Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

You miss the point, just as evangelicals frequently do -- which is that educated Mormons are the most likely to be faithful and sincere.  It is precisely the least well-educated Mormons who are likely to apostatize.  Most people see this as going against intuition, since they falsely believe that only ignorant and poorly informed Mormons could possibly be faithful believers, and that well-educated Mormons are the most likely to leave the faith.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point, just as evangelicals frequently do -- which is that educated Mormons are the most likely to be faithful and sincere.  It is precisely the least well-educated Mormons who are likely to apostatize.  Most people see this as going against intuition, since they falsely believe that only ignorant and poorly informed Mormons could possibly be faithful believers, and that well-educated Mormons are the most likely to leave the faith.

That’s interesting. I wonder why that would be. Are more educated people more invested, have more intellectual tools for dealing with contrary information? Would be interesting to learn more. 

I know a lot of ex-Mormons, and they seem to reflect the membership at large. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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).

I read New Approaches when it was first published and didn’t think much of it, probably because I was in apologist mode. I read it years later and was shocked by how solid the work was and how much I blithely dismissed. 

I never worried about metallurgy, as the collapse of my shelf had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. But yes, it’s a tough anachronism to work around. 

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I read New Approaches when it was first published and didn’t think much of it, probably because I was in apologist mode. I read it years later and was shocked by how solid the work was and how much I blithely dismissed. 

I never worried about metallurgy, as the collapse of my shelf had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. But yes, it’s a tough anachronism to work around. 

I'd gone through some of the articles in depth and was less impressed but some of the arguments were pretty solid. I probably didn't pay too much attention to that one as I just am near totally ignorant of mesoamerica so it's hard for me to evaluate. It is interesting that the strongest stuff (IMO) the BoM apologists do is for the ANE part of the Book of Mormon. I rather suspect (I know you'll disagree) that as more and more archaeology finds appear in central America and Mexico then more things will support the Book of Mormon. (Heck we just found a huge city complex) That said I think many of the problems are probably primarily linguistic.

[Tacenda]

I want to engage this, how long did it take Joseph to translate the BoM?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I don't have anything to do with the FM conference besides advertising it here and going to it these days, so I have no knowledge of content, but this issue appears to be going to be addressed in August by Wade Miller.

Quote

The Presence of Pre-Columbian Horses in America

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70454-2018-fairmormon-conference-womens-workshop-seventy-elder-pearson/?do=findComment&comment=1209830176

It has been almost 10 years since he last spoke:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2009/science-and-the-book-of-mormon

Edited June 27, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd gone through some of the articles in depth and was less impressed but some of the arguments were pretty solid. I probably didn't pay too much attention to that one as I just am near totally ignorant of mesoamerica so it's hard for me to evaluate. It is interesting that the strongest stuff (IMO) the BoM apologists do is for the ANE part of the Book of Mormon. I rather suspect (I know you'll disagree) that as more and more archaeology finds appear in central America and Mexico then more things will support the Book of Mormon. (Heck we just found a huge city complex) That said I think many of the problems are probably primarily linguistic.

Yeah, ancient America is part of what I studied in college. One of my professors said, “There isn’t any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and anyone who says there is is lying.” I was shocked at the time, but since then I find myself agreeing with him. There just is no there there. We are learning more about Mesoamerica with each discovery, but I am not seeing the supposed convergence with Book of Mormon claims. 

Obviously you disagree. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

If folks can't handle it here, there is not much hope on getting it in GC.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, ancient America is part of what I studied in college. One of my professors said, “There isn’t any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and anyone who says there is is lying.” I was shocked at the time, but since then I find myself agreeing with him. There just is no there there. We are learning more about Mesoamerica with each discovery, but I am not seeing the supposed convergence with Book of Mormon claims. 

Obviously you disagree. 

No actually I don't. As I said while apologists are good at giving reasons why one isn't irrational in their beliefs I don't think they really can provide evidence for belief. As much as I respect Brant, nothing in his book I'd really count as evidence for the Book of Mormon. Sorenson's always struck me as much weaker. A lot of his parallels when examined closely just seemed deeply problematic. The one place I was surprised to find Sorenson strong though was on language. I'd done a little research on bows, arrows, atlatls and so forth and the linguistic shifts and so forth in a lot of source documents were pretty surprising to me. Where I found Brant's stuff most interesting was for potentially reinterpreting what is going on in the Book of Mormon text. But again that's really less evidence for the text than using discoveries to reconsider how one reads the text.

But I'd 100% say there's no public evidence for the Book of Mormon at this time. Of course I consider that a feature not a bug for various reasons not the least of which being it forcing you to try and get personal revelation. Which, I'd argue, is the entire point of the book. It'd cease functioning in its proper fashion if there was such evidence. (As much as I'd love to find some)

As to convergence, isn't the shift on how war was viewed over the past 50 years a significant change towards the Book of Mormon perspective? (Again speaking out of relative ignorance) I always found the volcano descriptions persuasive. Admittedly there are other ways to read 3 Nephi. But Grover's treatment was pretty persuasive to me.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't have anything to do with the FM conference besides advertising it here and going to it these days, so I have no knowledge of content, but this issue appears to be going to be addressed in August by Wade Miller.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70454-2018-fairmormon-conference-womens-workshop-seventy-elder-pearson/?do=findComment&comment=1209830176

It has been almost 10 years since he last spoke:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2009/science-and-the-book-of-mormon

Depending upon how things go I might try to make it. Of course famous last words. The last three conferences I said I was going to I ended up missing. Admittedly the last one was because I was in the hospital so that's a good excuse.

That second link is not a good presentation (IMO). He fundamentally avoids the issues with metal in the Book of Mormon as he discusses it. He more or less says it was possible because it's in other places. Then all of a sudden he's talking glass. So he rhetorically makes it seem like he addressed it without giving any argument at all. That's misleading at best. He does that repeatedly, talking about something in the ANE as if that's relevant for mesoamerica. It's a really misleading presentation. Exactly the sort of thing that causes people with doubts to dismiss apologetics. (With all apologies for bluntness) 

I think apologetics should be pretty forthright about what we can and can't explain rather than misleadingly say it's not an issue. Explain that right now they're no evidence for that part of the text but then explain why that's not an issue. (FARMS used to do that regularly in the introductions to their reviews - although I'm not sure their critics acknowledged that well)

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, ancient America is part of what I studied in college. One of my professors said, “There isn’t any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and anyone who says there is is lying.” I was shocked at the time, but since then I find myself agreeing with him. There just is no there there. We are learning more about Mesoamerica with each discovery, but I am not seeing the supposed convergence with Book of Mormon claims. 

Obviously you disagree. 

This is exactly the problem.

As a kid why were you shocked? Because you thought there would be historical evidence everywhere that proves the book of Mormon could be the word of God.

And that Professor was out to do exactly that.

If you had been taught properly you would not have been shocked, much less eventually lost your testimony.

And this is precisely why not to engage the alleged evidence. The alleged evidence has nothing to do with the spirit speaking to your heart.

And I know you understand that now even if you are estranged from the church. I know you have found your own purpose which probably does not include the church.

If you had been taught the proper philosophy you might well have been able to deal with that shock you felt.. Of course now I know you're an adult and sophisticated thinker and are fully capable and educated to be able to come up with your own conclusions. But my point is that as a kid that shock is what could be avoided.

I taught my kids from the get-go. They understand the difference between scientific evidence and evidence of the heart.

I taught them that science is about how things work but evidence from the heart is about your purpose and why things work. They got that simple concept. It's stuck. Religion is about having a purpose in life, not about how the world works.

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No actually I don't. As I said while apologists are good at giving reasons why one isn't irrational in their beliefs I don't think they really can provide evidence for belief. As much as I respect Brant, nothing in his book I'd really count as evidence for the Book of Mormon. Sorenson's always struck me as much weaker. A lot of his parallels when examined closely just seemed deeply problematic. The one place I was surprised to find Sorenson strong though was on language. I'd done a little research on bows, arrows, atlatls and so forth and the linguistic shifts and so forth in a lot of source documents were pretty surprising to me. Where I found Brant's stuff most interesting was for potentially reinterpreting what is going on in the Book of Mormon text. But again that's really less evidence for the text than using discoveries to reconsider how one reads the text.

But I'd 100% say there's no public evidence for the Book of Mormon at this time. Of course I consider that a feature not a bug for various reasons not the least of which being it forcing you to try and get personal revelation. Which, I'd argue, is the entire point of the book. It'd cease functioning in its proper fashion if there was such evidence. (As much as I'd love to find some)

It certainly forced me to get personal revelation. I’ll say it again that I don’t think belief In Mormonism is irrational at all. 

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly the problem.

As a kid why were you shocked? Because you thought there would be historical evidence everywhere that proves the book of Mormon could be the word of God.

And that Professor was out to do exactly that.

If you had been taught properly you would not have been shocked, much less eventually lost your testimony.

And this is precisely why not to engage the alleged evidence. The alleged evidence has nothing to do with the spirit speaking to your heart.

And I know you understand that now even if you are estranged from the church. I know you have found your own purpose which probably does not include the church.

If you had been taught the proper philosophy you might well have been able to deal with that shock you felt.. Of course now I know you're an adult and sophisticated thinker and are fully capable and educated to be able to come up with your own conclusions. But my point is that as a kid that shock is what could be avoided.

I taught my kids from the get-go. They understand the difference between scientific evidence and evidence of the heart.

I taught them that science is about how things work but evidence from the heart is about your purpose and why things work. They got that simple concept. It's stuck. Religion is about having a purpose in life, not about how the world works.

 

I was shocked to hear a BYU professor say that, not because the statement was shocking but because of where we were. 

You obviously don’t understand me if you think I lost my testimony because of Book of Mormon historicity. It wasn’t a factor at all. I don’t recognize your depiction of my loss of faith because it simply didn’t happen that way. My testimony neither rested on science nor was destroyed by it. 

I guess people see what they want to see. Doesn’t change anything for me. 

Mark, do you think matters of conscience can be resolved by appeals to science? 

Edited June 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

I have been told there was a recently documented find in Mexico that is "quite exciting".  That is all I have got as a teaser for the Horses talk.  Hopefully it will be more satisfying to you, Clark.  

(I agree about the metal issue)

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was shocked to hear a BYU professor say that, not because the statement was shocking but because of where we were. 

You obviously don’t understand me if you think I lost my testimony because of Book of Mormon historicity. It wasn’t a factor at all. I don’t recognize your depiction of my loss of faith because it simply didn’t happen that way. My testimony neither rested on science nor was destroyed by it. 

I guess people see what they want to see. Doesn’t change anything for me. 

Mark, do you think matters of conscience can be resolved by appeals to science? 

No of course matters of conscience cannot be resolved by appeals to conscience

Sorry I misinterpreted your shock to be from who said there was no evidence rather than that there was no evidence.

Your actual quote I think misled me and let me show you why

Quote

Yeah, ancient America is part of what I studied in college. One of my professors said, “There isn’t any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and anyone who says there is is lying.” I was shocked at the time, but since then I find myself agreeing with him. There just is no there there. We are learning more about Mesoamerica with each discovery, but I am not seeing the supposed convergence with Book of Mormon claims. 

It seems you were shocked that there was no evidence because it apparently took time for you to discover there WAS no evidence.

It's hard to imagine any other conclusion from what you actually said.  You never said you were shocked by what he said, having already known there was no evidence.

But I am used to this in talking to you so, let's not carry on yet again.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No of course matters of conscience cannot be resolved by appeals to conscience

Sorry I misinterpreted your shock to be from who said there was no evidence rather than that there was no evidence.

Your actual quote I think misled me and let me show you why

It seems you were shocked that there was no evidence because it apparently took time for you to discover there WAS no evidence.

It's hard to imagine any other conclusion from what you actually said.  You never said you were shocked by what he said, having already known there was no evidence.

But I am used to this in talking to you so, let's not carry on yet again.

As a college freshman I didn’t have an opinion one way or another about Book of Mormon evidence. I do now. Does that clarify things?

Either way, it was a matter of conscience for me, not a matter of evidence. 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No actually I don't. As I said while apologists are good at giving reasons why one isn't irrational in their beliefs I don't think they really can provide evidence for belief. As much as I respect Brant, nothing in his book I'd really count as evidence for the Book of Mormon. Sorenson's always struck me as much weaker. A lot of his parallels when examined closely just seemed deeply problematic. The one place I was surprised to find Sorenson strong though was on language. I'd done a little research on bows, arrows, atlatls and so forth and the linguistic shifts and so forth in a lot of source documents were pretty surprising to me. Where I found Brant's stuff most interesting was for potentially reinterpreting what is going on in the Book of Mormon text. But again that's really less evidence for the text than using discoveries to reconsider how one reads the text.

But I'd 100% say there's no public evidence for the Book of Mormon at this time. Of course I consider that a feature not a bug for various reasons not the least of which being it forcing you to try and get personal revelation. Which, I'd argue, is the entire point of the book. It'd cease functioning in its proper fashion if there was such evidence. (As much as I'd love to find some)

As to convergence, isn't the shift on how war was viewed over the past 50 years a significant change towards the Book of Mormon perspective? (Again speaking out of relative ignorance) I always found the volcano descriptions persuasive. Admittedly there are other ways to read 3 Nephi. But Grover's treatment was pretty persuasive to me.

Depending upon how things go I might try to make it. Of course famous last words. The last three conferences I said I was going to I ended up missing. Admittedly the last one was because I was in the hospital so that's a good excuse.

That second link is not a good presentation (IMO). He fundamentally avoids the issues with metal in the Book of Mormon as he discusses it. He more or less says it was possible because it's in other places. Then all of a sudden he's talking glass. So he rhetorically makes it seem like he addressed it without giving any argument at all. That's misleading at best. He does that repeatedly, talking about something in the ANE as if that's relevant for mesoamerica. It's a really misleading presentation. Exactly the sort of thing that causes people with doubts to dismiss apologetics. (With all apologies for bluntness) 

I think apologetics should be pretty forthright about what we can and can't explain rather than misleadingly say it's not an issue. Explain that right now they're no evidence for that part of the text but then explain why that's not an issue. (FARMS used to do that regularly in the introductions to their reviews - although I'm not sure their critics acknowledged that well)

 

Regarding what the mature Sorenson thought about "reality" I think you will find surprising

So far as I know this has not been published thought I might be mistaken.  I think this happened before you were on the board.

I suggest you read the whole thread.

For Sorenson fans, I think you might be a little shocked.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?do=findComment&comment=1209560314

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?p=1209560993

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Regarding what the mature Sorenson thought about "reality" I think you will find surprising

So far as I know this has not been published thought I might be mistaken.  I think this happened before you were on the board.

I suggest you read the whole thread.

For Sorenson fans, I think you might be a little shocked.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?do=findComment&comment=1209560314

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?p=1209560993

 

 

 

Let me extend this post by quoting my own above post and including the conclusion of the above essay and how Sorenson felt about his own work.

I think his thoughts cohere precisely with mine, ironically after all the questions and doubts leveled at my posts on this thread among others, about historicity  

So who would guess I end up a 100% supporter of Sorenson on the VALUE of Book of Mormon history?

Quote

 

     I feel greatly privileged to work at understanding through those symbols by which truth is phrased among us.  This life of the mind or the spirit is blessed work; it is part of serving God with all one’s “heart, might, mind and strength,” and I commend it to all.  Simultaneously I commend charity for the views of others, even though this may require stressful discipline from us.

           But there is a lesson that I think should inform all discussions and uses of symbols.  I always had a warning for students entering my field, anthropology.  To encounter that field (or perhaps any disciplined field of study) is a liberating experience for the human mind, an opener to clarifying views, an aid to improvement in theory.  Only one must not believe that what is said in any field of secular thought or through the significations of its symbol is “TRUE”; none of it can ever be more than “true,” for it is only a human product and of a   limited purview.  A parallel is seen in what physicist James B. Conant once said,

 

Science, as we now have it, does not represent a stage in the unveiling of the one and only correct pattern of nature, a mirror of reality.  On the contrary, the fabric of science [, as with theology,] is man-made and carries all through it marks characteristic of the weavers.

 

Such caution about the inadequacies of science and other theorizing do not mean that there is somehow no reality “out there” (or  “in here”).  There is, I am convinced, as the conceptual coomplexity of the universe witnesses.  The problem is the limited mental capacities we human beings bring to the process of apperception and cognition broadly.  Ralph Waldo Emerson was right, I am sure:

 

           Here is the world, sound as a nut, perfect, not the smallest piece of chaos left, never a stitch nor an end, not a mark of haste, or botching, or second thought; but the theory of the world is a thing of shreds and patches. 

 

           But God’s instruction to the saints concerned spiritual matters; he told us to perfect ourselves in theory about all his doings, not merely about nature. 

What?  Can our knowledge of spiritual matter be no more perfect than our knowledge of science?  Yes, that is correct.  The common factor uniting both is the limitation inherent in the capacities of humans.  There is a nature and there is a God.  Both are “real world.”  But, as Brigham Young tells us, our limited ability to understand those things is built into us as long as we are enduring this period we call mortality:

 

           I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness.  The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the     earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.  He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities . . .10

 

Thus we have great reason for humility in all our mental formulations--our conceptualizations, our theories, our statements--whether “scientific” or “revelational.”  B. H. Roberts’ counsel, invitation and warning fits our situation well.  I have used it as a closer before and do so again because it is so apt to the human condition:

 

Nor need we be surprised if now and then we find our predecessors, many of whom bear honored names [in science, philosophy or religion] and deserve respect and gratitude for what they achieved in making clear the truth, as they conceived it to be -- we need not be surprised if we sometimes find them mistaken in their conceptions and deductions; just as the generations who succeed us in unfolding in a larger way some of the yet unlearned truths of the Gospel, will find that we have had some misconceptions and made some wrong deductions in our day and time.11

__________________

10  Discourses of Brigham Young, selected and arranged by John A. Widtsoe (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 1954), p. 40; from Journal of Discourses 2:314.

11  New Witnesses for God, II, The Book of Mormon, Volume III ( Deseret News: Salt Lake City, 1951 [1909], pp. 503-4.

 

[This piece was written in July 1995 for members of my family.  The present version is dated April 2015.]

 

Ironically or not, this notion of science being a "Mirror of Reality" is labeled as false by my favorite philosopher, Rorty, as well as Conant,  and some of Rorty's quotes follow in my siggy.

So in the final analysis it appears that the view of Sorenson and Rorty were very closely paralleled, and if I must unmodestly say, my own views as well. 

Science is not a mirror of reality but an interpretation of symbols and reflects the way people think, not the way the world is.  We look out at the world and see our own way of seeing staring back at us!!  And then we call it "evidence"!  Theory comes first and then we see everything as justifying that one theory. 

And again, to me this is why worrying about "the evidence" and how we manufacture its interpretation is by far secondary to knowing what theory is good for, and why in my experience the study of philosophy can teach one religion far better than studying pottery shards or examining linguistic "evidence", or other studies of human culture.  We look for God in human culture.   Isn't that a little weird? 

When one knows what is important in life, that which is unimportant becomes crystal clear.

So thank you John Sorenson for teaching me the true value of archaeology. 

And so the TRUE nature of God remains ineffable while we study in detail the most true paradigm possible for the human mind to understand as a product of inspiration, Mormonism with it's completely perfect yet totally Human God Our Father teaching us all through our scriptures written by human hands to the best level of human understanding.

There could be nothing more wonderful in Humankind.

And so life goes on, if I have more to say I will say it, if not, I will not.  Make of it what you will.

Edited June 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

One last word from Sorenson- the links are posted above.

This seems to apply to this thread at least in my opinion and is something we would do well to remember on this board  

Quote

Our love for those weak in faith who might be hurt by too hasty or over-confident speaking out of our ignorance perhaps should lead us to err on the side of caution.  In time it will be possible to say things now better left unsaid because they can now only be said unclearly.  A little delay in offering our possibly premature emendations or interpretations of the standard works to the body of the Church won’t hurt any of us and may help some.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s interesting. I wonder why that would be. Are more educated people more invested, have more intellectual tools for dealing with contrary information? Would be interesting to learn more. 

The more interesting question is Why isn't that true of other religions?  Why are the Mormons exceptional?  It cannot be that they "have more intellectual tools" than well-educated non-Mormons, nor that they are simply "more invested."  Many non-Mormons are deeply invested in their faith, and many of them are very able intellectually.  Could it be that the LDS faith has elements at base which make it more coherent and humanistic -- in the best sense?  In other words, it may be that Mormons have a faith which coheres better with reality, and which welcomes great intellectual achievement.  See the following two books which Mark Bukowski highly recommends:

Givens, Terryl L., Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Theology and Practice, 2 vols. (OUP, 2014); vol. 1, on Cosmology.

Givens, Terryl L., Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Church and Praxis (OUP, 2017); vol. 2, on Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology.

See also Givens, Terryl L., “Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of, and its Theology,” in the Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity, ed. Daniel Patte (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

In any case, Emma Green points out that 

Quote

If Millennials do eventually become religious, they may reap some unexpected fringe benefits. For one thing, compared with the nonreligious, religious people report more satisfaction with their love lives [3] and sex lives [4]. Frequent church attendance has also been associated with lower rates of smoking and drinking, a greater tendency to exercise [5], reduced risk of cancer, and improved cardiovascular health [6]. A research review conducted on behalf of the National Institutes of Health went so far as to declare that “church/service attendance protects healthy people against death” [7].
* * * * * 
. . . kids of certain faiths, such as young Mormons, evangelicals, and Jews, are more likely to stay in the fold than are those of other denominations [9].  Green, “Keeping the Faith: How childhood influences churchgoing,” Atlantic, Nov 2014, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/keeping-the-faith/380799/ .

 

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I know a lot of ex-Mormons, and they seem to reflect the membership at large. 

What is generally true is that those leaving the faith are mostly those who were marginal in any case.  That isn't always the case, but is true of the vast majority.  Bahr & Albrecht say that 

Quote

"Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences."   Bahr, H.M. and S. L. Albrecht. “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, in Abstract, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

Lewis Rambo says that

Quote

At least the studies that I’ve seen of sociologists in the United States and Europe show that most people remain in the religion into which they were born. The exceptions are people who were born to parents who had a mixed religion. Often, they will change. So, we can begin with the premise that most people stay in the family religion. Those that do change were in situations with a bit of conflict, and were perplexed about the issue. * * * * 

I know groups that very consciously—I’m talking about Evangelical Christian groups—target vulnerable people.

Rambo, “The Psychology of Religious Conversion,” delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millennium" Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998, online at  http://www.religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=356&Itemid=18 .

 

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The more interesting question is Why isn't that true of other religions?  Why are the Mormons exceptional?  It cannot be that they "have more intellectual tools" than well-educated non-Mormons, nor that they are simply "more invested."  Many non-Mormons are deeply invested in their faith, and many of them are very able intellectually.  Could it be that the LDS faith has elements at base which make it more coherent and humanistic -- in the best sense?  In other words, it may be that Mormons have a faith which coheres better with reality, and which welcomes great intellectual achievement.  See the following two books which Mark Bukowski highly recommends:

Givens, Terryl L., Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Theology and Practice, 2 vols. (OUP, 2014); vol. 1, on Cosmology.

Givens, Terryl L., Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Church and Praxis (OUP, 2017); vol. 2, on Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology.

See also Givens, Terryl L., “Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of, and its Theology,” in the Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity, ed. Daniel Patte (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

In any case, Emma Green points out that 

 

What is generally true is that those leaving the faith are mostly those who were marginal in any case.  That isn't always the case, but is true of the vast majority.  Bahr & Albrecht say that 

Lewis Rambo says that

 

So, it sounds as if these studies refer to the general phenomenon of people drifting out of religion. I would expect church members who stay to be more educated simply because they are strongly encouraged to do so, at least that’s what I have seen in LDS culture and practice. Perhaps education levels are a by-product of the church’s success in getting commitment from members, and not the other way around. 

It would be interesting to see a study of people like me who were not “marginal at best” but were pretty much fully invested and then made a deliberate choice as adults to leave. Are such people likely to be less educated? I have no idea. 

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No of course matters of conscience cannot be resolved by appeals to conscience

Sorry I misinterpreted your shock to be from who said there was no evidence rather than that there was no evidence.

Your actual quote I think misled me and let me show you why

It seems you were shocked that there was no evidence because it apparently took time for you to discover there WAS no evidence.

It's hard to imagine any other conclusion from what you actually said.  You never said you were shocked by what he said, having already known there was no evidence.

But I am used to this in talking to you so, let's not carry on yet again.

One other thought. Up until I heard the "shocking" statement from that professor, what I had heard from LDS scholars was a cautious statement that there were interesting parallels with the Book of Mormon in the historical record, but one needed to know how to approach it. This was the early 1980s (I was a teenager), and I think we were past the time of seeing Jesus in Quetzalcoatl and Wiracocha. A measured belief that there might be something there was the most common refrain in my circles (Latin American history, etc.), so the professor's statement that there was no evidence at all was rather jarring.

Either way, you seem to have decided long ago that I'm wedded to some sort of naive Enlightenment rationalism, and I'm well past caring.

Edited June 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is generally true is that those leaving the faith are mostly those who were marginal in any case.  That isn't always the case, but is true of the vast majority.

Quote

"Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences."   Bahr, H.M. and S. L. Albrecht. “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, in Abstract, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

 

The interesting thing that I've noted repeatedly, when visiting forums frequented by former members, is how adamant so many of them are in declaring how thoroughly 'TBM' they once were ... all whilst describing behaviours or attitudes that are completely foreign to me and sound thoroughly marginal. It's interesting to see research that backs up my general impression.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If folks can't handle it here, there is not much hope on getting it in GC.

Ha, well, it all depends how you define handling it. 

I think it would be a very good thing for church culture and society in general.  Things are changing anyway, people are learning and leaving because of it.  The choice to continue to teach the old correlated heritage oriented story is a choice with consequences, just as the choice to embrace and wrestle with the more complex history with its own unique set of consequences.   Its pretty hard to predict what happens to the church going down either path.  I prefer the more transparent and open approach to the double down on some traditional narrative that looks increasingly out of place in our modern world.  

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The interesting thing that I've noted repeatedly, when visiting forums frequented by former members, is how adamant so many of them are in declaring how thoroughly 'TBM' they once were ... all whilst describing behaviours or attitudes that are completely foreign to me and sound thoroughly marginal. It's interesting to see research that backs up my general impression.

Interesting. What kinds of behaviors and attitudes are you talking about? I don't keep up with a lot of ex-Mormon friends, but the ones I still talk to were pretty much run-of-the-mill active Mormons. My closest friend is a man about my age who grew up in the church, served a mission to Argentina, graduated from BYU, married in the temple, got a law degree, served in a bishopric and as veil coordinator in the temple, and was on the temple committee when they were constructing the Oklahoma City temple. I don't think he's ever exhibited any particularly aberrant behaviors or attitudes, although he is currently "living in sin" with the former Relief Society president of his old ward. Of course, that happened much later.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's an interesting statement.

Questions about "historicity" appear to be quite rare.  How often do people examine a document or an event, the historicity of which is disputed?  Not often, I think.

A few issues come up, like the historicity of George Washington and the cherry tree, historical information around controversial figures like Columbus, etc.

 

Quote

Well, yes.  If there is a dispute between Team X and Team Y about Topic Z, and if Team Y is silenced or ignored ("if one engages the evidence for historicity outside the sphere of apologetics"), then that leaves . . . Team X to say what it likes about Topic Z.

It's not really about silencing a team. It's about approach. Many apologists are also accomplished scholars and can do critical scholarship when they want to.

 

Quote

How is silencing or ignoring a viewpoint on a disputed issue, particularly when that viewpoint is informed by scholarship from well-informed and well-trained experts on the subject matter in dispute, a bad thing?

Apologetics is informed by interpretations based on particular theological commitments. In other words, it's not critical (i.e. scientific) in approach.

 

Quote

Hamblin addressed this in his debate with Jenkins.  There simply isn't much in the way of "mainstream, critical areas of study" as pertaining to the Book of Mormon.  It gets ignored by pretty much everyone in the relevant fields.  See here (quoting Hamblin) (emphasis added):

The problem is that the Book of Mormon is so riddled with very obvious and large anachronisms content that the subtle linguistic parallels simply aren't enough to overcome them, for someone coming from a critical background. We would need to have dramatic physicial evidence supporting the book's historicity before it could be taken seriously as a potential historical document.

Two relevant areas of study include academic Biblical studies and pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies. The former field tells us that the BOM is riddled with textual, theological and philosophical anachronisms, and the latter tells us that there is no compelling archeological or other evidence to support the BOM. That's why the BOM's historicity is not taken seriously outside of very small circles.

 

Quote

So you are proposing that we A) ignore "Team Y" (LDS scholars who are both professionally trained in fields relevant to the Book of Mormon), and B) go with "nothing for the critical-minded person to evaluate" (because, as Hamblin notes, the Book of Mormon "receives almost no serious attention by Precolumbian scholars").  So that leaves us with . . . what?

Again, not about teams. It's about the approach. Apologetics vs critical (scientific) approach. Many apologists are capable of engaging with and producing critical scholarship.

 

Quote

That's an odd suggestion.  Argument" for "Q Source" scholarship is necessarily "apologetic" (with the theory the thing being the thing defended).

Yep.  The two seem to be heavily intertwined.  That's one of the points we've addressed in this thread (see, e.g., here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you understand what is meant by the term "apologetic"? It sounds like you don't.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Gray