming to provide an overview of the authoritative teaching of the Messiah himself." (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007],154–155)

Edited June 30, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

 

Quote

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just like that darn question...if the church were false, would you want to know?

Just like the question to non LDS Christians, if it is proven Jesus Christ isn't the Saviour, would you want to know? 

How would you "prove" either?

Again, how would you even know whether such could be proved by any means?  Since a testimony is personal and nontransferrable, why the concept of proof even come up, except as a matter of personal belief.  The truth question again:  How do we know anything?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, how would you even know whether such could be proved by any means?  Since a testimony is personal and nontransferrable, why the concept of proof even come up, except as a matter of personal belief.  The truth question again:  How do we know anything?

I'm assuming you're asking me this, but as I've said many times (and my question to Tacenda implied), there's no way to prove religious truth. That is not how faith works. 

[Kevin Christensen]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be some conservative Evangelical scholars that hold that view.

But there is broad agreement among critical scholars that he didn't. Here's a sampling:

• "Matthew’s Sermon was composed by the author of the rest of the Gospel. Drawing upon Q, Mark, and his distinctive tradition (M), he forged the discourse in accordance with his own interests." (Dale C. Allison, Jr., "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 1187) 

• The Sermon on the Mount was composed by the evangelist Matthew. Just as in the other parts of his Gospel, Matthew has edited the texts before him with redactional additions and reformulations. Unlike the other discourses, for this programmatic discourse of Jesus he had no source from the Gospel of Mark; he had only Mark’s brief report about Jesus’ authoritative preaching (Mark 1:21–22*; cf. 3:13*). In all probability, however, the evangelist can make use of Jesus’ programmatic discourse, the so-called Sermon on the Plain of Q 6:20–49, which immediately followed the temptation story in Q. He follows its structure;12 he merely places the golden rule (Q 6:31) as a summary at the end of his main section (7:12*). He has inserted into the plan of the Sermon on the Plain additional, thematically appropriate material, as he did in other discourses. Some of the material comes from other parts of the Q source (5:13–16* = Q 14:34–35 and 11:33; 5:18* = Q 16:18; 5:25–26* = Q 12:57–59; 5:32* = Q 16:17; 6:9–14* = Q 11:2–4; 6:19–21* = Q 12:33–34; 6:22–23* = Q 11:34–36; 6:24* = Q 16:13; 6:25–33* = Q 12:22–31; 7:7–11* = Q 11:9–13; 7:13–14* = Q 13:23–24; 7:22–24* = Q 13:25–27)." (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary on Matthew 1–7, rev. ed. [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007], 174–175)

• "[Matthew 5–7] is Matthew's greatest composition. It weaves together Q material with uniquely Matthean passages into a harmonious masterpiece of ethical and religious teaching." (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 178)

• "Roughly 27 percent of Matthew's discourse is shared with Luke 6:20–49, a further 33 percent has parallels elsewhere in Luke, and 5 percent in Mark, while the remaining 35 percent has no parallel in either Mark or Luke. These data, together with the preceding observations, are consistent with, and indeed provide the clearest illustration of, Matthew's method in compiling his five major discourses. A traditional unit of Jesus' teaching is adapted and massively expanded by the inclusion of other traditional sayings on related themes, some of which Matthew shares with Luke, but many of which he has derived from sources otherwise unknown to us. This discourse is thus properly described as an anthology of the teaching of Jesus relating to discipleship, compiled by Matthew into his own distinctive structure (though using as a basis the sermon outline of Luke 6:20–49), but aiming to provide an overview of the authoritative teaching of the Messiah himself." (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007],154–155)

Then there is this survey of the different schools of thought on the authorship of the Sermon on the Mount:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=8

And of course, Welch here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-sermon-at-the-temple-and-the-sermon-on-the-mount/

And here:

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Papers/Temple_Welch.pdf

And here:

https://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Temple-Society-Testament-Monographs/dp/0754651649

Seem relevant, don't you think?

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

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

Raising a similar difficulty is the fact the Book of Mormon quotes the ending of Mark's Gospel.

Here is the quote from Mark 16:

 

Quote

 

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

 

Here is the quotation from the Book of Mormon in Mormon 9:

 

Quote

 

23 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;

 24 And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;

 

 

Notice the similarity?  Other than the addition of the word "And" in Mormon at the very beginning, it is word-for-word the same.  The dependence on the KJV of Mark 16 is obvious.

But making the issue even thornier is the fact that scholars agree this passage from Mark was not in the original.

It was added sometime later.

This means that not only is Mormon 9:23-24 quoting verbatim from KJV Mark, it is quoting from a section that was almost certainly not in the original manuscript of Mark.

 

 

[Sanpitch]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Raising a similar difficulty is the fact the Book of Mormon quotes the ending of Mark's Gospel.

Here is the quote from Mark 16:

 

 

Here is the quotation from the Book of Mormon in Mormon 9:

 

 

Notice the similarity?  Other than the addition of the word "And" in Mormon at the very beginning, it is word-for-word the same.  The dependence on the KJV of Mark 16 is obvious.

But making the issue even thornier is the fact that scholars agree this passage from Mark was not in the original.

It was added sometime later.

This means that not only is Mormon 9:23-24 quoting verbatim from KJV Mark, it is quoting from a section that was almost certainly not in the original manuscript of Mark.

 

 

I'm anxious to read of an explanation of Consiglieri's statements.  Sounds like Joseph Smith copied a little too much from the KJ Bible.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Raising a similar difficulty is the fact the Book of Mormon quotes the ending of Mark's Gospel.

Here is the quote from Mark 16:

 

 

Here is the quotation from the Book of Mormon in Mormon 9:

 

 

Notice the similarity?  Other than the addition of the word "And" in Mormon at the very beginning, it is word-for-word the same.  The dependence on the KJV of Mark 16 is obvious.

But making the issue even thornier is the fact that scholars agree this passage from Mark was not in the original.

It was added sometime later.

This means that not only is Mormon 9:23-24 quoting verbatim from KJV Mark, it is quoting from a section that was almost certainly not in the original manuscript of Mark.

 

 

Yeah isn't that amazing. God loves us so much and thought this was so important He said it twice. Do you really believe a God that can resurrect us, raise us from the dead and create worlds innumerable can't remember what He said from one day to another? 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah isn't that amazing. God loves us so much and thought this was so important He said it twice. Do you really believe a God that can resurrect us, raise us from the dead and create worlds innumerable can't remember what He said from one day to another? 

I'm not sure you're getting the implications here

[rodheadlee]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure you're getting the implications here

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

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

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Raising a similar difficulty is the fact the Book of Mormon quotes the ending of Mark's Gospel.

Here is the quote from Mark 16:

Here is the quotation from the Book of Mormon in Mormon 9:

Notice the similarity?  Other than the addition of the word "And" in Mormon at the very beginning, it is word-for-word the same.  The dependence on the KJV of Mark 16 is obvious.

But making the issue even thornier is the fact that scholars agree this passage from Mark was not in the original.

It was added sometime later.

This means that not only is Mormon 9:23-24 quoting verbatim from KJV Mark, it is quoting from a section that was almost certainly not in the original manuscript of Mark.

 

The question isn't about whether this was written in Mark or not.
The question is whether Christ said it.

If Christ said it once there is nothing preventing him saying it exactly the same again.
It was written in Mark as something Christ said, but was perhaps added later.
It was written in Mormon as something Christ said.

Why is this so hard to understand?  There is zero reason in the world why Christ cannot say something during his visit to the new world that is recorded in the Book of Mormon that was identical to the message recorded in the New Testament.

If Christ appeared to President Monson today and President Monson reported him as quoting Mark 16 using KJV language does that in any way invalidate the vision?  Of course not.

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The question isn't about whether this was written in Mark or not.
The question is whether Christ said it.

If Christ said it once there is nothing preventing him saying it exactly the same again.
It was written in Mark as something Christ said, but was perhaps added later.
It was written in Mormon as something Christ said.

Why is this so hard to understand?  There is zero reason in the world why Christ cannot say something during his visit to the new world that is recorded in the Book of Mormon that was identical to the message recorded in the New Testament.

If Christ appeared to President Monson today and President Monson reported him as quoting Mark 16 using KJV language does that in any way invalidate the vision?  Of course not.

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

 

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

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

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

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

Did God come in sometime later and make additions to the text of Mark, or did scribes do it? 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Gray said:

Did God come in sometime later and make additions to the text of Mark, or did scribes do it? 

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

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

 

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

It's called special pleading.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm assuming you're asking me this, but as I've said many times (and my question to Tacenda implied), there's no way to prove religious truth. That is not how faith works. 

So, would you say that Alma 32:12-43 (Alma's sermon to poor Zoramites) isn't at all applicable in such inquiry?  Is the logic there flawed?  After all, if you will hark back to your high school geometry class, John, you may recall that a number of assumptions had to be made well before any "proof" could be obtained.  Raising again the question of what "proof" might be, and whether we even need it in religious life.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, would you say that Alma 32:12-43 (Alma's sermon to poor Zoramites) isn't at all applicable in such inquiry?  Is the logic there flawed?  After all, if you will hark back to your high school geometry class, John, you may recall that a number of assumptions had to be made well before any "proof" could be obtained.  Raising again the question of what "proof" might be, and whether we even need it in religious life.

I don't know how we got onto this tangent, but I'm all for people following beliefs that they feel make them better people and draw them closer to God. Is there some reason you think I would disagree with that? Maybe you really do think I'm trying to get people to lose their faith or belief, though I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have any interest in doing that.

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

Edited June 30, 2016 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know how we got onto this tangent, but I'm all for people following beliefs that they feel make them better people and draw them closer to God. Is there some reason you think I would disagree with that? Maybe you really do think I'm trying to get people to lose their faith or belief, though I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have any interest in doing that.

That seems somewhat of a paranoid response to something I did not say.  What I asked you was this:

Quote

So, would you say that Alma 32:12-43 (Alma's sermon to poor Zoramites) isn't at all applicable in such inquiry?  Is the logic there flawed?  After all, if you will hark back to your high school geometry class, John, you may recall that a number of assumptions had to be made well before any "proof" could be obtained.  Raising again the question of what "proof" might be, and whether we even need it in religious life.

That was my response to your statement that "there's no way to prove religious truth. That is not how faith works."  As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is on an impersonal, intellectual level.  Alma 32 emphasizes the difference between faith and knowledge in a very logical, practical, and programmatic way.  I thought that it might be worth considering in our deliberations on the OP.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That seems somewhat of a paranoid response to something I did not say.  What I asked you was this:

That was my response to your statement that "there's no way to prove religious truth. That is not how faith works."  As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is on an impersonal, intellectual level.  Alma 32 emphasizes the difference between faith and knowledge in a very logical, practical, and programmatic way.  I thought that it might be worth considering in our deliberations on the OP.

I'm all about paranoia.

I consider that passage in Alma to be about the spiritual side of things. The OP was about more temporal aspects.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

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

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

I consider that passage in Alma to be about the spiritual side of things. The OP was about more temporal aspects.

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

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