Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Do you have a source for this?

For which aspect? Joseph saying it or McConkie's addressing it?

The latter is in The Mortal Messiah 1.32-33. "The papyrus from which the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham…also contained this expression relative to what apparently is the universe in which we live, which universe has been created by the Father through the instrumentality of the Son." So McConkie takes it as referring to universe not this planet. With the planet he takes a more traditional young earth creationist dating.

For Joseph's comments it's Times and Seasons, Volume 5, Number 24, Page 758 as originally reported by William W. Phelps in a letter to William Smith, in 1844.

• “Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity: and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years; - it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!” 

Now what is meant here isn't clear. The number comes from basic calculation from "Kolob time." ( 7,000 years God's time ) x ( 365 days /1 year ) x ( 1,000 years for humans/1 day God's time )  There is that emphasis "not this world" which is why many (like McConkie) don't think it applies to life on earth. Sam Brown thinks Phelps is clearly referring to the galaxy although I'm not too sure.

The figure is interesting given that life on earth is usually seen as around 3.8 billion depending upon what ones criteria is. (3.5 - 3.8 b is the age based upon stromalite fossils) Eukaryotic cells are taken to have evolved sometime between 2 - 3.5 b years. Single celled plankton eukaryotes likely date to 2.2 b or earlier. Using evolutionary molecular clocks (roughly how different DNA is related) you get their origin somewhat before 2 b years although most assume the date would go back to 3 b had we better data. There's fair evidence photosynthesis evolved around 3 - 2.5 b years too. But there's a lot of back and forth on these dates with some pushing more towards more recent dates (2 - 2.5 b rather than the 3 - 3.5 b). 

Complex multicellular life, which is what I tend to think of as life proper, evolves sometime after eukaryotic evolution. Say 1.5 - 2 b years. However again there's no clear market so dates tend to vary somewhat depending upon who is arguing and whose theory is most popular that decade.

Of course if one thinks it's the galaxy rather than earth then that is irrelevant. Further since it's clearly arising out of a kind of numerology related to Kolob one can question its relevance as well. I do admit to liking to quote it to no death before the fall folks. I do think it significant since the figure comes out of combining the 7 seals with Joseph's ideas about Kolob. That's obviously relevant for Joseph's evolved thinking on D&C 77:6.

I should note that T&S article is also interesting in that Phelps suggests that Ashtoreth worship at the time of Jeremiah was confusing over the Queen of Heaven. Something apologists have argued a lot the past 25 years but not something one expects to find back in those early days of the Church.

Edited June 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Personally, I've tried to find scholars who aren't overly antagonistic towards the church, but who also don't sugar coat things and who are trying to give a more balanced picture and not trying to interpret the data in an overly positive or overly negative direction.  

But this requires reading a lot of different authors and considering the different perspectives to avoid getting stuck in any particular vein of thought.  Also, I've found certain outlets to be too apologetic for my tastes, Interpreter, FAIR.  Or too antagonistic, ExMormon Reddit,  Utah Lighthouse Ministries, etc.  Although I do look at some of their stuff, I'm not a regular consumer.  

I can't imagine making life-changing decisions without getting as much information as possible. True, I don't bother much with the Evangelical anti-Mormons (too dishonest and polemical for my tastes) or the Reddit group (just too hostile, period). My frustration with apologetics is that it always sounds impressive until I start digging into it, and I end up disappointed. 

I realized that there's a reason I don't come around often: I get kind of compulsive about this place. It's not healthy.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I question the resolve of the church to actually change the correlated narrative.  Its happening so slowly, it seems like they want to keep the binary thinking in place for those that find comfort in it, and have this alternative interpretation for others who are questioning the old narrative.  But I do agree that there is something changing, its just been very gradual.

I think that was true under Hinkley and Monson. Nelson seems to be pushing change rather quickly. However to be fair, most manuals have seen little change and there's still no shortage of bad manuals conveying misleading at best ideas. My guess is that we'll see those change soon - although it'll likely take years to really replace them. I just hope we get new Institute manuals as those are embarrassingly bad.

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think that societal changes will end up being much more impactful on Mormonism than the specific historical narrative / faith crisis issues. The orientation of the younger generation, a general mistrust of institutional authority, yet still having a yearning for a spiritual component in their life.  It will be interesting to see how this will all play out.  There is some reason for concern as there are a growing number of pseudo-scientific alternative medicines and supernatural thinking that are gaining in popularity for younger generations, when I would think these things wouldn't appeal to a less religious and more secular mindset, yet we're seeing some trends springs up.  

Not just the young. You have "energy healing" which in various forms is quite popular with many women who aren't millennials. There's a big rise in alternative medicine (although to be fair that's true nationally and even in secular Europe) especially chiropractors, oils, and so forth. What's interesting to me though is how spiritual healing that's not called spiritual healing is becoming so popular. There are literally dozens of completely different movements often with an emphasis on women doing things. While it doesn't purport to be priesthood it's easy to see how it meets an need for people who can't given priesthood blessings. For some, especially those tied to the Snuffer movement, it explicitly merges into priesthood. It even got mentioned in conference last fall as I recall.

Edited June 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Sorenson probably. Me, definitely not.

I apologize. The video was edited in such a way that it had you in the chorus of people saying that Nephi stumbled across Kaminaljuyu and quickly came to become its leader and directing force. It didn't sound like something you would say.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  But it can be the means of strengthening one's testimony.  The foundation needs to be the Spirit.  But we can - and ought - to build on it.

I would be curious as to your thoughts about these remarks by Elder Holland (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Full reasoned philosophical proof which is what I have is quite sufficient thank you.

I have absolute intellectual certainty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through philosophical understanding that propositions about such matters are fully Justified through spiritual experience. James, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and many others get that but unfortunately it remains for Mormons to discover it.

Mormons have no clue what they have digging in the ground for proof of the Book of Mormon.

I do not need a sign saying welcome to Zarahemla. I believe that is the same kind of faith that Paulsen has and all the Heideggerians and pragmatists at BYU have, but don't discuss because the rank-and-file do not have the background to understand it.

It would be interesting to hear what James Falconer has to say about that.

 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I can't imagine making life-changing decisions without getting as much information as possible. True, I don't bother much with the Evangelical anti-Mormons (too dishonest and polemical for my tastes) or the Reddit group (just too hostile, period). My frustration with apologetics is that it always sounds impressive until I start digging into it, and I end up disappointed. 

I realized that there's a reason I don't come around often: I get kind of compulsive about this place. It's not healthy.

I'm totally with you.  I'm a naturally optimistic person, so I just don't like dwelling in the negativity.  I don't believe the church is objectively and exclusively true at all, but I don't want to continue to rehash all the problems over and over.  Same with the country, I really don't enjoy Trump bashing all the time.  He's a total jerk/loser/idiot, but I can't bring myself to constantly complain about him every day.  I just try to avoid the news lately.  It seems like I don't fit in very well with the mainstream of any groups. 

If Mormons are a peculiar people, then I'm on the outside edge of peculiar.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state "why insist on it"?

I'm not insisting that anyone do anything. I'm wondering what the rationale is for those in a faith crisis who often struggle in part because of historicity issues and yet who decline to seriously investigate evidences related to historicity. Many people in a faith crisis say they are praying and searching for answers and doing all that they can to obtain the spiritual answers that they seek. For whatever reasons, they struggle to receive divine confirmations or meaningful spiritual experiences. Hence "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118).

It seems an awfully lot to me like the Lord is inviting those who struggle with faith to broaden their pursuit of truth by also seeking wisdom and learning from the "best books." What are these best books? Well certainly the scriptures. But it seems to be broader that that, including the best learning that secular studies have to offer. For instance, 

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms

In other words, I'm wondering why some individuals decline this invitation from the Lord to seek learning as a supplement to faith, especially when their faith is being threatened by critical arguments against it.  

 

The title of the OP is why not engage in the evidence.

I think I've answered that.

None of your above quotes have necessarily anything to do with archaeology.

You want good books that justify Mormonism?

Read some James and other philosophers I have suggested.

In fact archaeology teaches none of the principles you have mentioned.

It is I who should be using that quote.

If I learned Mormonism from studying philosophy anybody can.

Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Full reasoned philosophical proof which is what I have is quite sufficient thank you.

I'm glad what you have is sufficient for you.  Others may appreciate opportunitities to strengthen their faith in the ways described (and encouraged) by Elder Holland.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I have absolute intellectual certainty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through philosophical understanding that propositions about such matters are fully Justified through spiritual experience. James, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and many others get that but unfortunately it remains for Mormons to discover it.

Mormons have no clue what they have digging in the ground for proof of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure there is much in the way of Mormons "digging in the ground for proof of the Book of Mormon."

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not need a sign saying welcome to Zarahemla. I believe that is the same kind of faith that Paulsen has and all the Heideggerians and pragmatists at BYU have, but don't discuss because the rank-and-file do not have the background to understand it.

It would be interesting to hear what James Falconer has to say about that.

That's an interesting question.  Would you like me to ask him?  He lives just down the street from me.  We previously sat next to each other on our stake's high council.  He's a good guy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm totally with you.  I'm a naturally optimistic person, so I just don't like dwelling in the negativity.  I don't believe the church is objectively and exclusively true at all, but I don't want to continue to rehash all the problems over and over.  Same with the country, I really don't enjoy Trump bashing all the time.  He's a total jerk/loser/idiot, but I can't bring myself to constantly complain about him every day.  I just try to avoid the news lately.  It seems like I don't fit in very well with the mainstream of any groups. 

If Mormons are a peculiar people, then I'm on the outside edge of peculiar.  

That's pretty much where I am. I get my weekly dose of Trump-worship from my father, but I don't avoid the news. Sure, a lot of it is depressing (stupid trade policy, irresponsible fiscal policy, troubling immigration policies, and destructive foreign policy), but I figure I need to keep myself informed. But it does me no good to harbor resentments and complain, so I don't. I just hope that some day my party comes to its senses. 

As for the church, about the only interaction I have with it is through my wife, so that's entirely positive. 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that was true under Hinkley and Monson. Nelson seems to be pushing change rather quickly. However to be fair, most manuals have seen little change and there's still no shortage of bad manuals conveying misleading at best ideas. My guess is that we'll see those change soon - although it'll likely take years to really replace them. I just hope we get new Institute manuals as those are embarrassingly bad.

I'll believe it when I hear the more complicated history discussed in General Conference.  GC is the place where mainstream orthodox members get their marching orders.  If just one apostle were to talk about the multiple version of the FV and try put the history of the 1838 version in greater context, or the BoM translation and the seer stone in a hat and really talk about the implications of what different accounts of history tell us about the past.  The simplified heritage oriented and less accurate narratives were created for a purpose, and that purpose wasn't always necessarily to deceive, but it also wasn't accurate.  We need mature discussions about these things for adults.  People can handle it and it could start at the next GC if the leaders were committed to having the tough discussions.  

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm glad what you have is sufficient for you.  Others may appreciate opportunitities to strengthen their faith in the ways described (and encouraged) by Elder Holland.

I'm not sure there is much in the way of Mormons "digging in the ground for proof of the Book of Mormon."

That's an interesting question.  Would you like me to ask him?  He lives just down the street from me.  We previously sat next to each other on our stake's high council.  He's a good guy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Go for it

He is a good Heideggarian

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If just one apostle were to talk about the multiple version of the FV and try put the history of the 1838 version in greater context

Didn't that happen way back with Elder Faust in 1984? While not GC Elder Maynes had a young adult conference talk on it pushed by the Church. But I'm with you. I'd like to see some talks directly addressing the controversies in GC. My sense though that as the last of the old guard died (Elder Packer) there's been a pretty big shift. Even Elder Packer shifted in his views on the inoculation theory of church history from opposition to strongly supporting it his last few years.

I also think you're downplaying the big shifts in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society this year that Elder Nelson implemented. We can debate how capable many local leaders & teachers are at addressing all this stuff. But clearly the Church wants everyone to find out about it.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Didn't that happen way back with Elder Faust in 1984? While not GC Elder Maynes had a young adult conference talk on it pushed by the Church. But I'm with you. I'd like to see some talks directly addressing the controversies in GC. My sense though that as the last of the old guard died (Elder Packer) there's been a pretty big shift. Even Elder Packer shifted in his views on the inoculation theory of church history from opposition to strongly supporting it his last few years.

I also think you're downplaying the big shifts in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society this year that Elder Nelson implemented. We can debate how capable many local leaders & teachers are at addressing all this stuff. But clearly the Church wants everyone to find out about it.

Let's also keep in mind the "Gospel Topics" essay: "First Vision Accounts."

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons have no clue what they have digging in the ground for proof of the Book of Mormon.

I do not need a sign saying welcome to Zarahemla. I believe that is the same kind of faith that Paulsen has and all the Heideggerians and pragmatists at BYU have, but don't discuss because the rank-and-file do not have the background to understand it.

It would be interesting to hear what James Falconer has to say about that.

He's written on it a bit. Faith, Philosophy Scripture notes that he's not opposed to apologetics but thinks that it can distract from the main point of the gospel which is practice rather than theories (including apologetics and theology). His main paper that touches on these things is "Rethinking Theology: The Shadow of the Apocalypse" which is reprinted in that book. 

I don't think Jim would mind me quoting one comment he made several years ago. It reflects well his concerns about apologetics keeping people from studying things themselves.

• When FARMS began its work, it showed that there were members of the Church interested in and able to talk about scripture, especially the Book of Mormon. But I don’t think it reflected any particular dedication to scripture study for most Mormons, nor did it encourage people to study scripture. If anything, it absolved them of having to do so because it focused so much on the question of the Book of Mormon’s historical authenticity (though it didn’t only focus on that) and because it gave members an authority on whom they could rely: I haven’t read the Book of Mormon carefully, but Brother X has, and he says . . . .”

In the same discussion he said, "...I think it is important to make the question of historicity part of the larger textual / interpretive work and not something either primary or taken up after everything else."

I'd agree with that. I suspect we all knew many people that had numerous Nibley books on their shelves, unread, as if they were a totem enabling one to not really engage with the text much. The biggest problem with McConkie's Mormon Doctrine weren't some questionable personal interpretations passed off as official Church dogma. Rather it was that it let people appeal to it rather than to the scriptures. I had it on reasonably good authority that Hinkley was originally hoping The Encyclopedia of Mormonism would displace or undermine that use of Mormon Doctrine. While I don't think the Encyclopedia was quite as successful as hoped it was around that time in the 90's that Mormon Doctrine's place became significantly diminished.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's also keep in mind the "Gospel Topics" essay: "First Vision Accounts."

I think the concern is that many people don't read the gospel topics essays. I think the recent changes to lessons on Sunday is attempting to change that. However let's be honest. Most members don't study the gospel much at all and are surprisingly ignorant of even basic stuff. Even things regularly talked about on Sunday they quickly forget and then act surprised about. Where I'd differ with some is that I don't think going over it in General Conference would help. Those least apt to do personal study are also least likely to watch or even read General Conference talks. That's particularly true of millennials according to Jana Reiss' survey.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He's written on it a bit. Faith, Philosophy Scripture notes that he's not opposed to apologetics but thinks that it can distract from the main point of the gospel which is practice rather than theories (including apologetics and theology). His main paper that touches on these things is "Rethinking Theology: The Shadow of the Apocalypse" which is reprinted in that book. 

I don't think Jim would mind me quoting one comment he made several years ago. It reflects well his concerns about apologetics keeping people from studying things themselves.

• When FARMS began its work, it showed that there were members of the Church interested in and able to talk about scripture, especially the Book of Mormon. But I don’t think it reflected any particular dedication to scripture study for most Mormons, nor did it encourage people to study scripture. If anything, it absolved them of having to do so because it focused so much on the question of the Book of Mormon’s historical authenticity (though it didn’t only focus on that) and because it gave members an authority on whom they could rely: I haven’t read the Book of Mormon carefully, but Brother X has, and he says . . . .”

In the same discussion he said, "...I think it is important to make the question of historicity part of the larger textual / interpretive work and not something either primary or taken up after everything else."

I'd agree with that. I suspect we all knew many people that had numerous Nibley books on their shelves, unread, as if they were a totem enabling one to not really engage with the text much. The biggest problem with McConkie's Mormon Doctrine weren't some questionable personal interpretations passed off as official Church dogma. Rather it was that it let people appeal to it rather than to the scriptures. I had it on reasonably good authority that Hinkley was originally hoping The Encyclopedia of Mormonism would displace or undermine that use of Mormon Doctrine. While I don't think the Encyclopedia was quite as successful as hoped it was around that time in the 90's that Mormon Doctrine's place became significantly diminished.

I think the concern is that many people don't read the gospel topics essays. I think the recent changes to lessons on Sunday is attempting to change that. However let's be honest. Most members don't study the gospel much at all and are surprisingly ignorant of even basic stuff. Even things regularly talked about on Sunday they quickly forget and then act surprised about. Where I'd differ with some is that I don't think going over it in General Conference would help. Those least apt to do personal study are also least likely to watch or even read General Conference talks. That's particularly true of millennials according to Jana Reiss' survey.

 

Yes thanks I was thinking of that article. I had to take my daughter to the doctor and did not have time to look it up.

But he does not give the full justification for his views there and why hermeneutics is so important. 

Evidence of any kind requires interpretation. Interpretation is ultimately a philosophical issue.

True historians know that history is a matter completely up interpretation. I never can get down to the reality of "what really happened"

One must read the text and decide for yourself whether or not it is a God. And that text must not necessarily be ancient.

I have read contemporary poetry by people whose names no one would recognize that in my opinion would be worthy of canonization.

To me that is really the issue here.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well those who are ready will get this or they won't.

Reading the first paragraph is sufficient.

Let me give you the bottom line. Spiritual experience is unspeakable. That means it cannot be put into words. That is a direct affirmation of what Mormons call personal revelation, or gaining one's own testimony.

In other words sentences and language cannot tell you anything about God.

If language can't do it how can archaeology do it?

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/heidegger-s-atheism-the-refusal-of-a-theological-voice/

""It is the author’s conviction that Heidegger’s negative theology can best be described as mystical, in continuity with St. Gregory of Nissa, Catherine of Siena and Meister Eckhart ""(282)

It doesn't matter if the text is New or Old or who wrote it, the question is whether or not God confirms it.

 And Joseph Smith himself said similar things on many occasions.

Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to note the exegetical questions but the seven seals as temporal periods doesn't necessarily line up with Genesis' history. Likewise what is meant by temporal existence isn't at all clear for obvious reasons. That's what I was alluding to earlier. I recognize that the no death before the fall folks (with several prominent past GAs obviously in their camp) think D&C 77 establishes their version of young earth creationism. I'm far from convinced it does. Likewise I'm not sure Joseph interpreted it that way either given his apparent comment during the Abraham translation about life going on for something like 2.55 billion years. (No death before the fall proponents like McConkie try to explain that away in various ways - usually by saying system isn't earth)

There's no single theory and without revelation on the subject we can't know...

Of course folks like McConkie would argue that we do have revelation.

In any event, thanks for addressing the issues I raised. How far Mormonism will bend before it breaks varies a lot from person to person, that is for sure.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course folks like McConkie would argue that we do have revelation.

Yes, but they do that by privileging the Old Testament against the warning about it's nature in 1 Nephi and confirmed by the history of the post-exilic complication, redactions and editing. Of course they'd say Nephi vision only refers to entire books taken out of the Old Testament and not that the books in it are themselves problematic. I'd disagree and think the emphasis between "mouth of a Jew" and book is quite significant. Further they often again oversimplify the hermeneutic issues. Say what you will about apologists, but they pretty well brought close readings to the Church along with a concern with scholarship and particularly science as part of the interpretive process. Most (with a few exceptions) apologists largely adopt a scientific stance. They also are more carefully attend to hermeneutic issues.

Once you adopt a more suspicious hermeneutic towards the Old Testament then I think theology shifts a fair bit. I think you've seen that theological development in apologetics which has led to some interesting ways of reading scripture. Since the Maxwell Institute / Interpreter/FARMS split. MI has tended to privilege structural relatively less contextualized readings while The Interpreter has continued to do some interesting readings on the interplay of archaeology, history, and the text. 

So that's one reason why I find apologetics as helpful for reading scripture.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Didn't that happen way back with Elder Faust in 1984? While not GC Elder Maynes had a young adult conference talk on it pushed by the Church. But I'm with you. I'd like to see some talks directly addressing the controversies in GC. My sense though that as the last of the old guard died (Elder Packer) there's been a pretty big shift. Even Elder Packer shifted in his views on the inoculation theory of church history from opposition to strongly supporting it his last few years.

I also think you're downplaying the big shifts in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society this year that Elder Nelson implemented. We can debate how capable many local leaders & teachers are at addressing all this stuff. But clearly the Church wants everyone to find out about it.

I hope you’re right about the new direction.  I haven’t attended this year so I wasn’t aware that the format changes would introduce new materials specifically, but that’s good news if you’re seeing improvement there.  

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I hope you’re right about the new direction.  I haven’t attended this year so I wasn’t aware that the format changes would introduce new materials specifically, but that’s good news if you’re seeing improvement there.  

I've not been able to attend regularly due to the aftermath of my heart surgery. (Dislocated rib and they could only start working on it last week after the sternum had healed sufficient - usually by the time Sacrament was over my back was in pain due to the chairs) Also admittedly my ward is unusual. First off it's in Provo. Second it has numerous BYU professors. Thirdly one of the main MI folks was in the Bishopric. However we've had lessons and talks on various parts of the topics in the gospel essays and so forth. While it's only anecdotal data and doesn't reflect even the US in aggregate, I have heard this is common in many wards. 

Again I'm a bit skeptical over what the effects will be. Most people (not just most Mormons) just aren't good at thinking about things the way typical academics do. They like things black and white. Not just in religion but in general. (I think a lot of the discouraging aspects of politics is because a plurality of voters think that way)

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but they do that by privileging the Old Testament against the warning about it's nature in 1 Nephi and confirmed by the history of the post-exilic complication, redactions and editing....

They wouldn't concede that. They would say what Donald W. Parry said in the Ensign:

"There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." (Emphasis added)

Of course the prophets aren't expected to be perfect, but what we were sold was that the multiple testimonies of God's prophets were a reliable source of the truth.

Yea, this way of thinking could be dismissed as being too fundamentalist. But that is what we were taught, and it raises the question, what does it mean for the church to be "true" if it is only "true" in a non-fundamentalist way?

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They wouldn't concede that. They would say what Donald W. Parry said in the Ensign:

"There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." (Emphasis added)

Of course the prophets aren't expected to be perfect, but what we were sold was that the multiple testimonies of God's prophets were a reliable source of the truth.

Yea, this way of thinking could be dismissed as being too fundamentalist. But that is what we were taught, and it raises the question, what does it mean for the church to be "true" if it is only "true" in a non-fundamentalist way?

That seems a false dichotomy. I think there are compelling reasons to think Adam and Noah were real people because they've appeared to people. So the "all of Genesis is just myth" seems a different position than "we should be careful with the Old Testament." Put an other way, textual inaccuracy doesn't imply complete falsity.

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not been able to attend regularly due to the aftermath of my heart surgery. (Dislocated rib and they could only start working on it last week after the sternum had healed sufficient - usually by the time Sacrament was over my back was in pain due to the chairs) Also admittedly my ward is unusual. First off it's in Provo. Second it has numerous BYU professors. Thirdly one of the main MI folks was in the Bishopric. However we've had lessons and talks on various parts of the topics in the gospel essays and so forth. While it's only anecdotal data and doesn't reflect even the US in aggregate, I have heard this is common in many wards. 

Again I'm a bit skeptical over what the effects will be. Most people (not just most Mormons) just aren't good at thinking about things the way typical academics do. They like things black and white. Not just in religion but in general. (I think a lot of the discouraging aspects of politics is because a plurality of voters think that way)

Your ward sounds fun, but also sounds like a exception to the rule.  I live in the Salt Lake Valley and haven’t run into that kind of open treatment of the new materials.  

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

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. 

Thanks for the reference. I'd read New Approaches to the Book of Mormon years ago but somehow had forgotten that. I no longer have a copy but Signature has put online many of their older books. "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography" As I said, I've long thought that metal is the biggest problem for apologists. While I personally find reasonably good explanations for most things, metals and metallurgy have no adequate explanation. I've faith we'll find some one day but I'd be the first to admit that right now they're completely absent.

Sorenson addresses the issue somewhat in a 2012 article. I'm obviously not qualified to say much on it not being well versed in mesoAmerican archaeology. His argument appears to concede the archaeological evidence but argues linguistic evidence suggests metal. This, as you noted, ignores the distinction between metal and metallurgy.

I should note that he mentioned horse bones, but I'm pretty sure that particular set of bones was radiocarbon dated independent of Mormon control of the bones by Rick Jones in the late 90's (prior to his becoming a 911 Truther and getting booted from BYU). Jones had told me none of the bones tested as pre-columbian although I honestly don't know what bones he tested for sure.

Overall I didn't find Sorenson's rejoinders terribly persuasive except in a few cases. In particular he didn't address the problem of metal breastplates. 

Getting back to Matheny, her main paragraph is as follows:

• 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).

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

I regularly use manifold sources in all my work.  I have no trouble citing the Tanners, both of whom I knew and spent time with (went to church with the Tanners, and Sandra was particularly gracious, always treating me with kindness and respect).  One can learn a lot from the Tanners.  Of course, Jerald has not been with us for some time now.