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

[Jeanne]

Glenn, I wrote back to you and lost it.  I will write again.  Duh..I spent a lot of time on it too  I appreciated your reply to my last post..meanwhile..after I kick my laptop down block, I will collect my thoughts again. 

[Atheist Mormon]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

The universe is so vast and interesting that, were I forced to accept supernatural explanations put forth for all the things I can't explain or understand otherwise, there would be no end to the theories I would be compelled to believe.

For the specific subject at hand, it is simply enough for those who don't believe in the supernatural theories surrounding the creation of The Book of Mormon to say "I don't know, but the evidence for such-and-such theory isn't convincing enough for belief."  Beyond that, any discussion is an exercise in courtesy and curiosity, but they are not compelled to present any sort of counter-theory. 

 elegantly written.....

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I don't know what mutually contradictory faith-promoting accounts you have reference to. Don't accuse me of a double standard based on your own assumption that I know what you're talking about. 

faith-promoting accounts and faith-promoting theories. For example, was the Book of Mormon translation loose or tight?

Another example is that some accounts of Emma, David, Harris on the translation process contradict each other. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Tight_versus_loose_translation

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Funny thing is that the naturalistic theories advanced by the critics often contradict one another

There are also many naturalistic theories on how David Copperfield teleported to Hawaii, it doesn't mean all of them are wrong. 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

Again, this talk of naturalism. There is no category called "the supernatural" in Mormon theology. Mormonism is entirely naturalistic.
 

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

"anyone"

I am puzzled.  May I suggest that you go back to the video and carefully look at the posts, and you discover that "anyone" did indeed respond, multiple times.

See also part 2 of the video  and see additional responses by "anyone".

 

 

I am looking for a more serious response, not the comment section on Youtube! 

 at least from the mormon interpreter? or even from a fairmormon blog post? 

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

faith-promoting accounts and faith-promoting theories. For example, was the Book of Mormon translation loose or tight?

Another example is that some accounts of Emma, David, Harris on the translation process contradict each other. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Tight_versus_loose_translation

There are also many naturalistic theories on how David Copperfield teleported to Hawaii, it doesn't mean all of them are wrong. 

 

Okay...this trick is not in a church handbook...how did he do this??????  Omh..j(heck)...How did he do this???

[why me]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see this as being offered as proof, only an explanation of why he can't manage to disbelieve -- which is his thesis. 

Here's the thing: The Book of Mormon exists. The witnesses'statements of having seen the plates (and, in some cases, divine visions and visitations) exist and corroborate one another. Deny them if you will, but if you intend to disprove them you have to do better than the alternative explanations that have been offered so far and found wanting. 

Not to mention handling them too. How to explain the handling of the plates? Was Joseph a master metal worker that he could replicate such plates? So, the problem is more complicated. We have 11 witnesses, plus Mary Whitmer that they experienced something special. And Emma who was there at the time when the plates were in her home and who never denied the book of mormon. We would have to conclude that all were duped. And remained duped for the rest of their lives. And yet, some on their death beds still never denied their exsperience and testified to family and friends that their experience was real.

Edited August 28, 2016 by why me

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

I am looking for a more serious response, not the comment section on Youtube! 

 at least from the mormon interpreter? or even from a fairmormon blog post? 

If you are just going to brush off my response, and refuse to look at the links in my youtube posts, this is a waste of time for us both.

It will not happen again.  Adieu and goodbye.

Edited August 28, 2016 by cdowis

[why me]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

I am looking for a more serious response, not the comment section on Youtube! 

 at least from the mormon interpreter? or even from a fairmormon blog post? 

It will always be depended on faith. I don't think that it could be any other way. If we had full evidence that the BoM is true, why have free agency? And such historical experiences by others will also be depended on faith and interpretation. My point: the witnesses never said that what was in the book of mormon about their testimony were false.

Edited August 28, 2016 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

On August 26, 2016 at 10:45 PM, cinepro said:

The universe is so vast and interesting that, were I forced to accept supernatural explanations put forth for all the things I can't explain or understand otherwise, there would be no end to the theories I would be compelled to believe.

For the specific subject at hand, it is simply enough for those who don't believe in the supernatural theories surrounding the creation of The Book of Mormon to say "I don't know, but the evidence for such-and-such theory isn't convincing enough for belief."  Beyond that, any discussion is an exercise in courtesy and curiosity, but they are not compelled to present any sort of counter-theory. 

We don't ask anyone to do do anything other than keep an open mind enough to go to God in humble prayer. 

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Again, this talk of naturalism. There is no category called "the supernatural" in Mormon theology. Mormonism is entirely naturalistic.
 

It is if you're allowed to define the word "naturalistic" any way you want. 

But then nothing is supernatural; the word ceases to mean anything and now we've got to come up with a new word to describe what we're talking about.

[why me]

It seems to me that some on this thread may buy into vogel's video, posted on this thread. But when I listened to it, I heard a lot of what other people clained the witnesses have said. And I am not sure that this is ever good evidence. What we do know is that Martin and Oliver returned to the church and bore their testimonies on their deathbeds. Why? Because their experience did not give them cause to doubt or question it. They accepted it as a spiritual experience of immense magnitude. I do believe that as life moves on, people do question spiritual moments that happened in the past and they also can certainly lessen their impact. No different for these witnesses. However, I do not see them doing so. They stuck to it like glue fastened to a model plane.

[PeterPear]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Peter, how could they know what was actually on the plates? They did not know how to translate. They could only testify that they had felt, hefted, or seen the plates. They were taking the word of Joseph Smith concerning the content. I am taking them at their word that they actually hefted, or saw the plates.

Glenn

Why do you say that?

Oliver Cowdery was a scribe writing down Joseph's words as Joseph translated. They came across the need for baptism and thus their desire to be baptized and John the Baptist appeared and restored the Aaronic Priesthood.

They came across the prophecy of the three witnesses in the writings of Nephi and later of Moroni in the Book of Ether. It was that very prophecy which prompted the three to have the desire to be a witness.

Why are you claiming the three witnesses knew nothing of the Book of Mormon? What's your source?

 

 

 

 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Why do you say that?

Oliver Cowdery was a scribe writing down Joseph's words as Joseph translated. They came across the need for baptism and thus their desire to be baptized and John the Baptist appeared and restored the Aaronic Priesthood.

They came across the prophecy of the three witnesses in the writings of Nephi and later of Moroni in the Book of Ether. It was that very prophecy which prompted the three to have the desire to be a witness.

Why are you claiming the three witnesses knew nothing of the Book of Mormon? What's your source?

 

   Peter, my point is that none of those witnesses could read the characters on the plates. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

Glenn

[Guest]

On August 26, 2016 at 10:03 PM, TOmNossor said:

Three days ago I wrote:

But, when I attempt to assess the relative strength of the LDS position vs. other (and most frequently the Catholic) position(s), and I attempt to EXCLUDE spiritual witness; I find the Book of Mormon to be a pillar of such strength it withstands all assaults handily. I simply cannot explain the existence of the BOM without appealing to the supernatural. While I have read about numerous historical problems, I see the positive evidences for the BOM to be virtually impossible to explain via any naturalistic means. I do not think any explanation for the coming forth of the BOM offered by critics explains what is there well at all.

 

 

I find Dan's expression to be much more thorough than mine AND he surely has way more knowledge of problems/explanations and evidences/explanations.

Thanks for pointing me to this.

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

 

 

Other scripture should not be ignored, but indeed the Book of Mormon lists every situation and the means to deal with it. It is also a contemporary book, dealing with any and all issues of today, be it spiritual, political or personal. Those who drink from it's wisdom daily, or at least on a regular basis, will not fall away from the truth. The very day I received the Book of Mormon, I read all the way to Mosiah and was a convert, having never heard a discussion yet. I knew that day and night that I would become a Mormon. I am the same way, "I can't not believe". 

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

Quote

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Glenn101]

30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

Quote

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I feel your juxtaposition of those two quotes are inapt. I think that Scott is not shifting the burden of proof, but requiring critics to show some type of evidence and reasoning beyond a bare assertion. The Book of Mormon claims to be a work of scripture translated by the gift and power of God. There is no way that LDS scholars or anyone else can prove that. But we do have the fact that the Book of Mormon was produced and exists. There is a growing amount of scholarly work on the Book of Mormon that has come in response to critical efforts and a lot of serendipity, as is the case when Royal Skousen found so much Early Modern English that predates the KJV in it.

To quote from Daniel Peterson in the presentation linked to in the first post by Scott: "what we see ourselves as doing, is constructing a cumulative case, no one element of which is definitive, no one element of which will simply force, compel unbelievers to suddenly cave in, surrender."

If LDS scholars are putting forth this effort, why should we not expect critics to respond in kind?

 

Glenn

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I feel your juxtaposition of those two quotes are inapt. I think that Scott is not shifting the burden of proof, but requiring critics to show some type of evidence and reasoning beyond a bare assertion.

No. Read again what Scott wrote.

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously.

In other words, if I can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, I have no business being critical of the account that Joseph Smith has given. This is shifting the burden, plain and simple.

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

 

In other words, if I can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, I have no business being critical of the account that Joseph Smith has given. This is shifting the burden, plain and simple.

So anyone who is critical of the Book of Mormon gets free pass. Despite all of the scholarship that has been done, all a critic has to say is that it is a phony, a fraud, or whatever and need not back up his or her words?

Not hardly.

If you are going to make an assertion, it is empty without anything to back it up. That is not shifting the burden of proof. It is merely requiring a person to substantiate an assertion.

[cdowis]

49 minutes ago, Thinking said:

In other words, if I can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, I have no business being critical of the account that Joseph Smith has given. This is shifting the burden, plain and simple.

It means, "Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us.  I will give it the time and attention it deserves."

Glenn101

Quote

So anyone who is critical of the Book of Mormon gets free pass. Despite all of the scholarship that has been done, all a critic has to say is that it is a phony, a fraud, or whatever and need not back up his or her words?

That is correct.  

Otherwise, what are you going to do.  Take a few deep breaths, count to ten.  It's gonna be all right.
If he really sounds unreasonable and irritates you, just IGNORE him.

Edited August 28, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

I think I am going to disagree with you on this (assuming I understand your comment, it depends on what you mean by "attacks").

I think much science has been advanced because of dissatisfaction in and criticism of theories.  And I don't see as crucial to that progress that the individual criticizing doesn't have a viable alternative theory to replace what they have thoughtfully and with strong evidentiary reasoning attempted to demonstrate is untrue.  After all, some are very good at figuring out what is wrong with something without being creative enough to see how to do it right.  It is crucial to progress for someone to have a viable explanation that can then be tested on its own account, but I don't see it as essential that the two go hand in hand.  It would seem crucial that robust criticism appear before a viable explanation or few would go looking for the latter, but there may be many years, even centuries between the two.

What would lead me to not take someone as seriously as they wanted (for example, if they claim they have demonstrated something is false) is if their criticism ignores a significant part of the data available to them, dismisses data as actual data even if unexplainable, or refuses to acknowledge known gaps in knowledge.  I believe dealing with all relevant data is part of a thoughtful analysis.

Of course, historical research is based on much 'softer' data than much of hard science and the process of exploration and analysis are not the same.

Theological research is even more 'mushy' imo.

However, I still think a robust challenge can occur in these areas without accompanying explanations, though it is better for progress when this occurs.

Otoh, most critics of the LDS faith ignore quite a bit of data in my experience, though I suspect many critics feel the same way about defending believers.  Bias to a certain extent determines what one sees as relevant data.  I am not sure how to get past that, but I believe a thoughtful critic (whether believer or disbeliever) should attempt to include as much data in their analysis of the opposing claims as possible and provide nondismissive explanations as to why any other data can't be dealt with.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:11 AM, Glenn101 said:

I feel your juxtaposition of those two quotes are inapt. I think that Scott is not shifting the burden of proof, but requiring critics to show some type of evidence and reasoning beyond a bare assertion. The Book of Mormon claims to be a work of scripture translated by the gift and power of God. There is no way that LDS scholars or anyone else can prove that. But we do have the fact that the Book of Mormon was produced and exists. There is a growing amount of scholarly work on the Book of Mormon that has come in response to critical efforts and a lot of serendipity, as is the case when Royal Skousen found so much Early Modern English that predates the KJV in it.

To quote from Daniel Peterson in the presentation linked to in the first post by Scott: "what we see ourselves as doing, is constructing a cumulative case, no one element of which is definitive, no one element of which will simply force, compel unbelievers to suddenly cave in, surrender."

If LDS scholars are putting forth this effort, why should we not expect critics to respond in kind?

 

Glenn

I believe Glenn 101 is right on the money with this. 

We have no burden of proof to shift, and the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy does not apply to us unless and until we assert that the Book of Mormon and other LDS truth claims are proven through physical evidence. No reasonably intelligent defender of Mormonism I know of makes that assertion. 

I'll say again: The position of the Church is no more demanding than to suggest and invite the individual to go to God in humble prayer for confirmation of what we teach. We deal with logical argument and/or physical evidence sometimes, but only as a means of defense. We don't claim the evidence is incontrovertible proof, only that it keeps the question open for those who want to accept our suggestion to pray and ask God. 

So I stand by my position that the Book of Mormon exists, that reliable men and women attested to the divine means by which it came forth, that one has to account for it somehow (as Elder Holland said, no way to crawl over, under or around it), and if all one can do is attack it undefinitively without offering some viable or feasible alternative theory, one's words are scarcely interesting or useful in arriving at truth or understanding. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think I am going to disagree with you on this (assuming I understand your comment, it depends on what you mean by "attacks").

I think much science has been advanced because of dissatisfaction in and criticism of theories.  And I don't see as crucial to that progress that the individual criticizing doesn't have a viable alternative theory to replace what they have thoughtfully and with strong evidentiary reasoning attempted to demonstrate is untrue.  After all, some are very good at figuring out what is wrong with something without being creative enough to see how to do it right.  It is crucial to progress for someone to have a viable explanation that can then be tested on its own account, but I don't see it as essential that the two go hand in hand.  It would seem crucial that robust criticism appear before a viable explanation or few would go looking for the latter, but there may be many years, even centuries between the two.

What would lead me to not take someone as seriously as they wanted (for example, if they claim they have demonstrated something is false) is if their criticism ignores a significant part of the data available to them, dismisses data as actual data even if unexplainable, or refuses to acknowledge known gaps in knowledge.  I believe dealing with all relevant data is part of a thoughtful analysis.

Of course, historical research is based on much 'softer' data than much of hard science and the process of exploration and analysis are not the same.

Theological research is even more 'mushy' imo.

However, I still think a robust challenge can occur in these areas without accompanying explanations, though it is better for progress when this occurs.

Otoh, most critics of the LDS faith ignore quite a bit of data in my experience, though I suspect many critics feel the same way about defending believers.  Bias to a certain extent determines what one sees as relevant data.  I am not sure how to get past that, but I believe a thoughtful critic (whether believer or disbeliever) should attempt to include as much data in their analysis of the opposing claims as possible and provide nondismissive explanations as to why any other data can't be dealt with.

In my opinion...and I include my former self...a lot of staunch LDS ignore quite a bit of data too. 

[Honorentheos]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I feel your juxtaposition of those two quotes are inapt. I think that Scott is not shifting the burden of proof, but requiring critics to show some type of evidence and reasoning beyond a bare assertion. The Book of Mormon claims to be a work of scripture translated by the gift and power of God. There is no way that LDS scholars or anyone else can prove that. But we do have the fact that the Book of Mormon was produced and exists. There is a growing amount of scholarly work on the Book of Mormon that has come in response to critical efforts and a lot of serendipity, as is the case when Royal Skousen found so much Early Modern English that predates the KJV in it.

To quote from Daniel Peterson in the presentation linked to in the first post by Scott: "what we see ourselves as doing, is constructing a cumulative case, no one element of which is definitive, no one element of which will simply force, compel unbelievers to suddenly cave in, surrender."

If LDS scholars are putting forth this effort, why should we not expect critics to respond in kind?

 

Glenn

There are a multitude of theories put forward to explain the Book of Mormon. Forgive me for believing the least probable involves an angel presenting a recorded golden record of a people unattested to by external evidence in a context that has been refuted with a belief system that aligns quite well with that in the culture where and when the Book of Mormon was published. The person receiving said miraculous but unattested record was known to pretend to see treasure through miraculous means that, despite some good will and faith from his "clients", never managed to produce actual treasure of note for this clients. The religion this receiving person established very quickly evolved to not really align with the content of said record. The content of said record includes issues that range from baked in racism from the 19th century US (based on the disbelief the Native Americans and their ancestors were capable of producing what were observed remains of apparent sophisticated societies), an unrecognizable geography, outlandlishly out-scaled military adventures and associated casualties, and a transposing of technologies from metallurgy to agriculture that simply are not supported by external evidence in the time and place claimed for the text. The same book treats ancient Hebrew myths as if they were history and makes use of scripture in ways that are in conflict with historical understandings of how the Judeo-Christian scriptures came to be - but reflecting quite accurately how an American Christian in the early 1800's might have viewed their origin and singular authorships. The same person is responsible for multiple examples of very questionable attempts to claim translation of scripture from other sources ranging from funerary Egyptian scrolls to fraudulent metal plates to the King James Version of Genesis presented as if Moses was the actual author.

 

But the critic can't explain exactly how the Book of Mormon came to be in a definitive manner so...

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

No. Read again what Scott wrote.

In other words, if I can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, I have no business being critical of the account that Joseph Smith has given. This is shifting the burden, plain and simple.

Actually...no.  This is an LDS Board.  If you come here and claim the Book of Mormon is false...the burden is yours.