Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I’m saying there isn’t any evidence, and the approach seems to be to come up with reasons why we shouldn’t be looking for evidence. 

I’m with Mark: people don’t believe in the Book of Mormon because of archaeological or linguistic evidence. 

To me it's like asking in 2000 years what Mormon Metallurgy or Mormon Pottery looks like?

We are so immersed in this notion of some kind of a separate ethnic culture for the Nephites, that we are looking for a people different than the surrounding culture.

Yes there will be written records of Mormons, but we are immersed in a larger culture. There could be ruined edifices but indistinguishable from the general 21st century culture.

That is the point Smac is trying to make to no avail because no one is listening.

It's the philosophy that stands out not the ethnicity.

But of course by then Jesus will have come back to Salt Lake City. 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Just for the record, in March 1832 Joseph Smith asked God about the book of Revelations, and God told him that the seven seals represent the seven thousand years of the earth's temporal existence (see D&C 77:6). So clearly Joseph wasn't inspired to correct the Genesis dates, because he was inspired to validate them.

But let's put that aside and assume the 7000 years of the earth's temporal existence are 7000 symbolic years of indeterminate length. If we start with the established timeline of history, we have the species Homo Sapiens existing for about 300,000 years and for most of that time, living exclusively in Africa. About 70,000 years ago there was a "Cognitive Revolution" where humans began to think abstractly and believe things that simply aren't true, which allowed them to cooperate in large numbers and thereby jump to the top of the food chain (See Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind for details of what I'm talking about here). Shortly thereafter, they began to spread out of Africa and conquer Eurasia. 45,000 years ago they began to travel the seas and settled Australia. Then about 16,000 years ago during a great ice age when the sea level was much lower, they followed herds of mammoths across the bearing straight, and then over the next couple of thousand years they inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere--all the way down to the island of Tierra del Fuego on the bottom tip of South America. All branches of science corroborate this basic narrative.

So how does Adam fit into this? Y-chromosome Adam would have been an African from something like 300,000 years ago. But the priesthood Adam was from Missouri some time after that. So what's going on? Did God place his literal son Adam in the Garden of Eden in a world where there had already been human beings for hundreds of thousands of years? If he was literally a child of God with in an immortal body, why would it be the least bit genetically similar to the animals who had evolved independently on earth? Or maybe Adam was simply a descendent of normal human beings who was never the immortal son of an immortal Kolobian in the first place? When educated Mormons embraced evolution, they dropped the traditional doctrine of the Fall where nothing died before Adam fell. So if they can drop the idea of the Fall, why not drop the concept that Adam was ever immortal to begin with?

So, maybe Adam was a descendent of the people who had relatively recently settled in America after crossing the Bearing Straight? Then he could have had a descendent that lived in North Carolina. But if God would have told Noah there was going to be a big local flood, why not just hike up to dry ground in the Smokey Mountains? Why build an arc? If we assume that he did build an arc, why bother with two animals of every kind? If we assume he did that anyway, how come none of the animals indigenous to North America traveled with him back to the old world? And when he arrived there, why didn't he notice that advanced civilizations were already there?

My point is that everything we've learned in the last 150 years has validated and refined the theory of evolution, and everything has contributed to, refined, corroborated, and proven the story of natural history. This story bears essentially no resemblance to the myths in the Old Testament. In contrast, the Book of Mormon corroborates the myths of the Bible. The Book of Mormon being true proves that the Tower of Babel is true history, including its backstory of a global flood and everybody on the planet speaking the same language and the subsequent confounding of the languages. On the other hand, maybe none of that actually happened, and what the Book of Mormon talks about are simply the myths that its ancient compilers believed? I sometimes use the phraseology of considering whether the Book of Mormon is "an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript", because it broadly allows for the possibility that Mormon and Moroni really did compile a book of their history and myths around the year AD 400. That grants that the book could still be "true" even though it contains things we now know are myths. But even then, it bears way too much resemblance to the myths of 19th century Christianity to be plausibly true. Myths and religious views evolve too much to have such a close resemblance. There is no way the myths and history written in Mesoamerica (and/or New York) in the year AD 400 would fit so nicely with the Christianity that existed in the burnt over district of New York in the 1820's.

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  Precisely the opposite is the case for Mormons.  Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all ,

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/ .

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say Mormons are stupid or uneducated. I said that their religious beliefs contradict what we know about natural history, and that the only way to be educated and hold such conflicting views is to either have faith as a religious exercise with a Pascal's Wager approach, or simply compartmentalize your beliefs, or to put them on a shelf.

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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.

You are providing the Tanners(!) as a reference for this? I still can't tell if you are serious.

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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.

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.

There's a lot of research out there on the relationship between the development of high-heat pottery techniques (kilns, etc.) and the development of metallurgy. As far as the Book of Mormon goes, Deanne Matheny notes the low-tech firing practices of the Maya in her chapter of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. She notes that John Sorensen, among others, conflates metalworking with metallurgy, when it's the latter that is described in some detail in the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Sorenson raises some intriguing and legitimate questions about the presence of metal artifacts in contexts earlier than the Postclassic at Mesoamerican sites. Most of these artifacts date to the Classic period, although one example of copper may date as early as the first century B.C. (1985, 278-79; 1976, 1-8). Sorenson suggests that the question about metal in Mesoamerica should shift from “Why was there no metal in early Mesoamerica” to “Why do we recover so little evidence [p.290] of the metallurgical skill that was surely there?” (1985, 279). The question could better be phrased: Where did the metal artifacts found in Classic period contexts in Mesoamerica originate; that is, do they reflect a local metallurgical tradition?

Karen Bruhns has explored the issue of early metals in southern Mesoamerica in a well-researched article and remarks that the Maya had some access to metal objects from the Early Classic period onwards. After a review of the information available about these early metal objects, she concludes that the “only relatively certain statement that can be made is, with the possible exception of the Soconusco disks … all Classic period metal objects found in Mesoamerica are obviously southeastern in manufacture” (1989, 221). This means that these artifacts were made not in the Mayan area or in another region of Mesoamerica but in lower Central America.

If these metal objects were available to the Maya by at least Early Classic times, then the obvious problem becomes explaining why the Maya did not begin producing their own metal artifacts given the availability of gold, silver, and copper in eastern Guatemala, western Honduras, and El Salvador. Bruhns suggests that the southern Mesoamericans lacked adequate pyrotechnology to make the transition to successful metallurgy (1989, 224). Specifically they lacked the technological prowess to attain and maintain the necessary temperatures to smelt metal. The ceramics from the area were fired in poorly controlled open fires, which often resulted in fire-clouding and incompletely oxidized areas. Only by the Late Classic and Early Postclassic periods does evidence exist that the Maya had begun producing ceramic vessels in controlled firing situations, including kilns. The adoption of the Central American metallurgical technology occurred in the Mayan area soon after the production of Plumbate pottery began. Plumbate pottery has a vitrified surface and, according to Bruhns, the “temperatures which produce the characteristic vitrification of Tohil Plumbate are precisely those which are appropriate for smelting” (1986, 226). http://signaturebookslibrary.org/new-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon-07-2/

Anyway, I'm not trying to "shed doubt" on anything. Calm asked what I would expect to see in Nephite artifacts, and high-heat pottery is a pretty good indicator that the technology mentioned was present. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just don't find it persuasive to argue simultaneously that there is "evidence" and that the Nephite civilization, its religion, and its technologies, were swallowed whole by the larger culture and left no trace. 

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To me it's like asking in 2000 years what Mormon Metallurgy or Mormon Pottery looks like?

We are so immersed in this notion of some kind of a separate ethnic culture for the Nephites, that we are looking for a people different than the surrounding culture.

Yes there will be written records of Mormons, but we are immersed in a larger culture. There could be ruined edifices but indistinguishable from the general 21st century culture.

That is the point Smac is trying to make to no avail because no one is listening.

It's the philosophy that stands out not the ethnicity.

But of course by then Jesus will have come back to Salt Lake City. 

 

My point was that, in matters of faith, archaeological evidence is irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just for the record, in March 1832 Joseph Smith asked God about the book of Revelations, and God told him that the seven seals represent the seven thousand years of the earth's temporal existence (see D&C 77:6). So clearly Joseph wasn't inspired to correct the Genesis dates, because he was inspired to validate them.

But let's put that aside and assume the 7000 years of the earth's temporal existence are 7000 symbolic years of indeterminate length. If we start with the established timeline of history, we have the species Homo Sapiens existing for about 300,000 years and for most of that time, living exclusively in Africa. About 70,000 years ago there was a "Cognitive Revolution" where humans began to think abstractly and believe things that simply aren't true, which allowed them to cooperate in large numbers and thereby jump to the top of the food chain (See Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind for details of what I'm talking about here). Shortly thereafter, they began to spread out of Africa and conquer Eurasia. 45,000 years ago they began to travel the seas and settled Australia. Then about 16,000 years ago during a great ice age when the sea level was much lower, they followed herds of mammoths across the bearing straight, and then over the next couple of thousand years they inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere--all the way down to the island of Tierra del Fuego on the bottom tip of South America. All branches of science corroborate this basic narrative.

So how does Adam fit into this? Y-chromosome Adam would have been an African from something like 300,000 years ago. But the priesthood Adam was from Missouri some time after that. So what's going on? Did God place his literal son Adam in the Garden of Eden in a world where there had already been human beings for hundreds of thousands of years? If he was literally a child of God with in an immortal body, why would it be the least bit genetically similar to the animals who had evolved independently on earth? Or maybe Adam was simply a descendent of normal human beings who was never the immortal son of an immortal Kolobian in the first place? When educated Mormons embraced evolution, they dropped the traditional doctrine of the Fall where nothing died before Adam fell. So if they can drop the idea of the Fall, why not drop the concept that Adam was ever immortal to begin with?

So, maybe Adam was a descendent of the people who had relatively recently settled in America after crossing the Bearing Straight? Then he could have had a descendent that lived in North Carolina. But if God would have told Noah there was going to be a big local flood, why not just hike up to dry ground in the Smokey Mountains? Why build an arc? If we assume that he did build an arc, why bother with two animals of every kind? If we assume he did that anyway, how come none of the animals indigenous to North America traveled with him back to the old world? And when he arrived there, why didn't he notice that advanced civilizations were already there?

My point is that everything we've learned in the last 150 years has validated and refined the theory of evolution, and everything has contributed to, refined, corroborated, and proven the story of natural history. This story bears essentially no resemblance to the myths in the Old Testament. In contrast, the Book of Mormon corroborates the myths of the Bible. The Book of Mormon being true proves that the Tower of Babel is true history, including its backstory of a global flood and everybody on the planet speaking the same language and the subsequent confounding of the languages. On the other hand, maybe none of that actually happened, and what the Book of Mormon talks about are simply the myths that its ancient compilers believed? I sometimes use the phraseology of considering whether the Book of Mormon is "an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript", because it broadly allows for the possibility that Mormon and Moroni really did compile a book of their history and myths around the year AD 400. That grants that the book could still be "true" even though it contains things we now know are myths. But even then, it bears way too much resemblance to the myths of 19th century Christianity to be plausibly true. Myths and religious views evolve too much to have such a close resemblance. There is no way the myths and history written in Mesoamerica (and/or New York) in the year AD 400 would fit so nicely with the Christianity that existed in the burnt over district of New York in the 1820's.

You really need to learn more about the concept of "truth".

You are about 200 years behind.

The idea that learning to believe in things that are not true caused a huge cognitive advancement is simply contradictory and absurd.

Paradigm's dude paradigms. 

This is so confused I don't even want to touch it. 

Here.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

My point was that, in matters of faith, archaeological evidence is irrelevant.

No I got it and we agree.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

That's a fair critique.  I accept it.

Quote

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."

That's actually a pretty good one.  So we're left with . . . a stalemate.  The "prop coins" cannot be differentiated from regular quarters (maybe they were used in a slightly out-of-focus shot in the film, such that the audience was never given an opportunity to see that they weren't customized "Roman" coins, but just regular quarters).  There's no way to "test" the quarters, and no real way to "test" that Russell Crowe gave them to me (in the hypothetical, Mr. Crowe has since died), or that Mr. Crowe was telling the truth.

That's pretty much Hamblin's point.  We presently lack the ability to differentiate quarters from each other.  Some of them may well have come from Russell Crowe, and could have been used as props in "Gladiator," but there really isn't a way to test or confirm that.

This illustrates the futlity of Jenkins' request.  He is insisting that Russell Crowe's quarters, having been dropped into my piggy bank, now be easily and obviously differentiated from the dozens/hundreds of other quarters.  When I explain that there really isn't a way to differentiate them, then he says "Hah!  So your inability to differentiate the quarters Russell Crowe purportedly gave you is proof that you never met Russell Crowe at all!"

But it's not evidence of that at all.  The mixed quarters neither prove nor disprove anything about whether I met Russell Crowe, because there is no way to differentiate the quarters from each other.

So it is with so-called "Nephite" pottery sherds.  Hamblin postulates - correctly, in my view - that we presently lack data that allows us to meaningfully identify "Nephite" artifacts and differentiate them from any other ancient Mesoamerican artifacts.  If Hamblin is wrong, then I invite you to explain the metrics by which we could do this.  What does a "Nephite" pottery sherd look like?

Quote

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.

I agree 100%.  I've never claimed that those three quarters are evidence for the Russell Crowe story.  Rather, I'm saying that the inability to differentiate those quarters from all the other quarters in my piggy bank puts you and me in a stalemate.  Those quarters are evidence of . . . nothing, really.  Neither for nor against the Russell Crowe story.  

That is why I have characterized Jenkins' "challenge" as facile and unreasonable.  He wanted Hamblin to show him a "Nephite" pottery sherd, but then refuses to explain how he proposes to differentiate "Nephite" pottery from any other pottery in ancient Mesoamerica.  

It's Jenkins' demand that is under discussion here.

Quote

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." 

I agree.  There was a great excitement at the time.  And 19th-century Mormons weren't situated in the same way we are.  This is why I am grateful that A) the Church focuses on spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon through study and prayer as the principal means by which we "prove" the truth of the Book of Mormon, and B) LDS scholars are applying improved and refined principles of scholarship and evidence and taking a much more circumspect approach to "what could be considered 'evidence'" for the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Certainly, Joseph Smith seemed to find amazing artifacts everywhere he went and may have let his imagination get ahead of him at times. 

I am open to that possibility.  

Quote

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.

I agree.  You seem to be echoing Hamblin, who was demonstrably reluctant to "ascribe otherwise regular 'artifacts' with additional meaning."  He declined to attempt to identify Nephite pottery sherds because we presently lack sufficient information to differentiate such sherds from any other artifacts from ancient Mesoamerica.

Reputable LDS scholars understand your caution and have been applying it for quite a while.  By way of example, when I was a child my parents had a large plaster rendition of the Stela 5, Izapa carving.  This one:

I remember asking my dad about it, and he said something like "Well, this is a replication of a stone carving found in southern Mexico that might be a representation of Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life."  Many years later, however, I asked my dad about it again, and he said "It turns out that this carving probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon."  While some preliminary assessments of this stone drew some correlations between it at Lehi's vision (see, e.g., here), additional scrutiny by well-qualified LDS scholars (Nibley, Clark, Gardner) has pretty much debunked any relationship (see, e.g., here, here, here).  Brant Gardner, much to his credit, has authored a concise summary of this issue: "To Good To Be True: Questionable Archaeology and the Book of Mormon."

In contrast, Warren Aston's discovery of the NHM altar appears to be holding up quite well (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here).  Jenkins critiques (ridicules, really) this issue here.  Jenkins doesn't impress here.  

All in all, it seems like LDS scholars are doing a pretty good job of not jumping to conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You really need to learn more about the concept of "truth".

You are about 200 years behind.

The idea that learning to believe in things that are not true caused a huge cognitive advancement is simply contradictory and absurd.

Paradigm's dude paradigms. 

This is so confused I don't even want to touch it. 

Here.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Have you read "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" (2011) by Yuval Noah Harari?

Your link was published before Harari's book was published  and isn't an effective rebuttal.

 

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You really need to learn more about the concept of "truth".

You are about 200 years behind.

The idea that learning to believe in things that are not true caused a huge cognitive advancement is simply contradictory and absurd.

Paradigm's dude paradigms. 

This is so confused I don't even want to touch it. 

Here.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

How does one determine that his paradigm is more or less valid than another?

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Have you read "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" (2011) by Yuval Noah Harari?

Your link was published before Harari's book was published  and isn't an effective rebuttal.

 

LOL

You are a funny guy.

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL

You are a funny guy.

What the critics are saying about Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind:

“Interesting and provocative…It gives you a sense of perspective on how briefly we’ve been on this earth, how short things like agriculture and science have been around, and why it makes sense for us to not take them for granted.” (President Barack Obama)

“I would recommend this book to anyone interested in a fun, engaging look at early human history…you’ll have a hard time putting it down.” (Bill Gates)

“Sapiens tackles the biggest questions of history and of the modern world, and it is written in unforgettably vivid language.” (Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Collapse, and The World until Yesterday)

“Sapiens takes readers on a sweeping tour of the history of our species…. Harari’s formidable intellect sheds light on the biggest breakthroughs in the human story…important reading for serious-minded, self-reflective sapiens.” (Washington Post)

“Sapiens is learned, thought-provoking and crisply written…. Fascinating.” (Wall Street Journal)

“In Sapiens, Harari delves deep into our history as a species to help us understand who we are and what made us this way. An engrossing read.” (Dan Ariely, New York Times Bestselling author of Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth About Dishonesty)

"The idea that learning to believe in things that are not true caused a huge cognitive advancement is simply contradictory and absurd." (mfbukowski)

Edited June 26, 2018 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

What the critics are saying about Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind:

“nteresting and provocative…It gives you a sense of perspective on how briefly we’ve been on this earth, how short things like agriculture and science have been around, and why it makes sense for us to not take them for granted.” (President Barack Obama)

“I would recommend this book to anyone interested in a fun, engaging look at early human history…you’ll have a hard time putting it down.” (Bill Gates)

“Sapiens tackles the biggest questions of history and of the modern world, and it is written in unforgettably vivid language.” (Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Collapse, and The World until Yesterday)

“Sapiens takes readers on a sweeping tour of the history of our species…. Harari’s formidable intellect sheds light on the biggest breakthroughs in the human story…important reading for serious-minded, self-reflective sapiens.” (Washington Post)

“Sapiens is learned, thought-provoking and crisply written…. Fascinating.” (Wall Street Journal)

“In Sapiens, Harari delves deep into our history as a species to help us understand who we are and what made us this way. An engrossing read.” (Dan Ariely, New York Times Bestselling author of Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth About Dishonesty)

"The idea that learning to believe in things that are not true caused a huge cognitive advancement is simply contradictory and absurd." (mfbukowski)

Yeah now read the opposing reviews.

I apologize I was being a jerk.

[Ryan Dahle]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

I have been following it. I think most people on this board don't really fit the demographic I was looking for, but that is ok. I still value all of your responses. I do have a few comments about the main thrust of the conversation.

As expected, some respondents pushed back with evidence that they feel counters the evidences I brought up supporting historicity: lack of inscriptional archaeological data, KEP concerns, competing New World geography models, etc. In my total analysis, I certainly have looked at these counterarguments very carefully. I just haven't found them to be very mitigating to the evidences I presented. And, yes, I get that others disagree. 

That being said, the point of my list in the OP wasn't to be persuasive, nor was I expecting or asking anyone to demonstrate that it isn't persuasive or to provide persuasive counterarguments. I was trying to gather reasons about why those who are caught in the middle of all this, and who don't really have much exposure to the apologetic evidences,  refuse to engage. Simply pointing out that there are intelligent people and intelligent counterarguments on the both sides (which has been the nature of many of the responses), doesn't explain why someone in initial faith crisis mode, chooses to spend far more time investigating one side over the other. I'm not looking for THE answer to my question. I just wanted to see what patterns or consistencies might arise.   

Moreover, it seems that some respondents have assumed that by posing my initial question in the OP, I was somehow naively thinking the evidences in favor of historicity should be apparently and obviously superior to counterarguments or that those who don't choose to investigate these evidences are unintelligent. I admit their choice to decline to engage the evidences doesn't seem logical to me, but I assume that they have reasons that are meaningful to them. I don't think they are unintelligent. I just think they prioritize things in a different way than I do. And that different fundamental prioritization is sort of what I was curious about. 

As for the counterarguments, any serious or in-depth discussion of the various evidences I raised would really need to be discussed in their own thread. However, I  do sincerely appreciate the points raised in the discussion so far, even those counter to my own conclusions. I suspect I won't get much feedback on the primary question I was raising in the OP. And that is ok. I appreciate the feedback all the same.  

 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Simply pointing out that there are intelligent people and intelligent counterarguments on the both sides (which has been the nature of many of the responses), doesn't explain why someone in initial faith crisis mode, chooses to spend far more time investigating one side over the other.

I don't know anyone who has gone through a faith crisis who has spent more time investigating one side over the other. It's fairly obvious you haven't been through such a crisis, as you would not have said that if you had. I'm sure you asked your initial question in good faith, but I think the premise is wrong from the start. 

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah now read the opposing reviews.

I apologize I was being a jerk.

I know not everybody likes the book. I do. I just repeat the reference to it so you know what I'm talking about.

No harm no foul.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Analytics said:

I know not everybody likes the book. I do. I just repeat the reference to it so you know what I'm talking about.

No harm no foul.

Sounds like it was written for a general audience, which tends to bring disapproval from the more academic-minded. I may have to check it out. I need to finish reading Vanity Fair first.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, THAT'S why you keep coming back! 

Yep, I am pretty foolish. Fortunately, it only happens once in a while. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Simply pointing out that there are intelligent people and intelligent counterarguments on the both sides (which has been the nature of many of the responses), doesn't explain why someone in initial faith crisis mode, chooses to spend far more time investigating one side over the other.

I don't know anyone who has gone through a faith crisis who has spent more time investigating one side over the other.

I do.  Several, actually.

I have a friend, very intelligent, highly educated, who has "stepped away" from the Church based on things he has "read online."  And yet he has heard of FAIR, but never visited its website.  He also had never heard of Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay, Louis Midgley, The Intepreter, Matthew Roper, and so on, and obviously hasn't read anything these resources have produced.

I also have an acquaintance who presented me with a list of "questions" she had (which I strongly suspect she simply copied and pasted from Jeremy Runnells's "CES Letter").  She actually became upset when I asked her if she had read any material supporting the Church's position as regarding her "questions."  She refused to answer the question.  QED.  Res ipsa loquitur. 

The Weldon/Jenkins school of philosophy, involving the utter refusal to read anything published by faithful LDS scholars as pertaining to the Book of Mormon or other claims of the LDS Church, is problematic.  So too is the general lack of awareness amongst many, many people as to the substantive scholarship which addresses criticisms of the LDS Church.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's fairly obvious you haven't been through such a crisis, as you would not have said that if you had.

I don't think a person needs to personally experience a crisis of faith in order to speak about such things, or to observe that he personally has surmised that some folks "choose to spend far more time investigating one side over the other."  

That used to be me.  Many years ago I restricted my studies to "faithful" LDS scholarship.  But then I read the Mosser/Owen article, and it had a rather pronounced effect on me.  I started branching out, engaging arguments from critics, reading their materials, etc.  And then I went to law school, and began to develop skills and techniques pertaining to argument, evidentiary analysis, and so on.  

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sure you asked your initial question in good faith, but I think the premise is wrong from the start. 

Wrong in your experience, perhaps.  Quite correct in mine, though.  I've known quite a few people who have left the Church without having given the Church's position a fair shake.  I find that saddening, but I must respect their choices.  In the end, all we can do is invite and exhort.  The Spirit has to do the heavy lifting.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I do.  Several, actually.

I have a friend, very intelligent, highly educated, who has "stepped away" from the Church based on things he has "read online."  And yet he has heard of FAIR, but never visited its website.  He also had never heard of Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay, Louis Midgley, The Intepreter, Matthew Roper, and so on, and obviously hasn't read anything these resources have produced.

I also have an acquaintance who presented me with a list of "questions" she had (which I strongly suspect she simply copied and pasted from Jeremy Runnells's "CES Letter").  She actually became upset when I asked her if she had read any material supporting the Church's position as regarding her "questions."  She refused to answer the question.  QED.  Res ipsa loquitur. 

The Weldon/Jenkins school of philosophy, involving the utter refusal to read anything published by faithful LDS scholars as pertaining to the Book of Mormon or other claims of the LDS Church, is problematic.  So too is the general lack of awareness amongst many, many people as to the substantive scholarship which addresses criticisms of the LDS Church.

I don't think a person needs to personally experience a crisis of faith in order to speak about such things, or to observe that he personally has surmised that some folks "choose to spend far more time investigating one side over the other."  

That used to be me.  Many years ago I restricted my studies to "faithful" LDS scholarship.  But then I read the Mosser/Owen article, and it had a rather pronounced effect on me.  I started branching out, engaging arguments from critics, reading their materials, etc.  And then I went to law school, and began to develop skills and techniques pertaining to argument, evidentiary analysis, and so on.  

Wrong in your experience, perhaps.  Quite correct in mine, though.  I've known quite a few people who have left the Church without having given the Church's position a fair shake.  I find that saddening, but I must respect their choices.  In the end, all we can do is invite and exhort.  The Spirit has to do the heavy lifting.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Most people I know, when confronted with a faith crisis, read everything they could get their hands on from the church's position and from apologists. The ones who step away without ever looking at the other side are pretty rare, indeed. If you think about it, this is the wrong place to ask that question in the first place. How many people here aren't familiar with apologetics? I'd say a conservative estimate is zero.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/26/2018 at 8:31 AM, jkwilliams said:

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.

Implying that there must of necessity be evidence of a supposed “influx” of Hebrew culture in Mesoamerica is an attempt to cast doubt. The video, at least the portion I saw, makes the point that in terms of everyday culture, the impact is apt to have flowed from Mesoamerica influences to Lehi’s descendants, not the other way around. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Ryan Dahle]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You misunderstand what "legitimate intellectual reasons" are for religious faith

I suggest you learn about pragmatic truth and a good place to start would be with this essay by a brilliant BYU philosopher, David Paulsen.

I will be glad to answer any questions you have. Quite honestly if you are not familiar with this way of seeing the world you have little credibility in philosophy and your case has no merit.

If you are going to talk about "legitimate intellectual reasons" you need to have some yourself. Historical reasons are not legitimate intellectual reasons to accept a religion.  Religion has nothing to do with history. It is not about explaining the world, it is about explaining why the world exists. Unless perhaps you can tell me how history explains why the world exists. Good luck.

 sorry but when someone brings up legitimate intellectual reasons for believing in religion and hasn't a  clue it gets me a little riled especially if he is purporting do have actually read Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

I will also throw in an article on fideism 

https://philarchive.org/archive/PAUTGO

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2004/the-god-of-abraham-isaac-and-joseph-smith-defending-the-faith

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Why not engage the evidence? Because it is irrelevant to " legitimate intellectual reasons" for believing in the gospel.

Your opinion may differ of course. But at least you need to be aware of the fact that there are people who are educated and have very good reasons for believing in the church and ignoring historical evidence.

 

I am a big fan of David Paulsen's research. I think Alma 32 and Moroni 10 are brilliant discourses with deep epistemic implications about why we should ultimately come to place our confidence in spiritually revealed truths. I agree with the idea that the most valuable evidences for LDS religious truth claims have to do with  developing a meaningful (i.e. pragmatic) relationship with God, which is facilitated by the Power of the Holy Ghost. And I completely agree that the most powerful evidences for the Restoration can't be obtained by studying history, or science, or archaeology, etc. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do.  Several, actually.

I have a friend, very intelligent, highly educated, who has "stepped away" from the Church based on things he has "read online."  And yet he has heard of FAIR, but never visited its website.  He also had never heard of Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay, Louis Midgley, The Intepreter, Matthew Roper, and so on, and obviously hasn't read anything these resources have produced.

I also have an acquaintance who presented me with a list of "questions" she had (which I strongly suspect she simply copied and pasted from Jeremy Runnells's "CES Letter").  She actually became upset when I asked her if she had read any material supporting the Church's position as regarding her "questions."  She refused to answer the question.  QED.  Res ipsa loquitur. 

The Weldon/Jenkins school of philosophy, involving the utter refusal to read anything published by faithful LDS scholars as pertaining to the Book of Mormon or other claims of the LDS Church, is problematic.  So too is the general lack of awareness amongst many, many people as to the substantive scholarship which addresses criticisms of the LDS Church.

I don't think a person needs to personally experience a crisis of faith in order to speak about such things, or to observe that he personally has surmised that some folks "choose to spend far more time investigating one side over the other."  

That used to be me.  Many years ago I restricted my studies to "faithful" LDS scholarship.  But then I read the Mosser/Owen article, and it had a rather pronounced effect on me.  I started branching out, engaging arguments from critics, reading their materials, etc.  And then I went to law school, and began to develop skills and techniques pertaining to argument, evidentiary analysis, and so on.  

Wrong in your experience, perhaps.  Quite correct in mine, though.  I've known quite a few people who have left the Church without having given the Church's position a fair shake.  I find that saddening, but I must respect their choices.  In the end, all we can do is invite and exhort.  The Spirit has to do the heavy lifting.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Before I joined this board, I read FAIR and conversed with Greg Smith. But their answers were not enough when it came to the morality of JS and polygamy. And the not knowing beforehand of things in history. Good thing that the church has opened the doors to not so much hidden but things not out there as much. I think many youth are definitely going to be desensitized to the warts possibly. 

I'm glad you came on the board SMAC, it seems the gulf isn't as wide as it once was between people like me and people like you, thank goodness!! 

ETA, here's a testimony by Greg of the BoM, I thought would be of interest on the thread.

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/gregory-l-smith

Edited June 26, 2018 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Implying that there must of necessity be evidence of a supposed “influx” of Hebrew culture in Mesoamerica is an attempt cast doubt. The video, at least the portion I saw, makes the point that in terms of everyday culture, the impact is apt to have flown from Mesoamerica influences to Lehi’s descendants, not the other way around. 

OK, influx is too much, but there's no attempt to cast doubt. You are correct that the video takes pains to say the influence would go the other way, but then a perfectly assimilated group offers no evidence, so we really can't say the video is presenting evidence. Just speculation.

Again, I could not care less if someone believes or doubts. I just find it weird that people are saying on the one hand there's all this evidence, and on the other, we shouldn't expect to find evidence. I'm reminded of a chapter in a book about Frederick G. Williams, my ancestor. The author tells us that Frederick was a young man in the Lake Erie region during the War of 1812. She goes into great detail about what he might have done during the war, explaining how the war was prosecuted in that area. In the end, however, she says there's no evidence one way or the other that he was involved in the war. That's what I am seeing here: lots of speculation, but no evidence. It's not an attack to point that out.