"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no, it's not.  If the artifact isn't available, then . . . the artifact isn't available.

Not really.  The general unavailability of scientific analysis is still there.  The general principles of historiography are still there.

In such situations, asking why the artifact isn't available for scientific evaluation is a valid historiographical question that can help inform how the evidence ought to be interpreted.

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Special pleading.  That's all you've got.  You want to discount the Witnesses, so you're coming up with ad hoc rationalizations for doing so.

It isn't special pleading, and it isn't an ad hoc rationalization. Throughout this discussion, I've been arguing that in general, when a party controls the evidence, deliberately hides it, and then tries to prove something about it with one or two specific demonstrations that he sets up and controls, the demonstrations are literally contrived--they are deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously. That is why an account of an extraordinary animal seen in the wild is treated differently than an account of one seen in a carnival side show. This is especially true if the carnival refuses to allow experts to independently examine the object of the spectacle. Yes, the evidence of whoever sees the side show is what it is, but it raises a red flag if a scientist could make an independent assessment, but isn't allowed to.

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's you're prerogative, but it's not very persuasive, particularly when you stoop to using deliberately offensive and derogatory terms rather than maintaining some basic level of respect and decorum.

You are free to your opinion on this and all things, of course. To clarify, when I talked about magic shows and magicians, it was an analogy. I didn't deliberately use offensive language.

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith didn't do any such thing.  He returned them to the angel.  There is no cognizable standard of behavior that governs the situation Joseph Smith was in.  There was no protocol for the retention and securing of ancient artifacts given to him by an angel from God.  Your apparent insistence on such a thing is rather strange.

You are begging the question now. Perhaps Joseph Smith was doing nothing more than following the proper protocol of what you do with ancient artifacts given to you by angels. But all that means is that Moroni is the one contriving the evidence, not Joseph Smith. That doesn't change the fact that when evaluating evidence, how it comes about needs to be taken into consideration.

The evidence in this case was in fact contrived. It was deliberately hidden, shown in a contrived situation, and then deliberately made to disappear. Saying that in this case we should disregard those details because of the standards of behaviors when dealing with angels is special pleading.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So too do scientists.

So basically you don't have any information but just object to it not being given to scholars. (If I'm following you correctly) Because it wasn't given open to everyone you just inherently distrust the witnesses because you don't know if they were critical enough. (Not criticizing, just trying to understand your position)

It's not that I "object" to the evidence being what it is. It's just that I find the evidence being what it is fishy. There is no mundane reason why the plates couldn't have been donated to Yale University once Joseph Smith was done with them. That would settle the issue infinitely more than a testimony of 11 hand-picked witnesses from among Joseph Smith's friends and relatives. That is fishy. If there had to be 11 witnesses, why not let 11 scientists make a detailed examination? That would be infinitely stronger than the two statements we have. The fact that such things could have been done but deliberately were not is a red flag.

 

Quote

I'm not following your logic here. How does not releasing all evidence entail the evidence that is released isn't evidence?

Let's put it this way. You do a FOI request for documents and the CIA redacts much of it. Does that mean what isn't redacted isn't evidence?

Fair questions. I'm not saying that the evidence we have doesn't count at all--that it isn't evidence. Rather, I'm just saying that I find it fishy. That isn't to say there couldn't be reasons: perhaps God doesn't want people to be as skeptical as I am; if he wants people to have faith instead, he could deliberately limit the persuasiveness of the evidence in order to maintain the need for faith.

If I can manipulate your analogy, say the CIA claims that something is true, and it is very important to them that the public understands and accepts their position on this. In an attempt to prove that their claim is true, I put in a FOI for documents A-Y. The CIA comes back and says it has those documents but I can't see them. Instead, they give me part of document Z, and I find Z to be a bit underwhelming. In that case the unredacted elements of document Z are evidence, but the fact that they deliberately refrained from giving me A-Y is also part of the story. Why did they want to show me part of Z, and why didn't they want me to see A-Y? Those are valid questions, especially if documents A-Y would definitively prove the veracity of the CIA's reputed position, and they don't provide any convincing reasons for withholding them.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Analytics

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In such situations, asking why the artifact isn't available for scientific evaluation is a valid historiographical question that can help inform how the evidence ought to be interpreted.

Hasn't anyone given you an answer?

Because an all wise God decided this is not in mankind's best interest -- would go against the basics of the Plan of Salvation.

It isn't special pleading, and it isn't an ad hoc rationalization. Throughout this discussion, I've been arguing that in general, when a party controls the evidence, deliberately hides it, and then tries to prove something about it with one or two specific demonstrations that he sets up and controls, the demonstrations are literally contrived--they are deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

God is not a "party", He is God.  And He does not do things to satisfy curiosity but what is in  OUR best interest.

Let us suppose that He did as you demanded, having scientists examine the plates.

Take the example of one of those scientists who is an atheist == though through scientific examination he determines that this is an authentic artifact.  What happens then?

Do you suppose that he will suddenly fall on his knees, renounce his sins, and join the true church, go to the temple and live his entire life in righteousness?
Having a sure knowledge, he no longer has an excuse, and is FORCED to live this life.   Refusing to do so, he will be under a greater condemnation for eternity, than one who does not have such a knowledge.

Edited October 6, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Presumably to protect it from casual viewers who could read it.

It might have been a ritualistic symbol as well.  

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's a pretty cynical view. Enjoy your lunch!

And enjoy your endless .... chat that cannot be resolved ever.

It is not cynical it is totally skeptical.    And waiting to be refuted- be my guest.

I am merely describing stages of belief I have gone through myself.  But that is why I am not concerned about the history of the church in any way.   It is about the beliefs working or not working- it is not about who did what to whom and when though for reasons I will never know, we hear that around here a lot.

Until one has evaluated her veiled assumptions one cannot justify any belief.   And one of those assumptions is that history has anything to do with the ideas of religion.  That is only true if the believer makes it so, and that conclusion is unjustified.

Edited October 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

"associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not."

However, narcissism is not one of the defining characteristics of entrepreneurs, it has never been found to be associated.

Not only that, but Joseph Smith doesn't show most of the characteristics of entrepreneurs either, except on a superficial level.

So we don't have him showing one of the defining symptoms of narcissism, a lack of empathy, there is no indication entrepreneurs are prone to narcissism, and he wasn't an entrepreneur in any sort of technical sense according to my husband who has studied them for almost 40 years.

My husband pointed out Joseph had two stores given to him and he could have cared less about them, gave much of the product away.

As far as narcissism, he had this beautiful horse but gave it away to a man he just met so he could go buy his son's freedom,  Many of the good deeds he did were done quietly and we know of them due to journals.  He was very empathic from what I have read and was able to create  very tight, intimate relationships with his friends...something a narcissist cannot do.

----

The reasoning appears to be he had to be a narcissist because that is why people commit religious frauds.  And he endured because religious frauds are entrepreneurs who show persistence through hardship (that would depend on how they saw the hardship), even though his narcissism would have likely led him to give up quicker when he suffered and there wasn't much actual entrepreneurship in Smith.

[Physics Guy]

On 10/5/2017 at 5:00 AM, mfbukowski said:

And the conclusion?

He was therefore a fraud"

He was therefore a narcissist?

Because he was a fraud or a narcissist?  Is he supposed to be either or both?

And what of the weasel word "usually"?

What is one to take logically about this sentence?  What is its purpose but to poison the well? 

From this one can conclude that since he was not a fraud he was also not a narcissist.   Good point!

The connection between narcissism and religious fraud is one of those points that doesn't make full sense when plucked out of its context in the discussion. As a quick catch-up: Clark was wondering why Smith would have persisted in fraud through setbacks that hurt people near him. My answer, which Clark had actually anticipated explicitly just in milder terms, was that religious fraudsters are often extremely self-centered people who so badly crave acclaim for themselves that they really don't mind much what happens to others. In that sense the leader's conviction of an overriding mission is one element in religious fraud that is often genuine. Thus the fraud theory has no great difficulty in accounting for Smith's persistence in actions that brought suffering to his supporters and family.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

The connection between narcissism and religious fraud is one of those points that doesn't make full sense when plucked out of its context in the discussion. As a quick catch-up: Clark was wondering why Smith would have persisted in fraud through setbacks that hurt people near him. My answer, which Clark had actually anticipated explicitly just in milder terms, was that religious fraudsters are often extremely self-centered people who so badly crave acclaim for themselves that they really don't mind much what happens to others. In that sense the leader's conviction of an overriding mission is one element in religious fraud that is often genuine. Thus the fraud theory has no great difficulty in accounting for Smith's persistence in actions that brought suffering to his supporters and family.

Except that it brought huge suffering to himself as well and from the way he and his friends and family describe their relationship, he had great empathy and intimacy...something a narcissist lacks...which is why he doesn't care about others' pain unless it impacts him.  So if the theory is the probability of religious fraud is high because Smith was a narcissist, then one needs to actually demonstrate that he was a narcissist in something more than a superficial way ignoring a core symptom.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Calm

[Physics Guy]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

"associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not."

However, narcissism is not one of the defining characteristics of entrepreneurs, it has never been found to be associated.

Not only that, but Joseph Smith doesn't show most of the characteristics of entrepreneurs either, except on a superficial level.

So we don't have him showing one of the defining symptoms of narcissism, a lack of empathy, there is no indication entrepreneurs are prone to narcissism, and he wasn't an entrepreneur in any sort of technical sense according to my husband who has studied them for almost 40 years.

My husband pointed out Joseph had two stores given to him and he could have cared less about them, gave much of the product away.

As far as narcissism, he had this beautiful horse but gave it away to a man he just met so he could go buy his son's freedom,  Many of the good deeds he did were done quietly and we know of them due to journals.  He was very empathic from what I have read and was able to create  very tight, intimate relationships with his friends...something a narcissist cannot do.

----

The reasoning appears to be he had to be a narcissist because that is why people commit religious frauds.  And he endured because religious frauds are entrepreneurs who show persistence through hardship (that would depend on how they saw the hardship), even though his narcissism would have likely led him to give up quicker when he suffered and there wasn't much actual entrepreneurship in Smith.

I meant that religious frauds often seem to be narcissists, and also that they can be thought of as entrepreneurs. I did not mean (nor did my words actually imply) that entrepreneurs are narcissistic. I don't expect much correlation between entrepreneurship and narcissism, but neither do I expect anti-correlation. They can occur together.

I've never heard this stories of Joseph Smith being so generous before. Were these instances of generosity and empathy before or after his rise to (local) power and fame as a prophet? If after, then they may not be so inconsistent with narcissism, because it's fun for anyone to play the munificent king when they can afford it. Bernie Madoff was quite the philanthropist. If Smith gave away goods and horses when he was still a struggling nobody himself, however, then I concede that this is less easily consistent with narcissism. How many good deeds by Smith are we talking about? How reliably are they recorded?

I admit that I haven't studied entrepreneurs much, and a relayed discussion with your husband would probably be awkward, but if I were speaking with him myself I'd like to press him to go beyond "technical sense". I was (and am) talking about a psychological make-up that might have kept Smith persisting in a fraud despite setbacks. So I'm focusing on the motivations of entrepreneurs, and not on anything that is "technical" in the sense of being related to investor funding or incorporation law. With only a very little bit of analogous thinking, founding a new religious movement seems so much like founding a new business that I'm really surprised if your husband dismisses the idea so abruptly.

Anyone who starts a new religious movement is launching a new enterprise. Their converts are bound to be much like customers, offering time and commitment, as well as money, in return for a new kind of product. The new firm needs to advertise its product widely, or else with good targeting. It needs to develop a clear brand identity to distinguish itself from the competition. It needs to recruit staff fast enough to grow, while maintaining staff quality. The original founder needs to learn to delegate while retaining the loyalty of the team. The new company needs to continue to improve its products and extend its product line, without alienating customers who bought into the initial line of products. All these activities, and probably more, seem to me like very close parallels between starting a new religious movement and founding a business. I'm fully willing to learn better from a man who has studied entrepreneurship for forty years, but at least at first I'd like to press him with this analogy, and ask whether he's sure he's not just standing too close to the details of commercial entrepreneurship to stand back and see that the pattern extends to another sphere.

At any rate the point I was actually making is that Smith's persistence through setbacks is not a puzzle for the deliberate fraud theory, because persistence is not something that can only be explained by true religious zeal. Entrepreneurs are one example, which seemed particularly apt to me because of the religion-business analogy, to show that plenty of other kinds of people are persistent as well. So Smith could perfectly well have been as persistent in deliberate fraud as entrepreneurs are persistent in building their start-ups.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Except that it brought huge suffering to himself as well and from the way he and his friends and family describe their relationship, he had great empathy and intimacy...something a narcissist lacks...which is why he doesn't care about others' pain unless it impacts him.  So if the theory is the probability of religious fraud is high because Smith was a narcissist, then one needs to actually demonstrate that he was a narcissist in something more than a superficial way ignoring a core symptom.

It's always a dicey proposition to try to boil someone down to a singular "diagnosis." Human beings are complicated, and Joseph Smith was no exception. A faithful LDS historian once said to me that Joseph Smith could be incredibly self-centered and cruel and then be completely selfless and kind. I suspect most humans are like that. I would love to meet Joseph Smith someday and learn what he was really like. I would probably be surprised either way.

[Physics Guy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Except that it brought huge suffering to himself as well and from the way he and his friends and family describe their relationship, he had great empathy and intimacy...something a narcissist lacks...which is why he doesn't care about others' pain unless it impacts him.  So if the theory is the probability of religious fraud is high because Smith was a narcissist, then one needs to actually demonstrate that he was a narcissist in something more than a superficial way ignoring a core symptom.

My idea is not that narcissism makes the fraud probability high, but only that narcissism could counter one particular pro-Smith argument based on his persistence in the face of hardship brought to family and friends. If we assume he was a fraud, then it would be plausible for him to be a narcissist also, and so therefore a pattern of apparently reckless behavior on Smith's part would not say much against the theory of fraud.

Whatever Smith was, he had to deal somehow with bringing hardship to friends. How did he deal with this? That he just didn't care is one option, in principle. Another is that perhaps he rationalized the grief brought to others as not being his fault. Still another is that it bothered him greatly, but he still didn't see any better plan, going forward, than to continue with what he was doing. I assume that the theory that Smith was a genuine prophet picks the third of these options. The fraud theory can also pick this option,  or the second one, instead of the first. By no means is clinical narcissism on Smith's part an essential pillar of fraud theory. It's just an interesting option. Perhaps it's not viable; if it's not, then that's worth noting, but it's not a big deal. There are plenty of ways to be dishonest and selfish without being clinically narcissistic.

Apart from Smith's persistence through hardship to others, the question of why Smith was not deterred by hardship brought on himself is another question. I never meant to bring narcissism to bear on this question (and I don't think my posts do apply it here, if you read them carefully). Here instead is where I point to the mentality of entrepreneurs and inventors, who tend not to give up just because things go wrong. Again the argument is not that Smith must have been a fraud because he was an entrepreneur. It's that if he was a fraud, then he was automatically likely to have an inventor's persistence because inventing a religious fraud is much like inventing any other lucrative trick. So the possibility of Smith persisting through hardship is not much less likely under the fraud theory than it is under the genuine prophet theory. And so the fact that Smith did indeed persist despite hardship is not much evidence in favor of sincerity against fraud.

On the issue of Smith persisting through hardship, the fraud theory is not trying to defeat the genuine prophet theory. On this issue the fraud theory only plays for a draw. I think it gets it. The fraud theory tries to score its winning points on other issues, mainly the suspicious behavior of Smith around his golden plates, the perceived defects in the Book of Mormon, and the things Smith did with power when he got it, including all those polygamous marriages. For me it racks up a lot of points there.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Physics Guy

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

 A faithful LDS historian once said to me that Joseph Smith could be incredibly self-centered and cruel and then be completely selfless and kind.

I've never heard this about JS - even from critics. Do you have any specific examples of this alleged cruelty, or did you perhaps misunderstand this historian as speaking conjecturally? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I've never heard this about JS - even from critics. Do you have any specific examples of this alleged cruelty, or did you perhaps misunderstand this historian as speaking conjecturally? 

No, I didn't misunderstand him at all. He gave some examples, but I'm not going to derail this thread into a discussion of things Joseph did that he or I think were wrong. My point is that, like all of us, Joseph Smith was a complicated person, and it does no good to pigeonhole him as some kind of personality type or disorder.

[Jeanne]

If one is a narcissist, what happens to others around...would not matter.    I wondered in some of the most tender stories of Joseph..how he could set himself up as a General...or even want for presidency of the US. 

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And enjoy your endless .... chat that cannot be resolved ever.

It is not cynical it is totally skeptical.    And waiting to be refuted- be my guest.

I am merely describing stages of belief I have gone through myself.  But that is why I am not concerned about the history of the church in any way.   It is about the beliefs working or not working- it is not about who did what to whom and when though for reasons I will never know, we hear that around here a lot.

Until one has evaluated her veiled assumptions one cannot justify any belief.   And one of those assumptions is that history has anything to do with the ideas of religion.  That is only true if the believer makes it so, and that conclusion is unjustified.

Your perspective is nothing if not interesting.

Some people think the Patriots won a football game last night. Others think the Buccaneers won. There is no way to know for sure, so I believe the Bucs won, because that is the belief that works for me (yes, I realize this isn't a perfect analogy).

From my perspective, I believe some models of the universe better correspond to the unknowable ultimate reality of the universe than others. In this sense, some models are better than others. As a short hand, a model that corresponds better to reality than competing models is called "the truth." I happen to believe with limited evidence that knowing the truth and letting that inform your decisions leads to better decisions. There are interesting exceptions to this, of course, but in general, I'm interested in knowing the truth and then figuring out how to deal with it. Your thought process is obviously different than this. But this is my belief system which I believe works.

From that perspective, figuring out how to best analyze the historical record is interesting. Doing this includes analyzing my own thought process, testing it, considering alternative theories, figuring out how to articulate my thoughts, and examining the cognitive biases that could affect my own judgement. Again, that is what works for me.

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

Let us suppose that He did as you demanded, having scientists examine the plates.

Take the example of one of those scientists who is an atheist == though through scientific examination he determines that this is an authentic artifact.  What happens then?

Do you suppose that he will suddenly fall on his knees, renounce his sins, and join the true church, go to the temple and live his entire life in righteousness?
Having a sure knowledge, he no longer has an excuse, and is FORCED to live this life.   Refusing to do so, he will be under a greater condemnation for eternity, than one who does not have such a knowledge.

If somebody has a sure knowledge that the plates are real and accurately translated, a zillion questions are still left unanswered. Did Joseph Smith's mission end after translating the plates, and his actions after that are all rouge? Or were they translated by the power of the devil rather than the power of God? If he did create an authorized church, which of the dozens of branches is the correct one? Or are they all in apostasy? And if somebody did know that the Monson branch is the correct branch, could he then elect to live a Terrestrial life because that suits him better? Or would God condemn him for that feeling that way?

In any case, it sounds like you agree with me that the evidence of the authenticity of the plates isn't overwhelming.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

On the issue of Smith persisting through hardship, the fraud theory is not trying to defeat the genuine prophet theory. On this issue the fraud theory only plays for a draw. I think it gets it. The fraud theory tries to score its winning points on other issues, mainly the suspicious behavior of Smith around his golden plates, the perceived defects in the Book of Mormon, and the things Smith did with power when he got it, including all those polygamous marriages. For me it racks up a lot of points there.

This seems right. Both sides are trying to find a model that explains the data. While I'll fully confess I find the fraud model not terribly plausible at an emotional level, I recognize others feel exactly the same way about KJV quotations, missing metal & horses, and related things. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If somebody has a sure knowledge that the plates are real

I don't claim to have "a sure knowledge."  I claim to have faith.  And inferential, secondary faith at that.

Quote

and accurately translated,

Again, no "sure knowledge."  Faith.

Quote

a zillion questions are still left unanswered.

Yes.  That is to be expected, is it not?  Hence the need for faith.

Quote

Did Joseph Smith's mission end after translating the plates, and his actions after that are all rouge?

I don't believe his actions were red, no.  Nor rogue, either.

Quote

Or were they translated by the power of the devil rather than the power of God? 

I don't believe so.  The whole "by their fruits" thing seems to be relevant here.  

Quote

If he did create an authorized church, which of the dozens of branches is the correct one?

The LDS Church.  Again, this is a question of faith.  Study, also, to be sure.  But at the end of the day . . . faith.

Quote

Or are they all in apostasy?

I do not believe the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.  I base that on a lot of things, but mostly . . . faith.

Quote

And if somebody did know

"Know?"

Quote

that the Monson branch is the correct branch, could he then elect to live a Terrestrial life because that suits him better?

Certainly.  

Quote

Or would God condemn him for that feeling that way?

"Condemn?"  What does that mean?  Isn't that another way of saying "Or would God grant him salvation in the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is a kingdom of glory beyond our present ability to comprehend?"

I don't see the Terrestrial Kingdom as a place where "condemned" souls are consigned.

Quote

In any case, it sounds like you agree with me that the evidence of the authenticity of the plates isn't overwhelming.

I agree.  The evidence of the authenticity of the plates allows for plausibility.  Faith is still required.  And a fair amount of it, too.

However, I would also posit that "the case" for authenticity is the best explanation based on the evidence.  The "inspired fiction" and "pious fraud" and "bag of sand" and "mass delusion" and umpteen other naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon are substantially more problematic.

An evidence-free, a priori, out-of-hand dismissal is, I think, understandable.  But if one chooses to abstain from reaching an evidence-free, a priori, out-of-hand dismissal, and instead chooses to delve into the evidence, and sticks to generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis, and exercises some measure of faith in lieu of faithlessness, then . . . I think some exciting spiritual and intellectual conclusions can be reached.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 6, 2017 by smac97

[cdowis]

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, it sounds like you agree with me that the evidence of the authenticity of the plates isn't overwhelming.

You and I disagree on what constitutes "evidence".

How about this  

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't claim to have "a sure knowledge."  I claim to have faith.  And inferential, secondary faith at that.

Again, no "sure knowledge."  Faith.

Yes.  That is to be expected, is it not?  Hence the need for faith.

I don't believe so, no.

I don't believe so.  The whole "by their fruits" thing seems to be relevant here.  

The LDS Church.  Again, this is a question of faith.  Study, also, to be sure.  But at the end of the day . . . faith.

I do not believe the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.  I base that on a lot of things, but mostly . . . faith.

"Know?"

Certainly.  

"Condemn?"  What does that mean?  Isn't that another way of saying "Or would God grant him salvation in the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is a kingdom of glory beyond our present ability to comprehend?"

I don't see the Terrestrial Kingdom as a place where "condemned" souls are consigned.

Just to clarify, cdowis hypothesized that the physical evidence for the validity of the plates was deliberately limited because if it wasn't, we'd all be forced to live lives of super righteousness, else be "under a greater condemnation for eternity." While any hypothesis of why God does what he does will ultimately come down to some form of, "He did it that way for our own good," I find this particular one to be problematic, as my rhetorical questions were intended to illustrate.

 

Quote

However, I would also posit that "the case" for authenticity is the best explanation based on the evidence.  The "inspired fiction" and "pious fraud" and "bag of sand" and "mass delusion" and umpteen other naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon are substantially more problematic.

An evidence-free, a priori, out-of-hand dismissal is, I think, understandable.  But if one chooses to abstain from reaching an evidence-free, a priori, out-of-hand dismissal, and instead chooses to delve into the evidence, and sticks to generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis, and exercises some measure of faith in lieu of faithlessness, then . . . I think some exciting spiritual and intellectual conclusions can be reached.

I agree that it's understandable that people reject the story of the witnesses on an a priori basis. But I also believe it is fair game to analyze what happened. My objective is in fact to stick to "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis," but with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism rather than faith.

In Roughing It, Mark Twain quoted the testimonies of the 3 and 8 in their entirety. His reaction was:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either...

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.  

Of course Twain is laying on the sarcasm thickly. I only bring it up because he wasn't making an "evidence-free, a priori out-of-hand dismissal" of what they say. He quotes them in their entirety--he presents the evidence. His sarcasm indicates that he doesn't find the testimonies the least bit convincing, but he doesn't try to articulate why.

I am trying to articulate why. The evidence here really is evidence, but it is manufactured--under the hypothesis the plates were authentic, the only reason why the evidence we have is limited in this particular way is because somebody--be it Joseph Smith, Moroni, or God--decided that the evidence should be limited like this. That is what I mean when I say the evidence is "contrived." Somebody--whether a man, an angel, or God--decided what basket of evidence should be available and then provided that basket and nothing more. That makes the whole thing seem fishy, and makes it difficult to weigh the evidence here in the way we would weigh evidence that appears in natural situations.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Just to clarify, cdowis hypothesized that the physical evidence for the validity of the plates was deliberately limited because if it wasn't, we'd all be forced to live lives of super righteousness, else be "under a greater condemnation for eternity."

I think that's a fair hypothesis.

Quote

While any hypothesis of why God does what he does will ultimately come down to some form of, "He did it that way for our own good," I find this particular one to be problematic, as my rhetorical questions were intended to illustrate.

But your rhetorical questions presuppose a few erroneous things, such as "sure knowledge" of spiritual things (where Latter-day Saints posit that we generally walk by faith), and that ending up in the Terrestrial Kingdom is, in LDS thought, equivalent to "condemnation" by God.

Quote

I agree that it's understandable that people reject the story of the witnesses on an a priori basis. But I also believe it is fair game to analyze what happened.

"Analyze" being the operative word.  In my line of work, baseless, ad hoc speculation that does violence to extant evidence (in this case, mostly historiographic) is not "analysis" in any meaningful sense.

Quote

My objective is in fact to stick to "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis," but with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism rather than faith.

And yet this thread is replete with profound deviations from those generalized principles.  Discounting extant evidence.  Formulating alternative, naturalistic explanations that are devoid of evidence (and which contravene extant evidence).

"Scientific skepticism" is all well and good.  Fabricating explanations out of whole cloth, without any basis in "science" or fact, is . . . something else.

Quote

In Roughing It, Mark Twain quoted the testimonies of the 3 and 8 in their entirety. His reaction was:

Quote

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either...

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

Of course Twain is laying on the sarcasm thickly. I only bring it up because he wasn't making an "evidence-free, a priori out-of-hand dismissal" of what they say.

Well, yes.  That is exactly what he was doing.  He was a satirist.  His point and purpose was to ridicule, not to analyze.  He wasn't operating under "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis ... 'with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism.'" either.  He doesn't provide any substantive examination of evidence.  He just resorts to sarcasm and mockery.  And he lacked information we have.

Quote

He quotes them in their entirety--he presents the evidence.

But only to ridicule.  Not to "analyze" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Quote

His sarcasm indicates that he doesn't find the testimonies the least bit convincing, but he doesn't try to articulate why.

His treatment of the issue is superficial, not substantive.  He does not engage or "analyze" the evidence.  He ridicules it.  He presents no reasoning.  Just mockery.

How this is indicative of using "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis ... 'with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism'" is, frankly, beyond me.

Quote

I am trying to articulate why.

I appreciate that.

Quote

The evidence here really is evidence, but it is manufactured--under the hypothesis the plates were authentic, then the only reason why the evidence we have is limited in this particular way is because somebody--be it Joseph Smith, Moroni, or God--decided that the evidence should be limited like this.

What does "manufactured" mean here?  I assume you mean "to invent fictitiously; fabricate; concoct."

So you aren't evaluating the evidence at all.  You are dismissing it a priori and then creating a series of propositions that will inevitably lead to that preconceived conclusion.  That is not using "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis ... 'with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism'" in any meaningful sense.  It's . . . quite something else.

Quote

That is what I mean when I say the evidence is "contrived." Somebody--whether a man, an angel or God--decided what basket of evidence should be available and then provided that basket and nothing more.

Historical/evidentiary analysis of an imponderable like this (the absence of the plates) is not really possible.  The absence of extant plates is a data point that merits some discussion, but not much "analysis," since all you could do is resort to rank speculation and mindreading and imputing motives nearly 200 years after the fact.  That is not using "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis ... 'with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism'" in any meaningful sense.  It's . . . quite something else.

Quote

That makes the whole thing seem fishy,

I am okay with that sort of skepticism.  So, I think, was Joseph Smith:

Quote

“… You don’t know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."

So skepticism is understandably the beginning.  But it doesn't have to be the end.

Quote

and makes it difficult to weigh the evidence here in the way we would weigh evidence that appears in natural situations.

I quite agree.  We necessarily must work with adapted versions of "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis."  This inquiry is not predominantly legal.  Or historical.  Or scientific.  This inquiry is, in the main, a spiritual one.  It's a question of faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 6, 2017 by smac97

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Just to clarify, cdowis hypothesized that the physical evidence for the validity of the plates was deliberately limited because if it wasn't, we'd all be forced to live lives of super righteousness, else be "under a greater condemnation for eternity." While any hypothesis of why God does what he does will ultimately come down to some form of, "He did it that way for our own good," I find this particular one to be problematic, as my rhetorical questions were intended to illustrate.

"Faith before the miracle" is a well established doctrine.  It is a problem solely for those unfamiliar with  the Plan of Salvation.

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a fair hypothesis.

But your rhetorical questions presuppose a few erroneous things, such as "sure knowledge" of spiritual things (where Latter-day Saints posit that we generally walk by faith), and that ending up in the Terrestrial Kingdom is, in LDS thought, equivalent to "condemnation" by God.

I wasn't presupposing anything. I was evaluating cdowis's hypothesis. He is the one that was speculating about "greater condemnation for eternity" if we sinned against sure knowledge.

 

Quote

His treatment of the issue is superficial, not substantive.  He does not engage or "analyze" the evidence.  He ridicules it.  He presents no reasoning.  Just mockery.

How this is indicative of using "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis ... 'with an appropriate level of scientific skepticism'" is, frankly, beyond me.

My point is that Mark Twain thought the testimonies were so transparently weak it was funny. If a piece of evidence really is transparently weak, are the "generalized principles of evidentiary and historiographical analysis" (GPOEAHA) even necessary? My suggestion is that if one properly applies GPOEAHA, they will confirm what was obvious to Mark Twain--it is in fact weak. My challenge is to articulate why.

 

Quote

I appreciate that.

What does "manufactured" mean here?  I assume you mean "to invent fictitiously; fabricate; concoct."

So you aren't evaluating the evidence at all.  You are dismissing it a priori ...

No, no, and no. You are profoundly not hearing my point.

By "manufactured", I mean that the set of evidence the public was given was deliberately created via selection. I'm not presupposing that the evidence isn't legitimate. Rather, I'm saying that somebody made a conscious decision of what evidence would be presented to the public, and which would not. Under the it's-all-true hypothesis, the plates were a genuine ancient artifact. However, somebody--Moroni or God, presumably--made the decision that Charles Anthon wouldn't be allowed to examine the actual plates, and that when finished, they wouldn't be donated to Harvard University for further analysis and display. Rather, it was decided that there would be two witness statements signed by a total of 11 people, none of whom were experts. Under this hypothesis, all of the evidence in the basket is in fact authentic. However, somebody--presumably God or Moroni--deliberately chose what would be included in that basket and what would be excluded.

If you understand what I just said, you'll recognize that you've already conceded the point. We aren't dealing with evidence that naturally arose out of the course of events. We are dealing with the evidence that was deliberately chosen to be given to us. either by Joseph Smith, Moroni, or God.

The correct application of GPOEAHA insists that details like this being taken into account. The significance and meaning of eleven witnesses who see a woman get cut in half depends on the context of how they saw it. If they saw it on the street that's one thing. If they see it on a magician's stage, that is something else. The context matters. That is what I'm saying.

You found the magician metaphor offensive, so here is another one. Tell me what you think a trained and impartial historian would make of this:

In 1828, a traveler shows up in upstate New York from Egypt named Muroni. Muroni claims that when in Egypt, he found a record written in Egyptian upon a stack of golden plates that are bound together with rings. He claims to have these plates, and an ancient Rosetta Stone that translates Egyptian hieroglyphics into Greek, which he knows how to read. He tells his story to John Smith, and together, the two of them agree to translate the ancient plates. They decide they can't show the plates to anyone, and keep them hidden under a cloth while they work.

Over the course of several months, they start working, but need some funding. To prove to an investor that their work is legitimate, John transcribes a few of the hieroglyphics onto paper, and shows the paper to Charles Anthon at Colombia University. Anthon originally thinks they might be legitimate hieroglyphics, but upon further consideration proclaims them to be a hoax. Eventually Muroni and John finish their translation. Muroni and John decide that it is very important for the world to know about this manuscript and the authenticity of their translation. To prove that it is legitimate, they then call eleven close friends of John to see the plates in a special viewing. None of these friends are experts or trained in scientific observation. At the viewing, they are asked to sign a witness statement that was prepared in advance, which declares that they saw the plates, hefted them, and saw that they look like hieroglyphics. They all sign the statement.

At that point, Muroni says he is satisfied that the legitimacy of their translation and the existence of the artifacts is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He says he doesn't want anybody to steal his valuable plates, so he hides them. For the rest of his life he claims that he still has the plates, but that they are carefully hidden. Eventually Muroni dies and the plates are never seen again.

Scholars read the text that was translated. It is filled with anachronistic references and contains whole chapters match the Bible word for word. A few scattered parts of the translation seem like they could be authentic, when viewed in isolation. There is some disagreement among scholars about whether or not the bulk of the story fits into the ancient world. But the original manuscript and the Rosetta Stone are gone.

This story has no supernatural components, and there are no religious implications to whether or not you believe the translation is valid or if the ancient manuscript exists. It becomes clear that if the Rosetta stone they found is real then in principle, they could have translated the manuscript. The story could be true. There are in fact eleven witnesses of the ancient manuscript, and they never recant their story.

If something like that happened, Muroni's decisions about who to show the plates to, who not to show the plates to do, and how to ultimately dispose of them need to be considered as part of the evidence. Even if the manuscript is authentic and the translation legitimate, the primary evidence--the plates themselves--were deliberately withheld from experts and shown to a very small group of witnesses. Even if the manuscript is authentic, a deliberate decision was made not to show them to dispassionate third parties, much less ones with a scientific background. Even if the manuscript is authentic, a deliberate decision was made for the primary evidence to disappear. Even if the manuscript is authentic, a deliberate decision was made for the witnesses to sign a joint statement, rather than record their independent observations.

That's my best effort to create a basket of evidence commensurate to the Book of Mormon with all of the supernatural and religious elements removed. My contention is that if an open-minded historian applied the GPOEAHA to such a story, he would confidently dismiss it as a hoax. That would be based upon looking at all of the evidence, including the fact that the primary evidence for the existence of the manuscript and reliable secondary evidence could have been presented, but were deliberately withheld.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your perspective is nothing if not interesting.

Some people think the Patriots won a football game last night. Others think the Buccaneers won. There is no way to know for sure, so I believe the Bucs won, because that is the belief that works for me (yes, I realize this isn't a perfect analogy).

From my perspective, I believe some models of the universe better correspond to the unknowable ultimate reality of the universe than others. In this sense, some models are better than others. As a short hand, a model that corresponds better to reality than competing models is called "the truth." I happen to believe with limited evidence that knowing the truth and letting that inform your decisions leads to better decisions. There are interesting exceptions to this, of course, but in general, I'm interested in knowing the truth and then figuring out how to deal with it. Your thought process is obviously different than this. But this is my belief system which I believe works.

From that perspective, figuring out how to best analyze the historical record is interesting. Doing this includes analyzing my own thought process, testing it, considering alternative theories, figuring out how to articulate my thoughts, and examining the cognitive biases that could affect my own judgement. Again, that is what works for me.

Emphasis added

Oh my gosh.  Just forget about it.  In the language game of football it is an absolute truth that the Bucs won- if they won.  I don't follow that stuff so maybe you are putting me on.

It doesn't work for me it all because I have absolutely no interest in who won.   If football disappeared overnight (it might) I don't care

In the context of your life, picking one college over another will work for you or not.   I would not suggest BYU because I don't think it would work for you

Neither of these things have to do with a model of the universe.  Science does not teach us what is the best college for this person named Analytics.   No such empirical experiments have been performed- like cannot be performed on his religious attitudes which are totally unscientific and based on his own subjective judgements.

Previous models of the universe worked with limited success as does this one.  I promise we will yet have models which work better.  You admit that the "ultimate reality" is UNKNOWABLE.  Why postulate an invisible UNKNOWABLE "ultimate reality" that all this is supposed to "correspond to"???

You are more religious than anyone here in believing something unknowable which cannot be observed, just theorized about by finding what works best---- for now.  There IS NO TRUTH to be discovered!!!!!!!  You have said your self it is UNKNOWABLE!

SO HOW CAN YOU FIND OUT IF ANYTHING CORRESPONDS TO THE UNKOWABLE????????   How do you check the unknowable against the model???????

Gosh this is frustrating.

I think science has a new definition for density now.

Edited October 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Emphasis added

Oh my gosh.  Just forget about it.  In the language game of football it is an absolute truth that the Bucs won- if they won.  I don't follow that stuff so maybe you are putting me on.

It doesn't work for me it all because I have absolutely no interest in who won.   If football disappeared overnight (it might) I don't care

In the context of your life, picking one college over another will work for you or not.   I would not suggest BYU because I don't think it would work for you

Neither of these things have to do with a model of the universe.

Previous models of the universe worked with limited success as does this one.  I promise we will yet have models which work better.  You admit that the "ultimate reality" is UNKNOWABLE.  Why postulate an invisible UNKNOWABLE "ultimate reality" that all this is supposed to "correspond to"???

You are more religious than anyone here in believing something unknowable which cannot be observed, just theorized about by finding what works best---- for now.  There IS NO TRUTH to be discovered!!!!!!!  You have said your self it is UNKNOWABLE!

SO HOW CAN YOU FIND OUT IF ANYTHING CORRESPONDS TO THE UNKOWABLE????????   How do you check the unknowable against the model???????

Gosh this is frustrating.

I think science has a new definition for density now

Whether or not I can find out if anything corresponds to the unknowable is besides the point. The point is that models that withstand the most empirical tests and explain the imperfectly observed evidence work for me.

Please watch the following video if you still don't get the point.