Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[thesometimesaint]

I don't find "Mainstream" thinking very convincing when it comes to science, or religion. Mixing the two at this time is fraught with problems.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Fair enough, however, I think many of the arguments of Mormonism over the years have attempted to cherry pick elements of mainstream science to legitimize their arguments, in the same way that FIRM is doing.  The FIRM folks seem to be only a few generations behind the mainstream Mormon scholars as far as how they approach scientific cherry picking.  

Go back in time 50 - 75 years and look at mainstream Mormon apologetics for the BoM, BoA, age of the earth, evolution, you name it and you can find many mainstream Mormon arguments that mirror the current FIRM arguments.  

Again finding bad apologetics isn't hard - especially if you're going back that far. But they are just that: bad apologetics. In this day and age there's far less excuse for such things.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The standard for legitimacy has subjective elements, but it is essential to understand and frequently and clearly state that there are also elements of group legitimacy that are not-self referential for one crowd or the other, but that can be applied to evaluate which group has more legitimacy, which is actually better.  These are the values that give scientific revolutions a structure and make paradigm choice meaningful and progressive.

Problem definition and testability

Accuracy of Key predictions (where what a person decides is "key" is always related to the door they are trying to open)

Comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, the breadth of explanations and how it consistent it is internally and externally)

Fruitfulness

Simplicity and aesthetics

Future Promise

There is a huge difference between dismissing an opponent's arguments as "Not us" and actually exploring the notion of "Why us?" in relation to this set of values when evaluating the current state of the art.  There are always networks of assumptions involved, and the comparison should involve an open acknowledgement of the implications of one's own ideological stance.   And specific cases are always more important than broad generalizations.  For a specific case in point, Coe's interview with Dehlin is notably dismissive of the Book of Mormon, but I think we can make a very good case that Coe's "mainstream" position compared to Sorenson's direct response does not fare well by these standards.  Just as FIRM does not fare well compared to what gets taught at BYU in terms of these standards. 

I've written on this at length.  For a helpful non-LDS take, see Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion by Ian G. Barbour.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin, this makes sense and seems smart and measured.  Yet, it seems as long as some Mormon scholars are attempting to prove religious truth claims in scientific terms, such as BoM historicity or BoA translation from Egyptian, that there will continue to be a tension.

I'm curious what you thought of the back and forth between Bill Hamblin and Philip Jenkins a couple years ago on the topic of the BoM scholarship.  You might be friends with Bill, I have no idea what your history of association has been, but I'm curious if you followed the back and forth and what you thought about it.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again finding bad apologetics isn't hard - especially if you're going back that far. But they are just that: bad apologetics. In this day and age there's far less excuse for such things.

Think of the FIRM crowd as your grandparents generation and their level of sophistication.  I just think we might have a lot more in common with them, and perhaps some of the condemnations of their methods hit very close to home with more educated Mormonism, so we ought to tread these waters carefully for sure.    

Very good people in these groups using what limited understanding they have to try and promote a cause they believe in.  

[thesometimesaint]

I'm in no way responsible for what my Grandparents and Parents believed. I have a hard enough time in being responsible for what I believe.

[Kevin Christensen]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Kevin, this makes sense and seems smart and measured.  Yet, it seems as long as some Mormon scholars are attempting to prove religious truth claims in scientific terms, such as BoM historicity or BoA translation from Egyptian, that there will continue to be a tension.

I'm curious what you thought of the back and forth between Bill Hamblin and Philip Jenkins a couple years ago on the topic of the BoM scholarship.  You might be friends with Bill, I have no idea what your history of association has been, but I'm curious if you followed the back and forth and what you thought about it.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

Thank you, and you are welcome.

There is a difference between "trying to prove" something to skeptic who only has to say "So what?" to anything we can come up with and exploring and explaining a position.  I think Nibley and Peterson and Bushman and Givens, and for that matter, all of the best LDS scholars understand how this works in practice.  It goes along with the higher positions of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  It goes with understanding that we cannot coerce, we can only invite and try to persuade.

Jenkins basically represented the position of "You Mormons are Not Us" and only information that comes from Us, using Our rules, methods, problem field, and consensus, counts in the balance.  Hamblin tried to move the discussion to theoretical issues that underlie  "Why us?"  He was unsuccessful because Jenkins refused to budge from the intellectual safety of being able to dismiss Mormon scholars and findings as "Not us."   I find his arguments pointless for that reason.  It was not a paradigm debate, showing awareness of the implications of his ideological position, the different implications of ours, and a willingness to enter the kind of dialogue that puts his own ideology at risk in a real open debate.  That is what Joseph Smith calls "proving contraries" that is, wrestling with different perspectives in such a way that genuine risk real exploration of perspectives enters in.

Indeed, I find his arguments as operating at Position 2 of the Perry Scheme.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

I've met Bill just a few times over the years.  On many things we agree (I still recommend his essay on basic methodological issues http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=11) and on a few we disagree (on Josiah, for instance, in a pair of contrary essays at Interpreter).

I can think of a great many essays and books that I have read that provide what Alma 32 calls "cause to believe" regarding the Book of Mormon, but none that provide the coercive, irresistible "knowing" that Alma 32 refers to as the non-preferred goal.   For instance, I still think the kinds of things I ran across in writing "Nigh Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon" are pretty cool, for me, substantial and interesting "cause to believe" contributing to the bundle of threads in the thick and complicated rope that supports my faith.  No one thread carries all the weight.  Any one thread is expendable.  That essay is not an attempt to prove religious truth claims, but rather to explore them in a fresh and interesting context, for those who might be interested. 

I think it shows a basic failure to understand the concept of faith and the inescapable incompleteness of human knowledge to insist, (implicitly or explicitly), that faith is impossible in the absence of absolute certainty, supported by objective and final scientific consensus.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm in no way responsible for what my Grandparents and Parents believed. I have a hard enough time in being responsible for what I believe.

My point is about how we treat our Grandparents, with respect and love, or as illegitimate?  

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Jenkins basically represented the position of "You Mormons are Not Us" and only information that comes from Us, using Our rules, methods, problem field, and consensus, counts in the balance.  Hamblin tried to move the discussion to theoretical issues that underlie  "Why us?"  He was unsuccessful because Jenkins refused to budge from the intellectual safety of being able to dismiss Mormon scholars and findings as "Not us."   I find his arguments pointless for that reason.  It was not a paradigm debate, showing awareness of the implications of his ideological position, the different implications of ours, and a willingness to enter the kind of dialogue that puts his own ideology at risk in a real open debate.  That is what Joseph Smith calls "proving contraries" that is, wrestling with different perspectives in such a way that genuine risk real exploration of perspectives enters in.

If we're talking any of the major scientific disciplines, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, etc, isn't the burden of proof on Mormons scholars to follow the standard rules and methods of those already established fields of study?  I'm not sure why Jenkins should consider the internal Mormon centric arguments when these fields of study already exist in the wider scientific realm.  For example, if any Mormon scholars have Archeological evidence that ties Mesoamerican evidences to the middle east, I'm sure those findings would be scrutinized highly because it would contradicts the earlier paradigm, but if the findings are legitimate they should hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny.  

28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Indeed, I find his arguments as operating at Position 2 of the Perry Scheme.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

 

I'll take a look, thanks for sharing.  Hopefully its doesn't go over my head.  

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I can think of a great many essays and books that I have read that provide what Alma 32 calls "cause to believe" regarding the Book of Mormon, but none that provide the coercive, irresistible "knowing" that Alma 32 refers to as the non-preferred goal.   For instance, I still think the kinds of things I ran across in writing "Nigh Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon" are pretty cool, for me, substantial and interesting "cause to believe" contributing to the bundle of threads in the thick and complicated rope that supports my faith.  No one thread carries all the weight.  Any one thread is expendable.  That essay is not an attempt to prove religious truth claims, but rather to explore them in a fresh and interesting context, for those who might be interested. 

So for me, believing in Mormonism is one thing, but believing in the historicity of the BoM is something entirely different.  I think anyone can have faith and believe in God or Mormonism without feeling constrained to also believe that any particular truth claim is supported by scientific evidence.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I never said specifically this is what FM does, and I'm not looking to get into a discussion over whether what FM is advocating is exactly the same as what FIRM is doing.  I was making a comparison, but I also acknowledged there are degrees of difference.  Your close association with FM is likely making you a little more defensive about my comparison which is totally understandable.  

What I am discussing is a specific actual behaviour where one person has claimed a scientific process has proved one of his claims while also denying the scientific process is valid when it contradicts another of his claims (DNA).  I don't remember ever seeing this kind of criticism of FM.  I am not suggesting that people have not made claims that what FM does is unscientific or illegitimate or that they are always wrong to do so.

You are asking me to accept that others may perceive that FM is doing the same thing I have claimed one FIRM person is doing.  I don't feel required to expand my criticism either against the entirety of FIRM or apply it broadly to FM in order for you to have a chance to encourage me to open my eyes to how others might perceive FM.  I am talking one specific behaviour, not generalities.

If I understand your purpose correctly, you are encouraging me not to label Meldrum's method as illegitimate because I reject criticism of FM that labels it illegitimate or you want me to allow for critics of FM and other faithful Mormon apologists the same leeway I give myself by accepting their view of FM as using illegitimate scientific reasoning since I am comfortable using the term myself.

Your problem is I have never said it would be wrong for a critic to label the behaviour (using science method and then rejecting it) I am claiming as unscientific, illegitimate, etc.  If I come across FM using what I see as sloppy science, I say something and I have never criticized someone accusing FM of doing this or something else if they demonstrated their claim.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

My point is about how we treat our Grandparents, with respect and love, or as illegitimate?  

If they broke a law, I would call that behaviour breaking a law.  I have said before my grandparents engaged in racist behavior of the benevolent type (nothing nasty, just showing they expected less of "coloured people" in general so if they did something well, it was seen as exceptional).  In no way does that imply I do not respect them for the admirable things they have done or don't love them as my family or fellow children of God.

You are in my opinion claiming posters here are labeling people wrongly when they are addressing only certain forms of behaviour.  (There may be some posters who are doing this, but Clark isn't from what I remember and I am not; I don't read everyone's posts).

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yet, it seems as long as some Mormon scholars are attempting to prove religious truth claims in scientific terms, such as BoM historicity or BoA translation from Egyptian, that there will continue to be a tension.

I'm curious what you thought of the back and forth between Bill Hamblin and Philip Jenkins a couple years ago on the topic of the BoM scholarship.

I've not read the Hamblin discussion and don't have time to do it right now. So I don't want to represent what Hamblin did or didn't do. I can but say that when people attempt to prove claims as scientific then there is a high standard. I don't see most apologetic writings being remotely able to do that. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm pretty forthright on that. While I've not really been involved in apologetics for some time, people claiming that apologetics can prove things beyond pretty narrow claims seems extremely rare. Typically it can at best establish that a belief is plausible or rational, not that it's the best explanation especially relative to a naturalistic stance that a priori rejects things like revelation, angels, and so forth. So from my perspective what you're outlining is a bit of a strawman.

Note though that this appears to be quite different from what I see Meldrum and company doing. They really aren't able to provide arguments at all that their views are rational precisely because they don't engage the evidence - especially scientific evidence. To show a belief is possible or rational at a minimum requires engaging the evidence that is available.

Quote

If we're talking any of the major scientific disciplines, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, etc, isn't the burden of proof on Mormons scholars to follow the standard rules and methods of those already established fields of study?

If one is publishing then one is almost always arguing that ones view is the correct one according to the standards of that community. Now perhaps with the bias of someone in the hard sciences I'd say that a lot of the fields you list aren't terribly scientific and that agreement rather the strong evidence determines conclusions. So I think it's important to keep in mind the nature of the field. It's simply a category error to treat the work in social anthropology as remotely the same as work in chemistry or physics for instance. Further to the degree there isn't strong evidence but rather weaker types of persuasion it's worth criticizing the nature of that field. Although so far as I know that's not going on here. And of course to argue that evidence standards are rather weak in a field is not to say anything goes. Rather it is to put epistemic limits on what is knowable in that field.

The problem is that of course apologetics isn't trying to do any of that. So to judge it's arguments as akin to a positive argument for what one should believe in a scientific or at least moderately scientific field seems a category error. It's to mistake the type of argument being made. Again not having read the debate you refer to I can't speak to whether that happened in it.

Quote

Think of the FIRM crowd as your grandparents generation and their level of sophistication.  I just think we might have a lot more in common with them, and perhaps some of the condemnations of their methods hit very close to home with more educated Mormonism, so we ought to tread these waters carefully for sure.    

Very good people in these groups using what limited understanding they have to try and promote a cause they believe in.  

I confess I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. If people are making positive arguments in a public sphere it seems completely appropriate to judge them by the standards of reason. If there is a danger of people promoting those views to others then that's doubly true. When someone says vitamin C cures nearly everything I think it's appropriate for doctors and people familiar with the evidence to point out false claims. Now I doubt most of the people pushing such ideas are going to listen. But it's important that the correct information be out there.

Edited April 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

"So from my perspective what you're outlining is a bit of a strawman."

Thank you, Clark, for clearly expressing what I was spending too many words explaining.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

What I am discussing is a specific actual behaviour where one person has claimed a scientific process has proved one of his claims while also denying the scientific process is valid when it contradicts another of his claims (DNA).  I don't remember ever seeing this kind of criticism of FM.  I am not suggesting that people have not made claims that what FM does is unscientific or illegitimate or that they are always wrong to do so.

You are asking me to accept that others may perceive that FM is doing the same thing I have claimed one FIRM person is doing.  I don't feel required to expand my criticism either against the entirety of FIRM or apply it broadly to FM in order for you to have a chance to encourage me to open my eyes to how others might perceive FM.  I am talking one specific behaviour, not generalities.

If I understand your purpose correctly, you are encouraging me not to label Meldrum's method as illegitimate because I reject criticism of FM that labels it illegitimate or you want me to allow for critics of FM and other faithful Mormon apologists the same leeway I give myself by accepting their view of FM as using illegitimate scientific reasoning since I am comfortable using the term myself.

Your problem is I have never said it would be wrong for a critic to label the behaviour (using science method and then rejecting it) I am claiming as unscientific, illegitimate, etc.  If I come across FM using what I see as sloppy science, I say something and I have never criticized someone accusing FM of doing this or something else if they demonstrated their claim.  

Thanks for explaining, I think I understand your position now, and I think you understand what I was saying as well.  That is a worth a small amount of celebration whenever that occurs on a message board!    Thanks for explaining your perspective! 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

If they broke a law, I would call that behaviour breaking a law.  I have said before my grandparents engaged in racist behavior of the benevolent type (nothing nasty, just showing they expected less of "coloured people" in general so if they did something well, it was seen as exceptional).  In no way does that imply I do not respect them for the admirable things they have done or don't love them as my family or fellow children of God.

You are in my opinion claiming posters here are labeling people wrongly when they are addressing only certain forms of behaviour.  (There may be some posters who are doing this, but Clark isn't from what I remember and I am not; I don't read everyone's posts).

I haven't accused anyone of anything, I appreciate Clark and your conversation on the subject, and I sincerely hope nobody thinks I've made some kind of accusation or condemnation of anyone.  I'm simply making some points which I think invite reflection on how we treat those that the majority of posters including myself disagree with.  Empathy for the other group has been a central theme of my posts on this topic.  

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not read the Hamblin discussion and don't have time to do it right now. So I don't want to represent what Hamblin did or didn't do. I can but say that when people attempt to prove claims as scientific then there is a high standard. I don't see most apologetic writings being remotely able to do that. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm pretty forthright on that. While I've not really been involved in apologetics for some time, people claiming that apologetics can prove things beyond pretty narrow claims seems extremely rare. Typically it can at best establish that a belief is plausible or rational, not that it's the best explanation especially relative to a naturalistic stance that a priori rejects things like revelation, angels, and so forth. So from my perspective what you're outlining is a bit of a strawman.

Note though that this appears to be quite different from what I see Meldrum and company doing. They really aren't able to provide arguments at all that their views are rational precisely because they don't engage the evidence - especially scientific evidence. To show a belief is possible or rational at a minimum requires engaging the evidence that is available.

The Hamblin & Jenkins back and forth is really quite interesting and I think a good example of differences in approach of some Mormon scholars and some outside scholars.  Its about group dynamics, which is why I made the comparison to the FIRM crowd.  They have their internal experts that have legitimacy from the perspective of their followers.  Regardless whether their science holds up to external scrutiny.  It seems similar to me to the Hamblin vs. and outside scholar debate in that Hamblin's approach is viewed legitimately by some other Mormon scholars, but doesn't pass muster with outside scholars.  

On one hand you sound like you agree when you say that most apologetic writings aren't "remotely able to.. prove claims as scientific."  

I'm not sure I understand why you think this comparison is a straw man.  I admitted that its not a perfect example when I first used it, butI'm not sure how it materially misrepresents the point about inside vs. outside group dynamics.  I think the same would apply to young earth creationism and those followers who try to use scientific methods to bolster their theories, but in reality the broader scientific community finds their methods irresponsible and they don't hold up to peer reviewed criticism.   FIRM is doing the same thing.  And I think at times especially in the past but admittedly less common in the present, more mainstream Mormon apologetics has done this exact same thing.  

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Empathy for the other group has been a central theme of my posts on this topic.  

If a peer of your grandmother comes over and tells her that Lavender oil will cure her cancer I hope that while you are empathetic you also point out it's wrong. I don't see empathy and correctness being at odds. No one has been calling these people names, saying they are bad people or anything akin to that. All I've heard are people saying they are wrong or making bad arguments. Maybe I missed someone unloosing on them in a mean way, but I don't think so. I do think that these well meaning efforts ultimately hurt the efforts though.

Quote

On one hand you sound like you agree when you say that most apologetic writings aren't "remotely able to.. prove claims as scientific."  

I'm not sure I understand why you think this comparison is a straw man.  I admitted that its not a perfect example when I first used it, butI'm not sure how it materially misrepresents the point about inside vs. outside group dynamics.  I think the same would apply to young earth creationism and those followers who try to use scientific methods to bolster their theories, but in reality the broader scientific community finds their methods irresponsible and they don't hold up to peer reviewed criticism.   FIRM is doing the same thing.  And I think at times especially in the past but admittedly less common in the present, more mainstream Mormon apologetics has done this exact same thing.  

To critique an argument one must first grasp the argument. Again, not having read the debate you link to and just going by what Kevin said it sounds like the criticism was more that they weren't making the type of arguments they wanted. But of course that says nothing about the type of argument made. So, while speaking out of ignorance, it sounds like arguing beside the point. Akin to a person in gender studies criticizing an argument in mathematics because it didn't address the power imbalances along gender lines.

I'd say I'd read it, but I have to do a chocolate show up at the University of Utah Natural History Museum this weekend. So I unfortunately don't have a lot of time.

Edited April 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If a peer of your grandmother comes over and tells her that Lavender oil will cure her cancer I hope that while you are empathetic you also point out it's wrong.

It depends, would you say something if your grandma was a member of a different religion than you, and if she had someone from that religion performing a healing ritual, would you point out that their healing ritual wouldn't actually cure her of cancer?  Or what if she was a Jehovah's Witness and didn't believe in blood transfusion, and refused treatment.  Different degrees of ethical dilemmas.    

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say I'd read it, but I have to do a chocolate show up at the University of Utah Natural History Museum this weekend. So I unfortunately don't have a lot of time.

No worries, there are a lot of posts and it would take a long time to read.  I don't completely agree with Steve's assessment of the back and forth, you might have a different take as well. 

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It depends, would you say something if your grandma was a member of a different religion than you, and if she had someone from that religion performing a healing ritual, would you point out that their healing ritual wouldn't actually cure her of cancer?  Or what if she was a Jehovah's Witness and didn't believe in blood transfusion, and refused treatment.  Different degrees of ethical dilemmas.    

I would certainly tell her not to only do that.

Edited April 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

On 11/26/2016 at 5:39 PM, cinepro said:

Swing for the fences, Rodney.  Swing for the fences.

I can't figure out whether Meldrum and Young Earth Creationist types are "stupid" or "ignorant"......I don't want to use the adjectives in a derogatory manner, but when you have the obvious, scientifically proven explanations explanations shoved to your face everyday and still trying to advance your "dumb" hypothesis, funny enough, you find some believers.

I did not imagine, for example, Meteor Crater would be a "Hydrocrater"  https://universalmodel.com/portfolio_page/hydrocrater-formaiton/. Even the ones on the moon, Mars and the whole Solar System. 

I've seen few Craters (including Meteor Crater), I remember seeing the picture of it when I was ten or so, even then I could connect the dots, if something falls down, it will create a hole. 

The sad part of this episode is the children of these people; they have to fight twice as hard as average joe to find the reality of facts.

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If we're talking any of the major scientific disciplines, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, etc, isn't the burden of proof on Mormons scholars to follow the standard rules and methods of those already established fields of study?  I'm not sure why Jenkins should consider the internal Mormon centric arguments when these fields of study already exist in the wider scientific realm.  For example, if any Mormon scholars have Archeological evidence that ties Mesoamerican evidences to the middle east, I'm sure those findings would be scrutinized highly because it would contradicts the earlier paradigm, but if the findings are legitimate they should hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny.  

I'll take a look, thanks for sharing.  Hopefully its doesn't go over my head.  

So for me, believing in Mormonism is one thing, but believing in the historicity of the BoM is something entirely different.  I think anyone can have faith and believe in God or Mormonism without feeling constrained to also believe that any particular truth claim is supported by scientific evidence.  

You are missing the point.   Mormons scholars and scientists like Sorenson and Gardner do follow the standard rules and methods, which they learned and internalized in the process of getting their degrees and training from non-LDS schools and publishing in non-LDS journals.  They do not follow the standard assumption that the Book of Mormon must be nonsense, because after all, "Seeing visions in an age of railways?"  If Jenkins wants to say anything meaningful about internal Mormon arguments, he ought to read them following the standard rules and methods of study.  Dismissing Mormon claims is easy.  Investigating serious Mormon scholarship calls for serious effort.  Coe and Jenkins both in their way turn out to demonstrate exactly why we ought not feel obligated to trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution.  One of the most notable lessons of The New Mormon Challenge, for instance, was that even when some serious Evangelical scholars took on Mormon scholarship, not one of them took it seriously enough to fully catch up with what we have done.  It was serious, but only partly, without full commitment.  And it has not generated sequels. 

Coe's interview with Dehlin shows that a Big Name does not necessarily demonstrate up-to-date knowledge.  For instance, one of Coe's arguments against the Book of Mormon was that the Great Mother is prominent in Mesoamerica, yet the Jews, as everyone knows, were strict monotheists with a male God.  Everyone, of course, except Raphael Patai, author of The Hebrew Goddess, now in its third edition, and William Dever, Biblical scholar and author of Did God Have a Wife? and Margaret Barker, author of The Mother of the Lord, vol 1.  And there is a huge difference in assuming that the Book of Mormon needs to account for every aspect of New World culture and history from Point Barrow to Tierra Del Fuego, and the more accurate picture of the accounts of just a few boat loads entering amid a much larger ongoing concern.  (I pointed out this, and other things, at Mormon Stories, and John deleted my comments.   Part of his commitment to open discussion and putting everything on the table.)  The assumptions are different, and therefore, the problem definition and solution is different.  It's not just facing facts, but facing the ideological frameworks in which the thinking, imagining, and exploring is done.

Have you tested your certainty that LDS claims would be scrutinized highly?   Where are careful and detailed responses in Mesoamerican journals to things like Sorenson's Mesoamerican Codex or even his 2009 paper here, published in a non-LDs peer-reviewed journal?

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Can you point to even Jenkins reading and responding to this in detail, not in a blog, but in a peer reviewed journal?

And where does Jenkins say anything final and definitive about this?

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Is the assumption that non-LDS scholars who have not so much as cracked the cover of the Book of Mormon, let alone read through the publications at the Maxwell Institute, can speak with final authority on the topic, valid?  Or can it be tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis?  And what happens if we do test that hypothesis?

And there is a huge difference between feeling "constrained to believe" against one's will and desire by scientific evidence and finding "cause to believe" that supports faith, enlightens the mind and understanding, while still falling short of perfect knowledge. 

Can this, for example, count as "cause to believe" in some way, or not?   And why or why not?  Has Jenkins dealt with it?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You are missing the point.   Mormons scholars and scientists like Sorenson and Gardner do follow the standard rules and methods, which they learned and internalized in the process of getting their degrees and training from non-LDS schools and publishing in non-LDS journals.  They do not follow the standard assumption that the Book of Mormon must be nonsense, because after all, "Seeing visions in an age of railways?"  If Jenkins wants to say anything meaningful about internal Mormon arguments, he ought to read them following the standard rules and methods of study.  Dismissing Mormon claims is easy.  Investigating serious Mormon scholarship calls for serious effort.  Coe and Jenkins both in their way turn out to demonstrate exactly why we ought not feel obligated to trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution.  One of the most notable lessons of The New Mormon Challenge, for instance, was that even when some serious Evangelical scholars took on Mormon scholarship, not one of them took it seriously enough to fully catch up with what we have done.  It was serious, but only partly, without full commitment.  And it has not generated sequels. 

This is interesting.  I admit I haven't heard about this New Mormon Challenge, nor can I explain why scholars from other disciplines don't take the work of Sorenson or Gardner or other Mormon scholars seriously.  My guess would be that their work hasn't caused a ripple in the broader disciplines because their work hasn't found concrete evidences that are compelling enough to cause other scholars to feel the need to engage with their claims.  I haven't read Sorenson's codex, and I've only read some of Gardner's work, and I like Gardner and his approach on some topics quite a bit, but I'm no scholar so I can't really critique specific works.   

If you're saying that its everyone else's fault that Mormon scholars aren't taken seriously in these disciplines.  That they can't get up to speed, that they aren't willing to engage, that this is evidence of some prejudice against the Mormons, then I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced.  I believe that the scientific method is a strong enough method that whatever findings that better explains the data, will eventually make their way up the ladder of the discipline.  

33 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Have you tested your certainty that LDS claims would be scrutinized highly?   Where are careful and detailed responses in Mesoamerican journals to things like Sorenson's Mesoamerican Codex or even his 2009 paper here, published in a non-LDs peer-reviewed journal?

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Can you point to even Jenkins reading and responding to this in detail, not in a blog, but in a peer reviewed journal?

And where does Jenkins say anything final and definitive about this?

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Is the assumption that non-LDS scholars who have not so much as cracked the cover of the Book of Mormon, let alone read through the publications at the Maxwell Institute, can speak with final authority on the topic, valid?  Or can it be tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis?  And what happens if we do test that hypothesis?

And there is a huge difference between feeling "constrained to believe" against one's will and desire by scientific evidence and finding "cause to believe" that supports faith, enlightens the mind and understanding, while still falling short of perfect knowledge. 

Can this, for example, count as "cause to believe" in some way, or not?   And why or why not?  Has Jenkins dealt with it?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

Are you saying that in order for non-Mormon scholars to take the Mormon scholars seriously, they have to read the BoM, or have faith in religious truth claims of some kind?  If so, this makes no sense to me.  I can only guess at why Jenkins hasn't engaged with these items is that he's not interested in becoming an expert an all the internal Mormon scholarship.  Again, can you tell me why the burden of proof is not on the shoulders of Mormon scholars to get their scholarship into the mainstream? 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting.  I admit I haven't heard about this New Mormon Challenge, nor can I explain why scholars from other disciplines don't take the work of Sorenson or Gardner or other Mormon scholars seriously.  My guess would be that their work hasn't caused a ripple in the broader disciplines because their work hasn't found concrete evidences that are compelling enough to cause other scholars to feel the need to engage with their claims.  I haven't read Sorenson's codex, and I've only read some of Gardner's work, and I like Gardner and his approach on some topics quite a bit, but I'm no scholar so I can't really critique specific works.   

If you're saying that its everyone else's fault that Mormon scholars aren't taken seriously in these disciplines.  That they can't get up to speed, that they aren't willing to engage, that this is evidence of some prejudice against the Mormons, then I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced.  I believe that the scientific method is a strong enough method that whatever findings that better explains the data, will eventually make their way up the ladder of the discipline.  

Are you saying that in order for non-Mormon scholars to take the Mormon scholars seriously, they have to read the BoM, or have faith in religious truth claims of some kind?  If so, this makes no sense to me.  I can only guess at why Jenkins hasn't engaged with these items is that he's not interested in becoming an expert an all the internal Mormon scholarship.  Again, can you tell me why the burden of proof is not on the shoulders of Mormon scholars to get their scholarship into the mainstream? 

Regarding "My guess would be that..." I've read enough for long enough that I am not guessing.  I have looked closely at the word of LDS scholars and the most important work of LDS critics.  I am a scholar and I have critiqued specific works in detail and at length in several different publications for several different editors.

You say, "I am not convinced..."   I learned on the playgrounds of Adelaide Elementary School that "So what?" works to dismiss any inconvenient argument and or evidence.  The scientific method is a tool that requires both good inputs and good operator to produce valid outputs.  And one of the most important discoveries that has emerged from applying scientific methods to the process of science is that there is a social dimension to rationality.  That is, it is people who decide how to measure "Better" and "better" is a value judgment that by nature involves comparison, and that people are involved in deciding what to compare. 

People get to do whatever they want.  Coe could blather on for hours with John Dehlin.  He had actually read the Book of Mormon, decades ago, but not well.  In the 70s, he actually reviewed some pop-culture Mormon scholarship, but in subsequent engagements, has not bothered to figure out how much things have changed since the 70s.  When Dehlin asked whether there was any evidence for iron arrow heads in Mesoamerica, Coe authoritatively said, "No," and Dehlin talked about this as being a hard and bitter truth that Mormons would have to face.  Does it matter that the Book of Mormon never mentions iron arrow heads?  So was Coe providing hard proof against the Book of Mormon or hard proof of his own ignorance, and Dehlin's ignorance, of the relevant issues?

When I lived in Nelson England in 1974, we could see Pendle Hill, and one day some members tooks us on an outing to the top.  I'm told that back in the days of witch trials, the thing to do would be to put an accused witch in a barrel with some sharp cutlery, and roll the barrel down the hill.  If the accused survived, they are burned as a witch.  What exactly has been proved in this case?

I am not saying that a person needs to have faith in religious truths of some kind to take Mormon scholars seriously.  But why doesn't it make sense to ask that serious engagement ought to involve serious inquiry? 

I'd also recommend reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

We don't need to prove anything to the mainstream.  By definition, we are our own stream.  We cannot force anyone to become part of our stream, but we can use whatever tools and scholarship and methods we can to explore the implications of our own identity and traditions.  And sometimes, while I doing that, I have learned things that changed my own opinions, usually in positive and enlightening ways.  And sometimes, to my surprise and delight, I have had helped others to have positive and enlightening experiences.  Some dismiss my work, or even delete it.  Sometimes, something like this happens.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol44/iss4/9/

Why should I think of Jenkins as the paradigmatic example of what will inevitably happen when a non LDS scholar examines the Book of Mormon?

The notion of "burden of proof" is basically another way of saying "Not interested" without compulsion.  But we are not in the business of compulsion, but of invitation.  Not everyone accepts invitations.  Not every seed lands on good soil.  Not every seed is nurtured with care.  But some do land on good soil, and the harvest can be amazing.  At least to those who are interested and pay attention and see and touch and taste for themselves.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My point is about how we treat our Grandparents, with respect and love, or as illegitimate?  

My Grandparents and parents are all dead. None were members of the Church. I still respected them, and loved them. But agreeing with them? Not so much.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The notion of "burden of proof" is basically another way of saying "Not interested" without compulsion.  But we are not in the business of compulsion, but of invitation.  Not everyone accepts invitations.  Not every seed lands on good soil.  Not every seed is nurtured with care.  But some do land on good soil, and the harvest can be amazing.  At least to those who are interested and pay attention and see and touch and taste for themselves.

I respect what you've said here, and from what I've read of your posts you are a reasoned and thoughtful person, and I can appreciate what you're saying about the dynamics at play even though I see it differently, admittedly I'm not close to the action or professionally trained like you are.  

I do recognize some of the same issues with the Coe interview that Dehlin conducted, you make reasonable points there.  

For me personally, this may be a generational thing or just the way I'm oriented right now, I see things playing out in the area of Mormon scholarship differently than what you've represented.  The directional change of the Maxwell institute is evidence to me that the tide of those in charge of mainstream Mormon scholarship has shifted.  To me this is symbolic of a larger societal larger trend towards metaphorical approaches to religion, rather than attempts to scientifically prove evidences found in holy texts.  

This is especially true with respect to the BoM, where I'm convinced that the evidence is strongest for this being a purely 19th century work.  There are enough Mormon scholars and thoughtful Mormon thinkers who also see the BoM as a 19th century work that I feel this view will continue to garner legitimacy within Mormonism as time moves forward.  For some people this view is incompatible with authentic Mormonism.  I'm not sure if you fall into this camp or if you are comfortable with those who don't believe in BoM historicity.  

I'm not seeking to convince anyone that the BoM doesn't have an ancient antecedent, even though I don't think it does personally.  I'm not expecting my views to be mainstreamed in Sunday School Mormonism or at the academy.  I would like and hope for respect for those like me who don't find the evidence compelling.  

I completely agree with you that there is a social dimension to rationality, but I don't believe that explains the reasons that mainstream science hasn't found Mormon scholarship on this topic compelling.  The shift of directions for the Maxwell institute at BYU is evidence of a changing strategy.   Unless some major new discovery happens that changes the game, I think the evidence so far is pretty conclusive about BoM historicity, and that evidence does not support it.  

 

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For me personally, this may be a generational thing or just the way I'm oriented right now, I see things playing out in the area of Mormon scholarship differently than what you've represented.  The directional change of the Maxwell institute is evidence to me that the tide of those in charge of mainstream Mormon scholarship has shifted.  To me this is symbolic of a larger societal larger trend towards metaphorical approaches to religion, rather than attempts to scientifically prove evidences found in holy texts.  

I don't think that's a fair caricaturization of the Maxwell Institute. I think the break was much more over tone than anything with apparently Mormon Stories being at the heart of the matter.

In any case there's still The Interpreter and FAIR. I don't think you can neglect those.

Quote

I completely agree with you that there is a social dimension to rationality, but I don't believe that explains the reasons that mainstream science hasn't found Mormon scholarship on this topic compelling.

By and large it's because they think one should adopt the best explanation or at least the ones that seem most likely. Apologetics by its very nature doesn't do that. It can show why it's rational to believe, but makes no claims of being the best explanation in terms of naturalism.

Edited April 7, 2017 by clarkgoble