Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I don’t know much about Dehlin.  He does seem to prefer interviewing people and doing podcasts.  We can’t really know why he doesn’t put things in writing (I’m assuming he doesn’t put out a transcript of the interview?  That’s what I’d prefer.)

I'm not the first one to make this observation about Dehlin.  From Greg Smith's piece:

Quote

At one point, Dehlin indicated that his stake president would “be reviewing my site,” 25 although he later reported that the evaluation had, in fact, been ongoing for months before.26 One of his readers spotted a potential problem with this approach: “Wait, John’s site is very light on text based content, and very rich in podcasts. I’m seeing 254 podcasts and most of them are multi-hour. In order to ‘review’ the content, he will have to listen to most of these.”

This perceptive observation highlights one of the many differences between podcasts and text-based discussions of LDS history, doctrine, or theology. For example, podcasts are not easily amenable to computer-based searches. The speed at which they can be consumed is relatively fixed. At best one can speed the audio playback somewhat. Even having listened to a podcast, one cannot easily cite its contents. One cannot cut and paste text from digital audio or even transcribe the exact argument for further analysis, discussion, comparison, or refutation without laboriously replaying the recording, typing, and double-checking.27

Also, podcasts do not provide a mechanism for source checking and citation. One does not even expect such tools, and their absence will excite no remark whatever. There are no footnotes in podcasts.  Listeners must simply trust that a speaker is being accurate and honest with them.

Like the written op-ed pieces they resemble, podcasts are entertaining and easily accessible. They can be wonderful tools for producing sympathy, for humanizing people, and for creating a type of emotional resonance. These are not defects, and Dehlin is exceptionally gifted in how he uses the strengths of his chosen medium.

...

Podcasts are particularly illsuited to doing what Dehlin initially set as a goal—provide a thorough airing of difficult issues that help people come to some type of resolution consistent with faith. Dehlin admits that he does not go in with much preparation29 and he at times claims that this is actually a strength...

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not the first one to make this observation about Dehlin.  From Greg Smith's piece:

Thanks,

-Smac

So even Greg Smith can’t bring himself to say Dehlin is deliberately making it difficult to source check. 

[cinepro]

Quote

I guess I want to hear from some of you—who have chosen to not seriously engage these evidences—explain why you have made this choice, especially in light of my analysis above. And I am being sincere here. I don’t want to rehash each of these issues and prove I am right. I just genuinely want to understand your rationale.

I hope Ryan has followed this thread, because while not a lot of new ground has been covered, it has certainly put all the reasons non-believers probably don't need to "seriously engage these evidences" all in one place, and I think he'll find his question to have been answered pretty thoroughly, with many good examples. 

It might not be the answer he wanted, but I think it's the correct one.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So even Greg Smith can’t bring himself to say Dehlin is deliberately making it difficult to source check. 

Nor have I. It's just a suspicion.  And perhaps one I should not have voiced publicly.

Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Nor have I. It's just a suspicion.  And perhaps when I should not have voiced publicly.

I’m not a fan of Dehlin, but I don’t think his choice of medium is suspicious. 

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let me illustrate: Let's say that you gave me three quarters last week, and I returned home and put them in my piggy bank.  Today you come to my house and ask me to return one of those quarters, explaining that it has great sentimental value for you.  I say "Well, here's my piggy bank.  It has dozens of quarters in it.  Which one is yours?"  Would you get angry with me?  Would you refuse to respond to my request for clarification, and again insist that I pick out your specific quarter?  Would you resent my request that you differentiate your quarter from the others?  Would you say "The inability to distinguish my quarter from all of your quarters isn't my problem?"

Hamblin had a point, and Jenkins didn't address it.

 

While I recognize no analogy is perfect, I think yours has one fatal flaw.

In your analogy, both parties agree 100% that three of those quarters were given to you by the other last week.  So your analogy is better applied to two believers in the Book of Mormon talking to each other.

But if you're talking to a non-believer in the Book of Mormon, then that premise doesn't hold.  Because the question isn't about picking out quarters.  It's about whether or not three of those quarters are any different than the others.

Instead, it would be like you bringing me your piggy bank and saying that last week, you bumped into Russell Crowe on the sidewalk.  You asked him if you could borrow three quarters, but instead of giving you three quarters, he gave you three coins that had been actual props on the set of "Gladiator" (which happens to be my favorite movie in the world).  I get really excited, and ask if I can see these prop coins, and you pull out three regular looking quarters.  I point out that they just look like regular quarters, to which you respond "Why would you assume that they wouldn't look like regular quarters?  That's an assumption you brought to the story.  Prop roman coins look just like regular quarters, but you can know that they were given to me by Russell Crowe because I said they were."

I could choose to believe your story, but it would still be kind of a stretch to say that those three quarters are evidence of the story.

Honestly, if you look at the early days of the Church, from Adam's altar to Zelph's bones, Mormons might have played a little fast and loose with what could be considered "evidence."  Certainly, Joseph Smith seemed to find amazing artifacts everywhere he went and may have let his imagination get ahead of him at times.  If this propensity has survived in Mormon culture, it might behoove outside observers to be extra cautious about Mormons who ascribe otherwise regular "artifacts" with additional meaning.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, a request for evidence for a text that makes specific cultural and technological claims is facile and unreasonable? OK. 

We may be back to why are we doing this?  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

We may be back to why are we doing this?  

Indeed 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Olmec worked tons of native iron ore (gathered from outcroppings locally), so that heating a bloom of iron was not outside their potential.  One does not have to melt the iron, but only soften it and work it as a blacksmith.  That is how a Japanese katana is still produced.  During the process of heating in hot coals, beating, and quenching, one carburizes the iron, thus making it into steel.

The issue is why this wouldn't affect pottery as I understand it. I'll confess I don't know the data of how metallurgy progression affects pottery hardening - but I assume JKWilliams has some history to his claim. It's an interesting charge I'd not seen before. I've not had time to look anything up yet.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm trying to imagine this. How would a regional flood in the Carolinas affect Jackson County Missouri, which is a thousand miles away on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains and the other side of the Mississippi River?

I really can't tell if you are serious or not. If you are, when did this happen? Presumably between 4,000 BC and 10,000 BC? If so, what is the relationship between Adam and the humans who had already been living all around the world for tens of thousands of years?

I think the argument is that Noah didn't live anywhere near where Adam came out of Eden nor is there anything in the text suggesting he did. As for when, we don't know and I simply don't trust the dates in Genesis nor the interpretation of the seven seals as implying just 7000 years post Adam. So I'm open to a range of dates. But if it is roughly akin to the Bible then we're talking around 3000 - 2000 BC. Babylonian and Egyptian culture are of course in high gear by then. I don't think the flood brought Noah to near Iraq myself but suspect he came to the Mediterranean and then likely moved to the Syrian region or so. He, like the Nephites, would have then found himself as a small population among many others. But again I don't trust the Genesis dates and don't think Joseph was inspired to correct them. So in a certain sense all bets are off.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not conflating anything. Two cultures spanning thousands of years, both with high heat technology. Any evidence for that? Nope. Sorensen uses metallurgy as synonymous to smelting/high heat. Only the “metallurgy” he’s talking about is metalworking, which does not involve smelting and high heat. 

It really isn’t that difficult. High heat smelting has a ripple effect in material culture, and that effect isn’t seen in Mesoamerica. 

What am I missing?

I think the issue is what temperatures matter for this shift in pottery that doesn't happen in mesoamerica. We have that one passage in Ether that seems to talk about high temperatures yet the other passages for both the later Nephite and Jaredite cultures appears not to involve smelting. So technology was lost, although Robert's point is I believe low temperature softening. I assume you believe that would also have an effect on pottery. I'm curious as to how much. BTW - do you have a good source on this? I'm not challenging you just very curious.

Edited June 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  The question was facile.  Unreasonable.  Essentially unanswerably in any meaningful way.

I disagree.  The back and forth really didn't accomplish much, except to demonstrate Jenkins' lack of familiarity with scholarship about the Book of Mormon, his unreasonable expectations, and his refusal to change either of these things.

That's not what he is saying.  There may very well be "Nephite" artifacts in museums and such.  We just don't know enough to recognize them as such.  What does a Nephite artifact look like?

I didn't sa the burden has not been met.  I'm saying Jenkins' request was facile and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m going off memory of Jenkins/hamblin.  I’m hapoy to accept any corrections.  So thanks.  

When a claim is made I’m not sure why it’s not reasonable for another to request evidence for it.  If there was a Christ believing nephrite/lamanite civilization in the americas 2600-1400 years ago how would we know without god telling us about them at this point?   It sounds to me any possible connection is valid to a believer, but in terms of qualified evidence of such a thing it sounds like ther s nothing, right?  Or if something what is it?  That seems to be what Jenkins requested and what hamblin n failed to provide.  The smoke screen of wanting Jenkins to define whatever he’d consider eivdence was interesting to a point, but it also deflected from the original request.  If there was something that hamblin could have provided as evidence then he’d have met the initial challenge and we’d all be happily past it.  But no evidence was given and all we saw was attempted reasoning for why no evidence is available.  

[Rajah Manchou]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The back and forth really didn't accomplish much, except to demonstrate Jenkins' lack of familiarity with scholarship about the Book of Mormon, his unreasonable expectations, and his refusal to change either of these things.

Again, let's not confuse critics of the Mesoamerica and Heartland model as critics of Book of Mormon historicity. I've been in contact with Jenkins several times over the past two years. I can assure you that he is familiar with the scholarship, and he is reasonable. Keep an eye on his blog for a post on this topic.

If you'd like a head start on the material, read up on the history of Judaism/Christianity in India and Burma, and the Emmonite missionaries who discover the myth of a lost golden book of God two years before the Book of Mormon was published.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm trying to imagine this. How would a regional flood in the Carolinas affect Jackson County Missouri, which is a thousand miles away on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains and the other side of the Mississippi River?

There is no affect on Jackson County, Missouri, nor should there be.  You are conflating two separate events.  Garden of Eden is unrelated to the Flood.  Noah in the Carolinas was referred to by Oliver B. Huntington in Juvenile Instructor, (15 Nov 1895):700-701, as cited by Tanner & Tanner, Changing World of Mormonism, 23.  Humans get around.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I really can't tell if you are serious or not. If you are, when did this happen? Presumably between 4,000 BC and 10,000 BC? If so, what is the relationship between Adam and the humans who had already been living all around the world for tens of thousands of years?

It really doesn't matter to me when or where Noah actually set off on his local flood action. The main feature is the drifting to the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, etc.), which is  not much different from the drifting barges of the Jaredites.  The event is not one of only Noah and his family, because humans exist in many places on the Earth already.  The Flood is a ritual, just as the event in the Garden is a ritual, and it entails all those who have already existed and all those who will exist -- just as it does in any regular LDS endowment session today.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yeah....I get that, thanks Robert.

It just seems like a whole lot of arguing over evidence that doesn't exist (or hasn't been found if it does exist).  I'm open to look at what Scott or Smac have if they can provide some links.

Plenty of evidence exists, but the problem is akin to the koan in which one contemplates the sound of one hand clapping.  I can cite endless books and articles by qualified anthropologists, but does that really matter?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

One thing I learned in my faith crisis was that it was ok to be wrong. If I’m wrong again, I’m happy to be shown how. Life would be much easier in many ways if I could believe again. 

I find it painful to wrap my mind around new technology, and in some cases have been defeated by it.  I have also had to accept some painful truths in my life, and better decision-making could have helped me avoid some of that.  My faith is that life is not a zero sum game, and that God will even things out at the final bugle call.  I admire those who can make lemonade out of the lemons they have received.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My mistake. It was my ability to comprehend a video that you commented on. 

Actually what I said was this:
 

Quote

 

The video you linked to said there was already a complex civilization in place. 

How closely did you watch that video anyway?

 

So I was not commenting on your "ability to comprehend a video." I was asking how attentive you were in viewing the video. There's quite a difference. My question had nothing to do with your comprehension skill level.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I didn't mean in any way to comment on anyone's character, and I didn't read smac97's comment that way. 

My comment was more specifically about Dehlin, but also about video/audio only messages in general. I see Rush Limbaugh and most talk radio this way. It's not the way serious academic argument is done. 

Not to derail but....Correction: Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows, they are available in transcriptions 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/archives/ 

which include linked  source references.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nor have I. It's just a suspicion.  And perhaps one I should not have voiced publicly.

Interesting thought, though.

It's really inconvenient to source check a video or audio program. I was reminded of that earlier today when I partially viewed the video that jkwilliams linked to and found out it didn't quite bear out what he had said. I had to listen to the thing in real time and wind it back -- sometimes two or three times -- when I found a something I wanted to quote. And I only got through 23 minutes of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s not an attack. The text asserts an influx of Hebrews, and the video says the immigrants quickly led the development of a great civilization. There’s no evidence of that. How is that an attack?

Where does the text assert an influx? It tells of a single migration by one colony of a dozen or so family members. In whose lexicon does that amount to an "influx"?

It is an attack in that it seeks to shed doubt on Book of Mormon authenticity by presuming a fact not in evidence: that the Nephites' Hebrew roots would have influenced the millions of indigenous peoples rather than the reverse, that the Nephites would have been culturally assimilated into the indigenous cultures (while more or less retaining their own religious identity over time, of course).

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where does the text assert an influx? It tells of a single migration by one extended family. In whose lexicon does that amount to an "influx"?

At what point in their history did the Nephites become a great civilization? Even at the visit of the Savior they still occupied a relatively small geographic area.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

At what point in their history did the Nephites become a great civilization. Even at the visit of the Savior they still occupied a relatively small geographic area.

You'd have to watch the video to get the context. At one point, the video talks about Nephi becoming the leader of the existing indigenous civilization by virtue of his own leadership prowess. I think jkwilliams is making too much of that portion of the video, and he appears to be doubling down on it.

 

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where does the text assert an influx? It tells of a single migration by one colony of a dozen or so family members. In whose lexicon does that amount to an "influx"?

It is an attack in that it seeks to shed doubt on Book of Mormon authenticity by presuming a fact not in evidence: that the Nephites' Hebrew roots would have influenced the millions of indigenous peoples rather than the reverse, that the Nephites would have been culturally assimilated into the indigenous cultures (while more or less retaining their own religious identity over time, of course).

As I said, I am under no illusion that anyone’s mind will be changed, and the idea that I’m trying to “shed doubt on the Book of Mormon” is simply wrong. What other people believe is their business, not mine. I think the attempt to put Nephi in charge of Kaminaljuyu is untenable, but what does that have to do with anyone’s faith?

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You'd have to watch the video to get the context. At one point, the video talks about Nephi becoming the leader of the existing indigenous civilization by virtue of his own leadership prowess. I think jkwilliams is making too much of that portion of the video, and he appears to be doubling down on it.

Maybe I am. The video claims that Nephi and his successors (so honored that "Nephi" became the king-title) ruled the Land of Nephi for some 400 years until Mosiah and his people fled. As the video says, they may have adopted much of the material culture of the existing population, but they preserved what was important: their religion. For more than half that time (until 399-361 BC, according to the LDS scripture heading), they were making weapons and tools of iron and steel. Do we see any evidence for these cultural and technological practices? No, we do not. Does that mean the Nephites weren't there? No, it just means we have no way of knowing whether they were or not. Given the absence of evidence, the claims about Kaminaljuyu are purely speculative. Saying that is in no way attempting to shed doubt on the Book of Mormon.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not to derail but....Correction: Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows, they are available in transcriptions 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/archives/ 

which include linked  source references.

It seems like a lifetime ago that I listened to Rush Limbaugh during my commute in Houston. My introduction to him came when I was taking a bath at my parents' house, and my father unlocked the bathroom door, barged in, and handed me The Way Things Ought to Be, telling me, "Here, you need to read this!" Incidentally, Limbaugh does the same self-deprecating humor that I have been criticized for doing. Maybe I picked it up from him. 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m talking about this thread. Supposedly there’s all this mutually corroborating evidence that we critics are just to thick or stubborn to admit. But when someone asks for evidence supporting rather specific historical claims, that’s just facile because the claims are untestable. We’ll posit the city of Nephi was Kaminaljuyu, but don’t ask us to support it with evidence  

Again, this is why engaging apologetics is a fool’s errand. 

Ah, THAT'S why you keep coming back! 

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not to derail but....Correction: Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows, they are available in transcriptions 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/archives/ 

which include linked  source references.

Correction accepted. Thanks for the information.