Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[Calm]

Mfb certainly does not disdain science.  That would be obvious from his posts in my opinion, if not his use of technology.  Realizing that science has limits in describing human reality/experience is, imo, more respectful of the craft than simply assuming it is applicable to everything.

Science does not tell us what to value in our life and why.  Those are the important things Mfb is talking about.

It has saved lives (well, people have through its use), but it can't measure the value of that ability.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Calm

[Honorentheos]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, in theory all God's works are in accordance with laws of science that we don't fully understand yet, but are explainable. God in Mormon theology is not some uncaused prime mover. He's an alien from another planet

The other challenge with this is I know very few rationalists who would concede the idea what we currently don't understand via science is therefore supernatural. Dark matter/dark energy are mathematically demonstrated placeholders for something that, when actually understood, will probably not be dark matter or dark energy. Gravity is not fully, perfectly described by the available science. In concept, I appreciate what Cinepro says, but I disagree that it isn't appropriate to point out Mormonism attempts to ground the supernatural in the natural if yet unknown.

[Honorentheos]

I have a theory. That being, prior to 1820 there was nothing that might be called the Book of Mormon. Said theory can point to the widely accepted publication date of the Book of Mormon for support. It can point to physical examples of the Book of Mormon from 1830 but none prior to it that support this. The theory can point to the Title Page in the Book of Mormon for support. The theory can point to publications both before and after 1830 for support. The Church's history supports this claim as does secular sources.

There was no Book of Mormon prior to the early 19th century.

All theories that contradict this have to fully and completely explain why their theory is better than mine to be given a seat at the table.

Is there an ancient text that served as the source for the Book of Mormon?

I have a theory about that, too. It happens to include a lot of things people don't like in this thread, but until tangible evidence arises that has sufficient weight for consideration outside Mormon circles these alternative theories don't get to sit at the table, either.

Wow! How empowering!  

Anyway. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. Martin Harris was an easily excitable tool used for money. It's a reasonable theory that doesn't contradict the physical evidence against the Book of Mormon being ancient. And it takes into account why the three and eight witnesses may have had motive for their support of said fraud. And, in case we forget, Joseph Smith's character is consistent with this theory.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I will readily concede I am not well versed in philosophy.  I have shared with you and others here that up to perhaps six to seven years ago I was a solid LDS believer.  I spent most my spare time serving in church callings, reading scripture, scripture commentary and then got into hobby apologetics.  I was an avid reader of FARMS material for quite some time.  So most of my free time was family, church, reading about church stuff.  And I have had a very demanding career as well.   Not much time left for other things.

I knew little of science so yes I have started learning more in that arena.  Do you disdain science?  The way your post above comes across it seems so.   The closest I have come to Philosphy is a few papers by David Paulsen and one of Ostler's books, the first of three he wrote, on the Mormon Philosphy about God.   And quite frankly that book lost me.   I read it all and it still is on my bookshelf.  

My professional discipline is also a practical one and one that can create skeptical thinking as it is beneficial in what I do.  Philosphy is too esoteric in my chosen field.  Not that I object to it.  Perhaps I at some point will have more time to invest into to.  

No problem with science in its sphere which is limited

That's the whole point.  Science tells us nothing more important than how my car works.  Yes it might cure cancer.  Useful as can be!  But it's still a question of mechanics  

It says nothing about is important in life.   Maybe you are too young to worry about what is important in life and how to define it and evaluate relative importance.  But if you do worry about that, where did you get your standards for that?

Even accepting Occams Razor can be seen as a religious exercise.  Why is a simple explanation always better than a complex one?   This is a complex world

Just examine those assumptions and take nothing in your views for granted.  

Science never gave someone a reason to get out of bed in the morning or saved someone from suicide.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

First I am not contemptuous about evidence in favor of the LDS claims on how the Book of Mormon came to be.  I am skeptical and find the claims of divine intervention and Angels with plates of gold a fantastical claim.  That's it.  Do you not find it fantastical as well?  

Well, maybe this comes down to discomfort about terminology.  "Fantastical" has more than a pejorative whiff about it.  Here's the dictionary definition:

Quote

1.

conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrainedimagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque:

fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.

2.

fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions:

We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.

3.

imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish orirrational:

fantastic fears.

4.

extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.

5.

incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant:

to spend fantastic sums of money.

6.

highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish:

a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.

7.

Informal. extraordinarily good:

a fantastic musical.

I would perhaps say instead that the truth claims of The Book of Mormon are bold.  Audacious.  

Quote

Even when I felt I had a testimony of the book I believed the claims made by Joseph were fantastical. And by that I don't mean bad.   I mean, well, fantastical.  I find the same true of Muhammad's claim and how Islam believes the Koran came to be, of the Bible and the story of Jesus and so on.  

I guess we have divergent views on what "fantastical" means, then (or perhaps about its connotations).

Quote

I am not sure I am under any obligation to provide any alternative theory.   Why is that my job?  

I'm not sure it is.  I feel no obligation to stake out a position on the Loch Ness Monster, or conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination, or about any number of controversial issues.

However, if I venture into a discussion about one of those issues, and if I stake out a position on the controversy, and if I proceed to attempt to persuade people to my point of view, then I have assumed such an obligation for myself.  DCP put it this way (emphasis added):

Quote

I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses and stealing from Solomon Spaulding and stealing from Ethan Smith, and I’m just mentioning a few, and putting it all together. Joseph Smith, this incredibly learned young man who’s sitting there on the frontier.

...

I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?”

To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack.

I think DCP makes a fair point.  I welcome you to join in discussions about The Book of Mormon.  I welcome critiques of my position on The Book of Mormon.  But if you are going to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, then I think you need to defend positions that you stake out for yourself.  If your position about The Book of Mormon is that it has naturalistic origins, great!  Let's talk about it! (I assume you are not agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about this topic in the way I am agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about topics like the Kennedy Assassination.)  But if you refuse to defend your position, then you really aren't meaningfully contributing to the discussion.  This is why I think it is "intellectually incumbent" upon each of us to use reasoning and evidentiary analysis, rather than "guerrila warfare . . . never defend{ing} territory"-style tactics as described by DCP.

Quote

 

But we can take a step back and ask a few questions:

1: Do Angels exist?  If yes what are the evidences of such beings? 

 

I'm happy to discuss that topic, but not in this thread. 

Quote

2: If Angels exist why do they communicate God's message to a select few? My point on this in my last post was it just at least to me does not make rational sense that God would give so much of what seems like important messages to a few select humans and that the rest have to go on faith that what the person who claims to have spoken with the angel says.  Maybe that is just a personal hang up for me.

A fair and interesting question, but one better left to another thread.

Quote

3:. If Mormons accept the supernatural fantastic claims for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon why do they reject other fantastical supernatural claims of other faiths such as Islam, Catholic claims of seeing Mary and so on?

I have a few thoughts on that.  I don't categorically discount such claims (nor, I think, are we obligated to).  But again, this is better left to another thread.

Quote

4: Regarding the witnesses why do you accept their testimony for the Book of Mormon but reject it on issues of say Polygamy or the office of High Priest?  Do you accept many of David Whitmer's criticisms of Joseph Smith in his Address to All beleivers? 

I accept David Whitmer's testimony as a percipient witness to the events described in the testimony of the Three Witnesses.  His status as a witness is valuable not because the information he was conveying was a matter of personal opinion, but because it was an external event which he witnessed.

As far as "David Whitmer's criticisms," that amounts to his personal opinion, does it not?  I am not persuaded that Whitmer's experience as a Witness obligates us to accept his personal opinions on anything and everything.

For what it's worth, I empathize with his sentiments about polygamy.  I am not very comfortable with the concept.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

And as far as David Whitmer's opinions about it, well, I'll leave that as a matter between him and the Lord.

Quote

5:  regarding the short time frame the book was produced in, well that may or may not be the case really.  If Joseph or someone else wrote it, it could have been produced over a longer period of time.

Now I will give you one theory of my own for the Book of Mormon.  I think it likely Jospeh wrote it and produced it himself.   He may have had others assist.  Who I do not know.   I think Oliver Cowdery may have assisted but not sure.  I have found the Spalding theory a bit compelling but also problematic.  But it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now.   Feel free to take that as a concession if you wish.  

This sounds more off-the-cuff than anything else.  And since you don't want to discuss it ("it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now"), there doesn't seem to be much point in attempting further discourse about it.

But this goes to Dr. Peterson's point.  As audacious (or "fantastic" if you insist upon it) as the truth claims about The Book of Mormon are, the alternative theories are even more so, even less plausible.  Hence Dr. Peterson's statement about why he "can't manage to disbelieve."  The LDS Church has both a claimed witness of the Spirit on an individual/personal level, and also supplemental, ancillary analysis of The Book of Mormon and its origins.  Meanwhile, the critics have . . . well, not much of anything to offer in contravention.  After nearly 200 years, you'd think they'd have some coherent theory, but they don't.  I find that interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Now I will give you one theory of my own for the Book of Mormon.  I think it likely Jospeh wrote it and produced it himself.   He may have had others assist.  Who I do not know.   I think Oliver Cowdery may have assisted but not sure.  I have found the Spalding theory a bit compelling but also problematic.  But it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now.   Feel free to take that as a concession if you wish.  

Your response, your theory, is an archetype for the problems that LDS apologists have with critical response. We are not asking anyone to accept a magical/supernatural origin for the Book of Mormon. And, no critic has ever been or will be forced to. However, no critic, no skeptic has ever produced a theory that accounts for the data, the evidence that has been amassed by LDS scholars on various aspects of the Book of Mormon.

Yet, what is there an your theory that has any meat?

To quote Kevin Christensen in an earlier post  "Things like the Book of Mormon, the Witnesses, the rise of the church, and such, have been much more elusive.   Easy to dismiss (a simple wave of the hand and a knowing look will do) but very very hard to duplicate. "

Forget about Moroni and any claimed angelic visits to Joseph or to any of the witnesses. The book exists. The production of the book is pretty well documented although not finely detailed. The only thing you or any critic has to do is to provide a plausible alternative that explains the known facts about the production of the Book of Mormon.

Have you really thought about what that would entail? How would you accomplish it? What evidence would you use? How would you go about showing anyone how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon since you do not believe that it was produced as Joseph claimed, i.e. by the gift and power of God?

Glenn

[Honorentheos]

34 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The production of the book is pretty well documented although not finely detailed.

When pressed by Oliver Cowdery to provide a definitive description, Joseph was inclined to only describe it's production as being through the gift and power of God.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near being well documented. It's timeline has been reconstructed to a large extent, and there are various testimonies from people both critical and supportive of what they observed Joseph and his scribe of the time doing. But that's not a well documented production process. So it's worse than not being finely detailed. It's mostly subject to supposition and inference from what the various witnesses claim to have seen taking place along with odds and ends from the manuscript evidence.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The other challenge with this is I know very few rationalists who would concede the idea what we currently don't understand via science is therefore supernatural. Dark matter/dark energy are mathematically demonstrated placeholders for something that, when actually understood, will probably not be dark matter or dark energy. Gravity is not fully, perfectly described by the available science. In concept, I appreciate what Cinepro says, but I disagree that it isn't appropriate to point out Mormonism attempts to ground the supernatural in the natural if yet unknown.

I wonder how long that Mormon naturalism will hold out. We seem to be adopting more and more the philosophies of mainstream Christianity. It's creeping into conference talks and into the everyday discourse.

I have a friend (former SP) who is a big fan of William Lane Craig's arguments for God - the problem is none of those arguments works within Mormon theology. At least they don't for now.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Gray

[Honorentheos]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 After nearly 200 years, you'd think they'd have some coherent theory, but they don't.  I find that interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Cough LGT v HMT cough.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Anyway. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. 

One tiny question.  Can you explain the translation or transcription process using the stone in the hat?  We know that JS buried his head in the hat and was reading for hours at a time.  When he came back to translation, he did not need help in knowing where he stopped.

What exactly was in that hat?  A stone, but what was JS reading from -- a manuscript?  If so, how did he turn the pages and see it.  Perhaps there were a table and lantern in the hat, or a window where he could read.  Tell us, in your scenario, how he accomplished this feat.

Tell us about that amazing hat and what it contained to make this possible.

Edited August 30, 2016 by cdowis

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Your response, your theory, is an archetype for the problems that LDS apologists have with critical response. We are not asking anyone to accept a magical/supernatural origin for the Book of Mormon. And, no critic has ever been or will be forced to. However, no critic, no skeptic has ever produced a theory that accounts for the data, the evidence that has been amassed by LDS scholars on various aspects of the Book of Mormon.

Yet, what is there an your theory that has any meat?

To quote Kevin Christensen in an earlier post  "Things like the Book of Mormon, the Witnesses, the rise of the church, and such, have been much more elusive.   Easy to dismiss (a simple wave of the hand and a knowing look will do) but very very hard to duplicate. "

Forget about Moroni and any claimed angelic visits to Joseph or to any of the witnesses. The book exists. The production of the book is pretty well documented although not finely detailed. The only thing you or any critic has to do is to provide a plausible alternative that explains the known facts about the production of the Book of Mormon.

Have you really thought about what that would entail? How would you accomplish it? What evidence would you use? How would you go about showing anyone how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon since you do not believe that it was produced as Joseph claimed, i.e. by the gift and power of God?

Glenn

I did state I think Joseph likely wrote the book himself with some help.  I said I find the Spalding theory plausible but it has some problems.   I do find it as plausible as the LDS Church claimed account.  If your others don't that is fine.   Just because Dan Petersen does not find it plausible does not mean others may not.

 

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, maybe this comes down to discomfort about terminology.  "Fantastical" has more than a pejorative whiff about it.  Here's the dictionary definition:

I would perhaps say instead that the truth claims of The Book of Mormon are bold.  Audacious.  

I guess we have divergent views on what "fantastical" means, then (or perhaps about its connotations).

I'm not sure it is.  I feel no obligation to stake out a position on the Loch Ness Monster, or conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination, or about any number of controversial issues.

However, if I venture into a discussion about one of those issues, and if I stake out a position on the controversy, and if I proceed to attempt to persuade people to my point of view, then I have assumed such an obligation for myself.  DCP put it this way (emphasis added):

I think DCP makes a fair point.  I welcome you to join in discussions about The Book of Mormon.  I welcome critiques of my position on The Book of Mormon.  But if you are going to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, then I think you need to defend positions that you stake out for yourself.  If your position about The Book of Mormon is that it has naturalistic origins, great!  Let's talk about it! (I assume you are not agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about this topic in the way I am agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about topics like the Kennedy Assassination.)  But if you refuse to defend your position, then you really aren't meaningfully contributing to the discussion.  This is why I think it is "intellectually incumbent" upon each of us to use reasoning and evidentiary analysis, rather than "guerrila warfare . . . never defend{ing} territory"-style tactics as described by DCP.

I'm happy to discuss that topic, but not in this thread. 

A fair and interesting question, but one better left to another thread.

I have a few thoughts on that.  I don't categorically discount such claims (nor, I think, are we obligated to).  But again, this is better left to another thread.

I accept David Whitmer's testimony as a percipient witness to the events described in the testimony of the Three Witnesses.  His status as a witness is valuable not because the information he was conveying was a matter of personal opinion, but because it was an external event which he witnessed.

As far as "David Whitmer's criticisms," that amounts to his personal opinion, does it not?  I am not persuaded that Whitmer's experience as a Witness obligates us to accept his personal opinions on anything and everything.

For what it's worth, I empathize with his sentiments about polygamy.  I am not very comfortable with the concept.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

And as far as David Whitmer's opinions about it, well, I'll leave that as a matter between him and the Lord.

This sounds more off-the-cuff than anything else.  And since you don't want to discuss it ("it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now"), there doesn't seem to be much point in attempting further discourse about it.

But this goes to Dr. Peterson's point.  As audacious (or "fantastic" if you insist upon it) as the truth claims about The Book of Mormon are, the alternative theories are even more so, even less plausible.  Hence Dr. Peterson's statement about why he "can't manage to disbelieve."  The LDS Church has both a claimed witness of the Spirit on an individual/personal level, and also supplemental, ancillary analysis of The Book of Mormon and its origins.  Meanwhile, the critics have . . . well, not much of anything to offer in contravention.  After nearly 200 years, you'd think they'd have some coherent theory, but they don't.  I find that interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

You don't find the first three questions I asked about Angels and others claimed divine supernatural manifestations pertinent to the claims of how the BoM came to be?   Since Joseph claimed many visits from Angels in relation to the Book of Mormon iI think those questions need to be answered first.

And for me at least to find Whitmer's credible I do think one has to give credence to his later testimonies and opinions.  The instability of the three and most the eight witnesses as far as their comittment to the Church and Joseph Smith I think is a major negative for thei credibility. And how to explain what they claim they saw I can no more explain that thana few hundred Cathoilcs that claimed to see Mary all at the same time.  Martin Harris said the experience was with his spiritual eyes did he not?   What does that mean?  

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No problem with science in its sphere which is limited

That's the whole point.  Science tells us nothing more important than how my car works.  Yes it might cure cancer.  Useful as can be!  But it's still a question of mechanics  

It says nothing about is important in life.   Maybe you are too young to worry about what is important in life and how to define it and evaluate relative importance.  But if you do worry about that, where did you get your standards for that?

Even accepting Occams Razor can be seen as a religious exercise.  Why is a simple explanation always better than a complex one?   This is a complex world

Just examine those assumptions and take nothing in your views for granted.  

Science never gave someone a reason to get out of bed in the morning or saved someone from suicide.  

There are many non theists that find many wonderful reasons to get up in the morning without a religious reason to do so.  And I think science does tell us many things that are more important than how your car works.  I am almost 57 so I would not say I am young.   I worry about all sorts of issues that are important.   In fact the more I have thought about the important issues the more skeptical I am that the claims of revealed religions have the answers to those important questions.   

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

... Anyway. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. Martin Harris was an easily excitable tool used for money. It's a reasonable theory that doesn't contradict the physical evidence against the Book of Mormon being ancient. And it takes into account why the three and eight witnesses may have had motive for their support of said fraud. And, in case we forget, Joseph Smith's character is consistent with this theory.

Even the smallest of possible conspiracies, those composed of a mere two people, tend to collapse under their own weight.  You propose a far larger one that, somehow, managed to hold up. 

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

... And for me at least to find Whitmer's credible I do think one has to give credence to his later testimonies and opinions.  The instability of the three and most the eight witnesses as far as their comittment to the Church and Joseph Smith I think is a major negative for thei credibility. And how to explain what they claim they saw I can no more explain that thana few hundred Cathoilcs that claimed to see Mary all at the same time.  Martin Harris said the experience was with his spiritual eyes did he not?   What does that mean?  

You're conflating two, perhaps three, issues.  Whatever issues the Whitmers and the other witnesses had with Joseph Smith and/or with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they never denied their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.  As for the "natural versus spiritual eyes" issue, see 1 Corinthians 2:11.  Also, see my reply to Honorentheos, above.  Even the smallest of possible conspiracies, those composed of a mere two people, tend to collapse under their own weight.  The one you propose is far larger one, yet, somehow, it has managed to hold up (for nearly 200 years now).

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The other challenge with this is I know very few rationalists who would concede the idea what we currently don't understand via science is therefore supernatural. Dark matter/dark energy are mathematically demonstrated placeholders for something that, when actually understood, will probably not be dark matter or dark energy. Gravity is not fully, perfectly described by the available science. In concept, I appreciate what Cinepro says, but I disagree that it isn't appropriate to point out Mormonism attempts to ground the supernatural in the natural if yet unknown.

It is a "copout" to attribute most scientific facts to unknown. We have concrete, evidential answers for some essential questions. When it comes to dark matter/dark energy types of question, scientist are not afraid of declaring "we don't know yet" rather than attributing to the Supernatural. We understand "Gravity" enough to see what it does. Mormon Church is no different than other Christian Churches hanging onto "Supernatural" and trying to minimize the accomplishments/evidences of Science....

The futility of "Supernatural" claims comes into perspective everytime I visit a Natural History Museum in Salt Lake, NY or Houston....The story is no different about Human or Animal Evolution.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would like to see who the believing LDS PhD's are who agree with Vogel are.

I have not completely read his Peterson's talk yet, but from what I have, yes.

The point of the talk was that from his interpretation of his experiences, he cannot find a reason to doubt.   Neither can I from my experience.

The reason Vogel is so popular is precisely because his assumptions are "common man in the street" assumptions.  As Goff points out, those assumptions are not philosophically sophisticated.   In a hundred years when people learn this stuff in kindergarten it will change.  Kids will know what science is for and what it is not for.

We don't require empirical evidence for political opinions- religious opinions are no different.  We don't ask pro-choice people for evidence that fetuses are not "human beings" either.  We take it for granted that we can kill cattle for food, but not whales.  We assume without evidence that people "should be treated equally" and that "everyone should have a right to vote" and that these are "unalienable rights" without evidence.  We affirm "basic human rights" with no evidence to even define what those are.  We know on a gut level that the candidate we are opposed to is "evil" while ours is "better"- with no evidence for that.  We never question that one "should" be grateful for the sacrifice of our service men without real evidence that they died for anything but someone's politics.

I know these are social heresies but that is why I brought them up.  We accept virtually all our core beliefs without empirical evidence, yet when it comes to religion, which is just as subjective as any of these we want "evidence".   How absurd is that??

From my point of view, we are still teaching that the sun goes around earth.  The common man in the street looks up and sees no reason to doubt that.  In those times when that was believed even educated churchmen and "scientists" and writers still believed that as well.  What we are going through now is no less a paradigm shift than that one.  Science does what it does very very well, but does nothing to solve any of these social, political, or moral issues.  Nothing whatsoever.  These questions are immune to "evidence"

The ideas go back to at least Kant, but they have yet to filter down through the disciplines.

Oh well

Enough wasting time.

Vogel's respect by the historians is widely accepted from what I've seen.  You ask a different question when you ask about believing PhD's who "agree with Vogel".  I never said they agree with him, only that they respect him.  Its likely that non believing PhDs probably agree with him more than believing ones, that's obvious, but the fact that he's well respected, has a place in these circles and research isn't just dismissed, says a lot about his approach being fair minded. 

As for your comments on science, I don't think you're giving science enough credit when you say that science does nothing to solve any social, political, or moral issues.  These questions are not immune to evidence.  I think you're over reaching big time.  Science informs all of those disciplines in a multitude of ways through studies and data sets.  

I will agree with you that science likely can never prove or disprove the existence of a God.  I also think that science is limited in its ability to influence whether we have faith in things that today can't be measured by science.  However, this does not mean that science has no value in these matters.  

Scientific discovery over the centuries has dramatically influenced the faith of religious believers, primarily through discoveries about how things can be explained scientifically, without the need to attribute phenomena to a supernatural deity.  The weather, the stars, diseases, birth defects, race, sex, etc, all of these things that religious people over the years have attributed to the supernatural have been informed by science and consequently taken out of the supernatural, and into the natural.  These things have changed religious belief, and I have no reason to believe that future scientific discoveries won't continue to do the same.  

Edited August 30, 2016 by hope_for_things

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

......enough to see what it does. Mormon Church is no different than other Christian Churches hanging onto "Supernatural" and trying to minimize the accomplishments/evidences of Science....

The futility of "Supernatural" claims comes into perspective everytime I visit a Natural History Museum in Salt Lake, NY or Houston....The story is no different about Human or Animal Evolution.

Your view is very shallow and distorted regarding Mormonism and science.

Perhaps you can tell us what we believe the relationship between God and natural law.   Did God create natural law?  Specifically, what is our view of a "miracle" ==>  Is it the suspension of natural law?

Edited August 30, 2016 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

When talking about Vogel's approval rating (  ), one needs to separate his work of documentation and his commentary on that documentation.  I have noticed some people confuse the two thinking approval of the first equates to approval of the second when that is not the case.

That's doesn't seem entirely fair.  Maybe I should separate the comments of Calm to when you are speaking about polygamy where I tend to agree with you more, and ignore your comments on social issues where I tend to disagree with you.  

Lets just ignore Vogel when he makes comments about the detailed research that he's done, because he's not a believer, this is one way to insulate ourselves from learning anything new.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You seem to be more of a nuts and bolts type of person, much as I am and the more abstract philosophical discussions of relativism and positivism are not my cup of tea. Dan Vogel is respected for his work in ferreting out and publishing documents related to LDS history. He has done a yeoman's work there. The main problem that some have with him is not in the evidence that he presents, but in the interpretation of the evidence. Sometimes he relies on secondary sources to make a point and holds them in higher esteem than contradictory primary sources.

One such example has already been noted here in this thread where he uses a secondary source that is quoting another, anonymous source.  It would derail this thread to get into this in detail (if it has not already been derailed). Just do your own research pro and con and form your own conclusions.

Glenn

Researchers prefer primary sources I'm sure, but when it comes to putting the puzzle together we often have to rely on secondary sources.  Vogel is no more guilty of this that anyone else.  Apologists do this all the time as well and there is a lack of consistency on both sides.  

I've read enough books up to this point by both believing and non believing historians and researchers and I try to make my own value judgments about the credibility of the authors.  I've found Vogel to be very good at being fair minded and he is one that has earned my respect.  Nobody is perfect, and everyone has their biases.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Vogel, reputation, among which folks, and upon which basis, and the specific criticisms that appeared in my posts here, I don't see "He has a good reputation" does not address the specific issues in my quotations about misuse of sources and ignoring important sources

Here is another one.  Back in 2002, while I was reading the footnotes to his essay on "The Validity of the Witnesses Testimonies"  I noticed his note 60 referred to a letter from "26 November 1857, where Isaac DeMill, then living in Saline (Michigan?) wrote to his brother Freeborn De Mill and a sister living in Manti, Utah, mentioning a a story he had heard about Joseph Smith use of hypnosis or "magnetizing" in Broome and Onondaga Counties, New York, and that he had learned the art of a German pedler'" and he cites the presence of the letter in the archives.

So we get a wealth of detail about the sources and people and archives involved, which is all very impressive except that all of it builds up to what is basically a late unsourced fourth-hand rumor.  Why does he bother?  Is that the best he can do?  The best evidence that Joseph Smith used hypnosis on the witnesses is an unsourced rumor from 26 years and several states away?

That, I think should be instructive enough, but happens to get even more instructive.  The previous note 59 refers to a 1975 BYU Studies article on Mormonism and Mesmerism by Bunker and Bitton, which quotes from an 1856 novel that it just so happens, originated the Mesmerism story of the German pedler.  So Vogel not only builds a key argument on an un-sourced late rumor, but he inadvertently documents the source of that rumor.

There are people out there who may think this sort of thing does not matter.  Facts are facts.. just face them.  Or, easier, pick an authority and let them handle it for me. I work in Computer Aided Engineering, where the basic priniciple involves using hierarchy to deal with complexity.

And postmodernism, Jesus taught Postmodernism insights in the Parable of the Sower.  The same seeds (words) can produce vastly different yields depending on soil, nurture, and patience.  2 Nephi 25:1-5 talks about how we cannot expect understand the writings of the Jews save it be we are taught after the manner of the Jews.  That is a post-modern insight.  And Joseph Smith begins his quest when he notices that "the different teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so different as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."  That is a post-Modern insight.  And Alma 32 offers another set of insights, valuable in navigating the rival interpretations by offering the same set of values that Kuhn offers as the best means for navigating paradigm choice.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks for the comments on this.  It sounds like a good example an error in his confidence levels of a particular source.  I haven't read that essay though, so I'm not sure how central that was to his thesis.  I think Vogel would be open to your critique though, and since mistakes are made a the time and new insights about things are also made, everyone is adjusting to new information and learning in the process.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I have a theory. That being, prior to 1820 there was nothing that might be called the Book of Mormon. Said theory can point to the widely accepted publication date of the Book of Mormon for support. It can point to physical examples of the Book of Mormon from 1830 but none prior to it that support this. The theory can point to the Title Page in the Book of Mormon for support. The theory can point to publications both before and after 1830 for support. The Church's history supports this claim as does secular sources.

There was no Book of Mormon prior to the early 19th century.

All theories that contradict this have to fully and completely explain why their theory is better than mine to be given a seat at the table.

Is there an ancient text that served as the source for the Book of Mormon?

I have a theory about that, too. It happens to include a lot of things people don't like in this thread, but until tangible evidence arises that has sufficient weight for consideration outside Mormon circles these alternative theories don't get to sit at the table, either.

Wow! How empowering!  

Anyway. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. Martin Harris was an easily excitable tool used for money. It's a reasonable theory that doesn't contradict the physical evidence against the Book of Mormon being ancient. And it takes into account why the three and eight witnesses may have had motive for their support of said fraud. And, in case we forget, Joseph Smith's character is consistent with this theory.

I'm very interested in hearing more about this Joseph and Oliver collaboration theory, it sounds plausible.  Have you written any of this up that you can share.  I appreciate your thoughtful comments recently on the BoM subject, and I'm intrigued.  

[Atheist Mormon]

33 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Your view is very shallow and distorted regarding Mormonism and science.

Perhaps you can tell us what we believe the relationship between God and natural law.   Did God create natural law?  Specifically, what is our view of a "miracle" ==>  Is it the suspension of natural law?

That's very easy to answer; There's no such thing as "miracle". I can't even think of any event or happening can be attributed to it.   Natural Law encompasses everything happening in the universe. Just because we cannot explain it why should it be attributed to a "miracle"? 

 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Cough LGT v HMT cough.

I don't follow.  The Hemispheric Mode arose principally from popular, unstudied, assumptions about the text (see this excellent article by Matthew Roper on that subject).  The 19th-century Saints had widely varying views about the setting of The Book of Mormon.  However, they also did not have much in the way of secular research and scholarship to guide them, nor authoritative prophetic statements (this latter circumstance continues to this day).  As Roper puts it (emphasis added):

Quote

All nineteenth-century writers on Book of Mormon geography apparently assumed that the place where Joseph Smith found the plates and the hill where the Nephites met their destruction were identical. Aside from this one point, however, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking. Yet this fact has not been fully appreciated by students of the Book of Mormon or their critics. Did Lehi land in Chile? Cobiga, Bolivia? Lima, Peru? A little south of the Isthmus of Darien? Or “on the Pacific side of the southern part of Central America”? Where was the land of Nephi? Was it in South America? In Ecuador? Bolivia? Venezuela? Or was it in Central America? Guatemala? Was the land of Zarahemla in Colombia in South America? Further north in Honduras? Or in Mexico? Was the river Sidon the Magdalena in Colombia? Or was it the Usumacinta in Mexico? Was the narrow neck of land in Panama, at the Isthmus of Darien? By the Bay of Honduras? Or was it at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico? Was the land of Desolation near the Isthmus of Darien? Honduras? Yucatán? Or in the United States between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains? Were the Jaredites destroyed at the hill in New York or in Honduras in Central America? It is worth emphasizing that these points of disagreement are not over peripheral or insignificant matters but over key elements that are central to any discussion of Book of Mormon geography. The fact that there was such wide disagreement during the first fifty years after the publication of the Book of Mormon strongly suggests that no one view prevailed. It also indicates the absence of an authoritative stance on the subject.

I should also note that the 19th-century Saints were further encumbered by . . . the challenges and privations of being Mormons in the 19th century.  They were harassed and driven from place to place.  Missouri.  Illinois.  Then there was the trek west.  Then the creation of civilization, cities and town, from the ground up.  And drought.  And the Utah War.  And polygamy and all of the conflict associated with it.  Then massive societal change wrought by the Industrial Revolution, seeking/obtaining statehood, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.  And throughout all of this there was still very little in the way of secular research and scholarship to guide the Saints vis-à-vis questions about the geography of The Book of Mormon.  And it just was not a priority for a very long time.

But then, things began to change, with students of The Book of Mormon taking a more thoughtful, more informed, less assumptive approach to questions about geography.  From Roper's article:

Quote

When one reviews the numerous discourses and publications of Orson Pratt between 1840 and his death in 1881, one can detect a fairly consistent picture of his interpretation of Book of Mormon geography. Going from south to north, Pratt had Lehi landing on the western coast of South America, specifically Chile. The land of Nephi was in Ecuador at the headwaters of the Amazon. The land of Zarahemla was in Colombia, and the river Sidon was the Magdalena River in that country. The land Bountiful was in the northern part of South America just below the Isthmus of Darien. The Mulekites, on their arrival, had first landed north of Darien on the coast of North America and then settled Zarahemla in the northern part of South America. It was on the west side just below this point that Hagoth (and others) built ships and launched them into the west sea. The land southward, which Pratt viewed as South America, was divided between Nephite and Lamanite lands, with the Lamanites occupying the central and southern portions of the continent and the Nephites occupying the northern portion. Pratt placed the narrow neck of land and the narrow pass or passage at the Isthmus of Darien in Panama. The land northward extended in a northerly direction from the Isthmus of Darien up into northern Central America and North America.

...

The later Nephites also eventually migrated into North America, settling in a land of many waters, which Pratt identified as the region extending from the Mississippi Valley up into the Great Lakes region. The Nephites, like the Jaredites before them, were eventually destroyed at the same hill called Cumorah in western New York.

Throughout the nineteenth century, many Latter-day Saint writers followed Pratt’s model. The popular opinions of George Reynolds and James Little were only slightly revised versions of Pratt’s initial ideas, which were incorporated into the footnotes of the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon. Although clearly a popular theory among Latter-day Saints, it is less clear how much of this hemispheric view reflected Joseph Smith’s ideas or, more important for Latter-day Saints, which, if any, of these ideas were based on prophetic revelation.

In sum, much of the early thinking about the geography of The Book of Mormon was attributable to theories devised by Orson Pratt, who claimed no revelation or specialized knowledge or expertise in this area, nor any revelation either (AFAICS).

Around the turn of the century, we began to see the first substantive efforts to assess the issue of geography.  From Roper:

Quote

In May 1903, a group of students, teachers, and church leaders gathered at the Brigham Young Academy in Provo, Utah, to discuss Book of Mormon geography. Different opinions were expressed. President Joseph F. Smith, who attended the conference, advised that the location of Book of Mormon sites “was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people.” He also “cautioned the students against making the . . . question—the location of cities and lands—of equal importance with the doctrines contained in the Book [of Mormon].”

...

On a later occasion, President Smith was asked to approve a map that someone had prepared, which purported to show exactly where Lehi and his company landed. He declined, saying that “the Lord had not yet revealed it.” ... Elder B. H. Roberts, who had attended the 1903 gathering, noted in 1909 that “the question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the book.”

...

A third move taken by church leaders was the removal of Orson Pratt’s 1879 footnotes from the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon. This action, along with growing concern about the authenticity of the Frederick G. Williams statement, signaled to some students of the Book of Mormon that there was no authoritative opinion on geographical questions and that the text itself should be the primary source for the study of the subject. The new state of things was recognized by Latter-day Saint engineer Jean Driggs when he noted in 1928: “At the present time the church does not commit itself on the location of Book of Mormon lands and we are left to work out the home lands of the Nephites and Jaredites from the Book of Mormon itself.”

We also have these remarks from Elder Roberts in 1909 (quoted in Roper's article) (emphases added by Roper):

Quote

We desire only to ascertain the truth; nothing but the truth will endure; and the ascertainment of the truth and the proclamation of the truth in any given case, or upon any subject, will do no harm to the work of the Lord which is itself truth. Nor need we be surprised if now and then we find our predecessors, many of whom bear honored names and deserve our respect and gratitude for what they achieved in making clear the truth, as they conceived it to be—we need not be surprised if we sometimes find them mistaken in their conceptions and deductions; just as the generations who succeed us in unfolding in a larger way some of the yet unlearned truths of the Gospel, will find that we have had some misconceptions and made some wrong deductions in our day and time. . . . The generation which preceded us did not exhaust by their knowledge all the truth, so that nothing was left for us in its unfolding; no, not even in respect of the Book of Mormon; any more than we shall exhaust all discovery in relation to that book and leave nothing for the generation following us to develop. All which is submitted, especially to the membership of the Church, that they may be prepared to find and receive new truths both in the Book of Mormon itself and about it; and that they may also rejoice in the fact that knowledge of truth is inexhaustible, and will forever go on developing.

These sentiments were echoed by Church leaders throughout the first two-thirds of the 20th century, by Elder Talmage in 1929, by Elder Widtsoe in 1950, by President McKay in 1966, and so on (see Roper).  So investigation and study and research and scholarship about the geography of The Book of Mormon was, for a very long while, on the backburner.  

Still, the first strands of thought about a "limited" geography model appeared in the early part of the 19th century.  From Roper (emphasis in the original):

Quote

The first writer to advance a fully limited Book of Mormon geography that confined Book of Mormon events, including the destruction of the Nephites and Jaredites, to ancient Mesoamerica was Louis Edward Hills. From 1917 to 1924, Hills, a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, published several studies emphatically arguing for this view. ... J. F. Gunsolley, another RLDS writer, provided an additional interesting interpretation in 1922. Based on the description of Limhi’s search party, he argued that the Jaredite destruction at Ramah must have taken place somewhere within or near the narrow neck of land. Since Ramah and Cumorah seemed identical (Ether 15:11), he reasoned, Cumorah would have to have been there also. While Gunsolley came to this conclusion, he still believed that Lehi landed in South America. He felt, though, that information in the Book of Mormon text required a location for Cumorah in southern Mexico rather than in New York.

It is not known how much these studies influenced the interpretations of Latter-day Saints; their first versions of a fully limited Book of Mormon geography began to appear in the years from 1920 to 1926. In an article for the Improvement Era, Janne Sjodahl outlined the key features of these interpretations without criticism or condemnation. 

...

Willard Young, a son of President Brigham Young who graduated from West Point and had worked as an engineer in Central America for a time, argued that Lehi crossed the Pacific Ocean and “landed on the shore of Salvador in Central America” and located all subsequent Book of Mormon events within Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

...

In 1928 {Latter-day Saint engineer Jean} Driggs  wrote a brief, thoughtful study. He outlined a geography centered around Honduras and proposed that the hill Cumorah (where both the Jaredites and Nephites fought their final battles) was located within that region.

...

Jesse A. and Jesse N. Washburn published An Approach to the Study of Book of Mormon Geography in 1939. The authors developed a detailed internal Book of Mormon geography based entirely on information found in the text, without attempting to provide external correlations—something that had not previously been done. ... Based on their study of the text, they concluded that “the lands and peoples of the ancient Americans were limited in extent. Should we not think in terms of hundreds of miles instead of thousands, and of millions of people instead of hundreds of millions?”

...

Verla Birrell noted in 1948: “The majority of the current writers prefer to place the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the site of ‘the narrow neck of land’ with Central America as the location for the setting of the Book of Mormon.”

...

Another proponent of a limited Book of Mormon geography was Latter-day Saint archaeologist M. Wells Jakeman, who considered the Usumacinta to be the river Sidon and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to be the narrow neck of land. In 1954 he remarked: “It should also be noted that this restriction of the Book of Mormon area to the central part of the New World does not rule out the possibility that the Book of Mormon peoples, before the end of the account, established settlements also in parts of North and South America outside this area.”

And then we have the last 50 years or so, which has seen a marked increase in interest in issues of geography pertaining to The Book of Mormon, as well as increased amounts of secular research and scholarship about proposed locations.  It is in this phase that more widespread interest in "Limited Geography" models has taken root.  We now have a large amount of scholarship about The Book of Mormon and theories pertaining to its geography.  The general consensus appears to favor the "Limited Geography" models over the "Hemispheric" ones, and the most prominent "Limited Geography" model is the one centered on Tehuantepec being the "narrow neck of land."

In other words, the Mormons were busy for a long time, but have spent the last half century or so vigorously discussing the geography of The Book of Mormon, and in the process have developed some cogent, plausible theories on that subject.  

In contrast, critics of the Church have essentially stagnated in terms of formulating cogent alternative theories as to the origins of The Book of Mormon (or worse, we have seen the popularization of incoherent muddles like the "Inspired Fiction" theory).

Progression on the one side, stagnation/regression on the other.

So *cough* I guess I don't get your point *cough*.

-Smac

 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I have a theory. That being, prior to 1820 there was nothing that might be called the Book of Mormon. Said theory can point to the widely accepted publication date of the Book of Mormon for support. It can point to physical examples of the Book of Mormon from 1830 but none prior to it that support this. The theory can point to the Title Page in the Book of Mormon for support. The theory can point to publications both before and after 1830 for support. The Church's history supports this claim as does secular sources.

There was no Book of Mormon prior to the early 19th century.

All theories that contradict this have to fully and completely explain why their theory is better than mine to be given a seat at the table.

Is there an ancient text that served as the source for the Book of Mormon?

I have a theory about that, too. It happens to include a lot of things people don't like in this thread, but until tangible evidence arises that has sufficient weight for consideration outside Mormon circles these alternative theories don't get to sit at the table, either.

Wow! How empowering!  

Anyway. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. Martin Harris was an easily excitable tool used for money. It's a reasonable theory that doesn't contradict the physical evidence against the Book of Mormon being ancient. And it takes into account why the three and eight witnesses may have had motive for their support of said fraud. And, in case we forget, Joseph Smith's character is consistent with this theory.

It is interesting in that this sounds like one assumes fraud and then offers an explanation for fraud.  Much like one assumes scripture and leaves with Joseph and his partners' take on what happened.  Whatever the case, we'll never know.  We just have to rely on whatever assumption we prefer I guess.