Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[Gray]

21 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.

I think some of the seemingly foreign attitudes you encounter are literally foreign because they're prevalent in some US/Mountain West wards. Church culture is not the same wherever you go.

Some of it is probably exaggeration for polemical purposes. I've seen that too.

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting. What kinds of behaviors and attitudes are you talking about?

All kinds. One of the most prevalent ones is either outright statements or clear implications that they were unhappy/bored/etc. by the church or that the Church made them miserable/depressed/inadequate. Another relatively common one seems to have been a history of persistent sexual sin during adolescence, often accompanied by a claim that 'fooling around' was standard behaviour for all the young Latter-day Saints they knew. But seriously, it's all too individual to generalise about. And I'm certain this doesn't describe everyone; it's just a pattern I've picked up on over the course of many years.

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Some of it is probably exaggeration for polemical purposes. I've seen that too.

Yes. In some cases, it almost sounds like a contest to establish credibility for the critique that follows: My family was so TBM that we held FHE on Mondays and again on Thursdays.

And it often consists of almost identical checklists of external 'milestones' rather than anything internal: was called as president in every YW class, served a mission, attended BYU, married when I was 21, had 8 kids, served in this and that calling, etc.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That depends of course upon what is meant by spiritual. My sense in these discussions is that there's a lot of equivocating going on with terms. 

This comes out more clearly with the question of the historic Jesus. There's no real way to evaluate the historic son of God question. (Even if there is weak indirect evidence for a person of Jesus, there's no evidence that he was like the NT claims) So does that mean a fictional Jesus is spiritual in the same way a historic son of God is spiritual? 

"Spiritual" is a term that isn't well-defined, like "God". But usually I think when people talk about spiritual texts they mean a text that helps them get closer to God.

The evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is reasonably solid, especially given the time/place. Of course the question of the divinity of Jesus isn't a historical question.

 

 

[Analytics]

11 hours 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.

I never said that only "ignorant and poorly informed Mormons could possibly be faithful believers" and I never said that "well-educated Mormons are the most likely to leave the faith." What I did say is that Mormon 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 disagree with this? By definition, somebody who is well educated understands the theory of Evolution. When well-educated Mormons go to school they don't scream that evolution is false--a mere theory of man that contradicts the revealed truth of God. Rather, they compartmentalize their thinking--in the secular world they understand that evolution robustly explains an overwhelming quantity of data and causes all of biology to hold together in an elegant way. But when they are at church, Adam is the son of God who was created into a perfect world that was without spiritual and physical death until Adam fell, but that through the atonement we can overcome physical and spiritual death.

Granted, especially limber thinkers will try to contort natural reality and Mormon doctrine so that they harmonize, as Clark Goble has demonstrated on this thread. But otherwise, they are going to compartmentalize their thinking, have faith, and put the discrepancies on a shelf. And the more educated you are, the more you have to do these things, because except in a few vague ways and isolated incidences, Mormon doctrine and natural science conflict with each other.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

All kinds. One of the most prevalent ones is either outright statements or clear implications that they were unhappy/bored/etc. by the church or that the Church made them miserable/depressed/inadequate. Another relatively common one seems to have been a history of persistent sexual sin during adolescence, often accompanied by a claim that 'fooling around' was standard behaviour for all the young Latter-day Saints they knew. But seriously, it's all too individual to generalise about. And I'm certain this doesn't describe everyone; it's just a pattern I've picked up on over the course of many years.

That's interesting. None of that resonates with me (I was a virgin until my wedding night), although I discovered after I left that I had been suffering from clinical depression for many years, but I had convinced myself I was "happy" and ignored it. In retrospect, I can see I didn't like myself very much when I was active in the church, and comparatively speaking, I wasn't very happy. But I wouldn't have said that back then. 

As for "fooling around" being "standard behaviour" (love the British/NZ spelling variants in your posts), I wouldn't say that. I know a number of the people I grew up with were sexually active. A girl my age in our ward got pregnant at 15, my roommate at BYU freshman year got his girlfriend pregnant when they were 18, and another BYU roommate from after my mission told me recently that the reason his girlfriend broke off their engagement was that she wanted to stop having sex so she would be temple worthy, and he didn't. So, standard behaviour? I don't think so, but certainly common enough.

 

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

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.

Mark,

I really appreciate this, its very interesting and thought provoking.  I have some comments to make.  It seems to me that if science is "an interpretation of symbols that reflects the way people think" at best, then it is the most disciplined and sophisticated system devised by humans to date to interpret these symbols in the universe we inhabit.  The benefits for the human race from the development of the sciences are immeasurable and awe inspiring.  

Religion is the stuff of something else.  This is where I don't understand what you're saying or what Sorenson said.  I'm sure you see the value of the modern science.  Why does it seem to me like you're trying to elevate religious experience to some pedestal above science?  Why even make the comparison in the first place, to me its like comparing apples with elephants, they are very different.  Religion is all about describing love and beauty, its subjective, its about the emotions and connections people feel.  You even used the word ineffable, and I agree, these are often difficult to describe using words. 

From my perspective, religion is not better than science at "interpreting the symbols" of the universe.  It can't compete with trying to explain gravity or evolution, or the history of ancient civilizations.  Religion can't tell us anything more accurately than the sciences when it comes to these interpretations.  Religion would be like trying to use a crescent wrench to perform brain surgery.  Its completely the wrong tool.  I just don't get what you and Sorenson are saying about the limitations of science, I agree there are limitations of course.  But what does any of this have to do with religion?  Why the comparison at all? 

[ALarson]

52 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.

In my experience, I have seen a great deal of those who leave were very staunch believers and committed members.  Some who I personally know shocked me when they left (a couple of ex-Bishops and a member of our stake presidency left).  If you visit forums like New Order Mormon and read the histories of those joining, many were ward leaders (including Bishops, members of Stake Presidencies and High Counselmen) or were auxiliary leaders in their wards, returned missionaries, temple marriages and active attenders.  Some are still attending and pretending to belief and still hold leadership callings.

So, I don't think we can say that those who are leaving were never "TBM" or committed members.  I have seen many leave who were converts and who were really never taught everything or never truly committed.  I gave an example of a brother in our stake who was just recently baptized before he even read the Book of Mormon (now inactive).  But some converts become some of the strongest, most faithful members.

Also, I've seen many extremely well read (in the gospel) members leave.  Our long time Gospel Doctrine teacher left last year (another shock) who was about as knowledgeable and faithful as they come.

Edited June 27, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes. In some cases, it almost sounds like a contest to establish credibility for the critique that follows: My family was so TBM that we held FHE on Mondays and again on Thursdays.

And it often consists of almost identical checklists of external 'milestones' rather than anything internal: was called as president in every YW class, served a mission, attended BYU, married when I was 21, had 8 kids, served in this and that calling, etc.

True enough. I think there's some of that, as people don't like being dismissed as "marginal at best" when they feel they were pretty well invested. The roll call of callings seems a defense against that dismissal. 

In my family, my mom was always devout, but my dad was never much of a believer, though that's changed as he's gotten older. Of the 6 siblings, 3 of us stuck pretty much with the program, and speaking for myself, we believed and had spiritual experiences that confirmed to us the church was true. The other three have had varying experiences. My brother, the eldest, drifted away from the church as a teenager, and when he was in his 40s (and I was still active), he told me that he still believed in the church, but he felt he wasn't worthy to go back and didn't think he was strong enough to stick with it. My sister tried to connect with church in college by going to church and attending LDSSA, but she said she was treated badly and figured she wouldn't go where she didn't feel welcome; she converted to Judaism and hasn't looked back. My younger brother did pretty much everything you weren't supposed to do when he was a teenager but through a series of fortunate accidents ended up at BYU. At age 20, he found himself with a pregnant girlfriend and told me he was going to see his bishop to "confess everything I've ever done." His bishop gave him 6 months and a long list of assignments for him to work through the repentance process. He was killed a couple of days before the 6 months were up. 

[champatsch]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Yet, I've determined that there really is an insurmountable problem that this line of thinking must confront, if it is to be rigorous: Joseph didn't have the implicit knowledge to generate Book of Mormon syntax. So, there's bedrock evidence that fundamentally alters the above position.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Mark,

I really appreciate this, its very interesting and thought provoking.  I have some comments to make.  It seems to me that if science is "an interpretation of symbols that reflects the way people think" at best, then it is the most disciplined and sophisticated system devised by humans to date to interpret these symbols in the universe we inhabit.  The benefits for the human race from the development of the sciences are immeasurable and awe inspiring.  

Religion is the stuff of something else.  This is where I don't understand what you're saying or what Sorenson said.  I'm sure you see the value of the modern science.  Why does it seem to me like you're trying to elevate religious experience to some pedestal above science?  Why even make the comparison in the first place, to me its like comparing apples with elephants, they are very different.  Religion is all about describing love and beauty, its subjective, its about the emotions and connections people feel.  You even used the word ineffable, and I agree, these are often difficult to describe using words. 

From my perspective, religion is not better than science at "interpreting the symbols" of the universe.  It can't compete with trying to explain gravity or evolution, or the history of ancient civilizations.  Religion can't tell us anything more accurately than the sciences when it comes to these interpretations.  Religion would be like trying to use a crescent wrench to perform brain surgery.  Its completely the wrong tool.  I just don't get what you and Sorenson are saying about the limitations of science, I agree there are limitations of course.  But what does any of this have to do with religion?  Why the comparison at all? 

I've said it before: everything is interpreted, even the ineffable. Were it not so, there would be no meaning in life. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Some who I personally know shocked me when they left (a couple of ex-Bishops and a member of our stake presidency left).

Understood. I don't accept that callings per se identify what I personally understand to be a state of 'conversion'. We had an entire family from our ward leave the Church about five years ago. During my time in the ward, the husband had served in two bishoprics, and he and the wife had served together as seminary teachers for a number of years. All that time, I kept wondering when we would lose them. When I heard the General Conference talk about parents who choose to pitch their tents on the fringes of the camp of Israel, I immediately thought of this family. In one of the last 'testimonies' the wife ever gave in a sacrament meeting, she tearfully explained that she had no idea why all three of their children had gone inactive. I sat dumbfounded. I didn't want to see them go, but when they went, I experienced no shock at all.

But I have no doubt that, between us, we can find anecdotal examples of all kinds of people leaving the Church. In apostate circles, it is almost an article of faith that the Church is losing her very best, brightest and most committed. The research that Robert linked to, though a bit out of date, challenges this narrative.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've said it before: everything is interpreted, even the ineffable. Were it not so, there would be no meaning in life. 

But isn't religion squarely situated in the pursuit of meaning making when it comes to the subjective.  It seems to me that religion can't tell us anything useful about the mechanics of the objective universe.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In apostate circles, it is almost an article of faith that the Church is losing her very best, brightest and most committed.

I certainly have not seen this article of faith. What I have seen--and I agree with it--is that more members who have been active participants as adults are leaving. That is certainly the case, but the church isn't losing the best and brightest, as far as I can see. But I think the church's clear efforts to address difficult questions reflect their understanding that they are losing too many active adults and families. It used to be pretty rare that someone with a long history of church activity would just pack it in and leave, but it's not so rare these days.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But isn't religion squarely situated in the pursuit of meaning making when it comes to the subjective.  It seems to me that religion can't tell us anything useful about the mechanics of the objective universe.  

The issue is where the subjective ends and the objective begins. I'm not sure there's an answer to that. For Mark, the spirit is the only way by which humans can know anything because it is direct experience without interpretation. I disagree, as I've said. Whether subjective or objective or anywhere in between, whatever we experience is interpreted. It has to be, or it doesn't mean anything at all. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Yes, the Book's status as a spiritual text is quite different from its status as a historical text. Historical investigative tools cannot answer the former and spiritual investigative tools cannot answer the latter.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It used to be pretty rare that someone with a long history of church activity would just pack it in and leave, but it's not so rare these days.

I would need to see evidence that we're dealing with something more than the amplification of the internet.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Understood. I don't accept that callings per se identify what I personally understand to be a state of 'conversion'. We had an entire family from our ward leave the Church about five years ago. During my time in the ward, the husband had served in two bishoprics, and he and the wife had served together as seminary teachers for a number of years. All that time, I kept wondering when we would lose them. When I heard the General Conference talk about parents who choose to pitch their tents on the fringes of the camp of Israel, I immediately thought of this family. In one of the last 'testimonies' the wife ever gave in a sacrament meeting, she tearfully explained that she had no idea why all three of their children had gone inactive. I sat dumbfounded. I didn't want to see them go, but when they went, I experienced no shock at all.

But I have no doubt that, between us, we can find anecdotal examples of all kinds of people leaving the Church. In apostate circles, it is almost an article of faith that the Church is losing her very best, brightest and most committed. The research that Robert linked to, though a bit out of date, challenges this narrative.

My very unscientific and personal observations make me think that the people that leave vs the people that stay has more to do with a personality temperament than religious observance or commitment.  I was an extremely orthodox and orthoprax conservative member prior to my faith journey.  I had no troubles with any of the rules of Mormonism. 

Yet something about my feelings changed, I think it has more to do with the time of my life, a kind of midlife questioning that started me down a path of questioning everything, religion, politics, reality.  I couldn't have predicted that this was coming, but I don't think I could have stopped it from coming upon me either.  I felt called to question.  I've told that to many people when I describe me faith journey.  There was something bubbling up inside of me that led me down this path.  I've always followed my conscience, and this was no different than all the earlier times in life when I followed those feelings.  

[Analytics]

7 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? 

I would speculate that the main driver is what John said earlier--Mormon culture encourages education, and the more disciplined you are as a Mormon, the more education you are going to get. As an example, I have a childhood friend who is wicked smart. He was socialized into Mormonism his entire life. Pioneer stock, eagle scout, seminary graduate, mission, temple marriage, degree in engineering, and now supports his family as a professional engineer/scientist. So why is he so dedicated to the church? Is it because Mormonism's truth claims are especially appealing to people with his educational background? Or is it because Mormonism is an intrinsic part of his well-established, picture-perfect life?

I would think the vast majority of people who fade away are recent converts who were never that invested in it to begin with.

What I'd really like to see is a study that controls for the sociological reasons people change (or don't change) faiths, and then compares how educated and intelligent people shift. When controlling for everything else, do smart, successful people leave the church? Occasionally. Do smart, successful people join it? Less frequently, I would hypothesize.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I would need to see evidence that we're dealing with something more than the amplification of the internet.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a mad rush for the exits, but clearly it's become a significant issue. My friend (the one living in sin) and I had a conversation years ago where we were discussing the apparent fantasy many exmos have that the church is collapsing from within because so many people are leaving. We both thought that was ludicrous (and still do), as at best it's still just a small trickle of people leaving. But we thought we would know it was becoming a serious problem for the church if the day came that the church started talking about these issues and the apostasy of active members in conference, in church magazines, and elsewhere. To our great surprise, in the last few years, that has happened. So, no, the church is in no danger of collapse, but it's clearly become a significant enough problem that the church is dealing with it quite publicly. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 I have a childhood friend who is wicked smart.

You just made me nostalgic for my mission!!!

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue is where the subjective ends and the objective begins. I'm not sure there's an answer to that. For Mark, the spirit is the only way by which humans can know anything because it is direct experience without interpretation. I disagree, as I've said. Whether subjective or objective or anywhere in between, whatever we experience is interpreted. It has to be, or it doesn't mean anything at all. 

From my vantage point the spirit is 100% interpretation and subjective.  The act of describing the spirit is an act of interpretation.  But all of these experiences can't tell me how gravity works, or how to produce an antidote to a venomous snake bite.  I agree there is interpretation going on in the sciences, there has to be, but these interpretations can be done across time and culture and have produced consistent and verifiable results that have real practical value.  

Religious experiences have value too, great value for societies, but from my perspective all of that value is in the realm of relationships and the stuff of meaning which are quite important but very different than scientific understanding.  

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From my vantage point the spirit is 100% interpretation and subjective.  The act of describing the spirit is an act of interpretation.  But all of these experiences can't tell me how gravity works, or how to produce an antidote to a venomous snake bite.  I agree there is interpretation going on in the sciences, there has to be, but these interpretations can be done across time and culture and have produced consistent and verifiable results that have real practical value.  

Religious experiences have value too, great value for societies, but from my perspective all of that value is in the realm of relationships and the stuff of meaning which are quite important but very different than scientific understanding.  

Of course, the reason things work in the material world is that what we interpret is repeatable. Anti-venom is effective not because we interpret it that way but because it has shown consistent and verifiable results with practical value. We instinctively understand this, as we couldn't function in the world without accepting that, say, gravity works or banging your head on a door hurts. We know these things because they are part of the pattern of life (language and experience) that we are born into, and they work. Religious truths and moral values function much in the same way: we accept them because they are part of our collective experience that preceded us and will continue after us. 

To some people, this position is heretical and perhaps evil, as it implies that all you have to do is change the interpretation (through rhetoric or practice) to destroy the values and truths we're talking about. But you really can't do it. Even the most radical attempts to overthrow current modes of thinking will never be able to change the way the human mind processes and interprets its own experiences. Even the most powerful dictator could not change the perception that it hurts to step on a Lego with your bare foot. Similarly, even the most committed atheist is going to interpret subjective experience differently from objective "reality." 

I think the problem is when people decide that one or the other (subjective or objective, effable or ineffable) is a "mirror of reality," when it's all just interpretation. To quote the poet, "Nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about." If anything, science is interpretation that explains how the world works; spiritual experience is interpretation that explains how we are supposed to be.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

"Spiritual" is a term that isn't well-defined, like "God". But usually I think when people talk about spiritual texts they mean a text that helps them get closer to God.

The evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is reasonably solid, especially given the time/place. Of course the question of the divinity of Jesus isn't a historical question.

That there's a figure called Jesus isn't that controversial. However that he did anything miraculous is. That does seem a historic question even if it is perhaps unanswerable.

My problem with calling something spiritual if it gets people closer to God is that this is still pretty vague and ambiguous. If I think about God more then that may be closer to God than not thinking about him. But many texts that get people thinking about God, like say proofs for God's existence, might be interesting but I'd not call them particularly spiritual.

12 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. 

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

This seems reasonably empirically verified. The problem is what's rational versus what can be rationalized. Intelligent people can easily fall prey to confirmation bias and provide arguments for what is actually irrational or at least unlikely. The other effect are psychological tendencies to forget information that doesn't support your tribe/beliefs. You see this especially in scientific issues where there's a strong political element such as global warming, genetic engineering safety, vaccines, and other such items. Given the number of pseudo-scientific items that very intelligent people believe, it's not that surprising critics would see that in intelligent Mormons remaining Mormon. (Not saying you are arguing that - I recognize you don't think Mormons are irrational)

Now these psychological studies tend to have limited applicability (although it's somewhat common in psychology I've found to not be terribly careful about the limits and implications of studies - especially ones where there's actually a large sample size). So I think a lot of studies into political psychology one has to be careful with. But the confirmation bias and difficulty of dislodging ideas in the intelligent is a fairly well established phenomena.

Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

I still don't understand.  You still sound like you are advocating the silencing or ignoring of one side (Team Y).

Quote

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

With respect, I disagree.  First, "particular theological commitnments" is a door that swings both ways.  The Book of Mormon is a pretty divisive thing.  Quoth Hamblin:

Quote

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it claims Jesus visited the new world.  These claims—rather than its claims about Precolumbian American archaeology—are the fundamental reason it receives almost no serious attention by Precolumbian scholars.  To accept the Book of Mormon as history requires accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet and Jesus as the Christ.  In the modern secular academy, it is the religious claims of the book, rather than its archaeological claims, which dooms it to being rejected without even being read. 

Hamblin is arguing that the Book of Mormon has not been critiqued in secular academia because of the book's religious claims.  He's right.

Second, apologetics certainly can use a "critical (i.e. scientific) [] approach" to the subject matter.  This happens all the time, actually.  It's one of the most intellectually appealing aspects of the field.  I invite you to consider, for example, Royal Skousen's Critical Text Project.  I think this is a good example of scholarship that is both "critical (i.e. scientific)" and apologetic (although I think its apologetic aspects are mostly incidental, not intentional).

Quote

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.

Strange how many of these anachronisms aren't necessarily anachronistic after all.  Take, for example, this observation by Jeff Lindsay:

Quote

I read of an educated man who left the Church around the turn of the century because the references to the use of cement for construction in the Book of Mormon was a laughable anachronism. He boldly told a leader of the Church that the book must be a fraud, based on the cement problem. Today the use of cement in ancient Mesoamerica is well known. Tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is in the right area for cement use according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. It was a blunder for anyone writing in 1830 - but now is one more piece of evidence (though a tiny one!) of authenticity. (See the online FARMS article, "Cement in the Book of Mormon.") Yet for a while, it was an issue that could challenge one's faith, or at least was an easy area for critics to attack, as President Heber J. Grant reported in 1929:

When I was a young unmarried man, another young man who had received a doctor's degree ridiculed me for believing in the Book of Mormon. He said that one lie in the Book of Mormon is that the people had built their homes out of cement and that they were very skillful in the use of cement. He said there had never been found, and never would be found, a house built of cement by the ancient inhabitants of this country, because the people in that early age knew nothing about cement. He said that should be enough to make one disbelieve the book. I said: 'That does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it and believe it with all my heart.' I also said to him, 'If my children do not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will' (in Conference Report, April 1929, 129).

The faith and patience required to accept the Book of Mormon is increasingly being rewarded with evidences and advances in knowledge, though faith is always going to be essential.

The interesting thing is that critics seem to feel at liberty to move the goal posts around whenever they feel like it.  This advantage largely stems from being unified only in their opposition to the LDS Church, and otherwise being a mishmash of competing and contradictory ideologies and opinions.  So a staunch atheits and a zealously devout evangelical can stand should to shoulder when presenting arguments about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, but otherwise they owe no fealty to each other whatsoever.  There is no oversight, no discipline.  So if Critic #1 makes a claim about references to cement in the Book of Mormon being anachronistic, and if that criticism turns out to be embarrassingly misguided, Critics #2, #3, and #4 all just proceed on their merry way, ignoring what just happened.

When Michael Coe, one of the world's preeminent scholars on Mesoamerica, makes a public and ought-to-be-pretty-embarrassing gaffe about pigs as a per se anachronism, there's nary a peep from other critics, even after John L. Sorenson called him out on it.

I'm not saying that there are not substantial arguments to be made about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.  Far from it.  There are plent of reasoned criticisms on this subject.  But there are also plenty of reasoned responses.  Those responses don't get much attention from the critics.  This is the context that underlies this thread.  The OP asks why critics don't engage the evidence for historicity.  The same could be said for plenty of other facets of the Book of Mormon.

Quote

We would need to have dramatic physicial evidence supporting the book's historicity before it could be taken seriously as a potential historical document.

I'm not sure that's a necessary precondition.  Plenty of ancient books are scrutinized by scholars without having "dramatic physical evidence supporting [their] historicity."  Consider the use of Homer's Iliad in the search for Troy.  One of the candidates for Troy, Hisarlik, has been debated about for a while.  Hence we get items like this:

Quote

Many scholars were skeptical about Hisarlik being Troy because it was so small, and Homer's poetry seems to suggest a large commercial or trading center. But excavations by Manfred Korfmann discovered that the small central hilltop location supported a much larger population, perhaps as many as 6,000 living in an area estimated to be about 27 hectares (about one-tenth of a square mile) lying adjacent to and stretched out 400 m (1300 ft) from the citadel mound.

Scholars used Homer's poem about Troy as a source of data points about Troy.  And yet I don't think any of these scholars subscribe to the Iliad's references to Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Thetis, Hermes, etc. playing prominent and pivotal roles in the narrative.

So if scholars can use Homer's narrative for research/scholarship about Troy while disregarding the "religious" aspects of that narrative, why can't they do the same with the Book of Mormon re: Mesoamerica?  I think we know the answer to that.  Hamblin nails it.

So no, I don't think "dramatic physicial evidence" is a necessary precondition.

Quote

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.

Statements like "[the academic field of] Biblical studies...tells us that the BOM is riddled with textual, theological and philosophical anachronisms" is not the best example of a "critical (i.e. scientific) [] approach" to the Book of Mormon.

As for "pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies...tell[ing] us that there is no compelling archeological or other evidence to support the BOM," that is the crux of Hamblin's point.  We don't know enough to identify and differentiate "Nephite" artifacts and locations from any other artifacts and locations.  Moreover, this field is still pretty much in its infancy.  Consider this news item from February 2018:

Quote

'Game Changer': Maya Cities Unearthed In Guatemala Forest Using Lasers
February 2, 20185:20 PM ET
Merrit Kennedy 

By raining down laser pulses on some 770 square miles of dense forest in northern Guatemala, archaeologists have discovered 60,000 Maya structures that make up full sprawling cities.

And the new technology provides them with an unprecedented view into how the ancient civilization worked, revealing almost industrial agricultural infrastructure and new insights into Maya warfare.

"This is a game changer," says Thomas Garrison, an archaeologist at Ithaca College who is one of the leaders of the project. It changes "the base level at which we do Maya archaeology."

The data reveals that the area was three or four times more densely populated than originally thought. "I mean, we're talking about millions of people, conservatively," says Garrison. "Probably more than 10 million people."

The researchers fired LiDAR technology, short for "Light Detection and Ranging," down at the dense forest from an airplane. This research was organized by the PACUNAM LiDAR Initiative, and Garrison says the area's size is "more than double any other survey that's been done with this technology."

"As it flies the laser pulses hundreds of thousands of times per second," Garrison adds. "And every time one of those lasers hits a point of resistance it stops and sends back a measurement to the plane."

Some of these pulses make it all the way down to the forest floor. The data is then used to visually strip away trees and plants, ultimately mapping only the structures that have been hidden by jungle. You can think of it as digital deforestation.

...

He recalls seeing an initial image of one area in northern Guatemala. "I saw this image and I said, the whole area is covered in Maya settlement. You won't believe it," he adds. "And then once we got the actual data and saw the whole scope of it. We said, 'Wow, we're going to be able to really do something with this.'"

Together, they are able to weave together a picture of individual city-states and their vast support network.

"Everything is amplified and made much clearer for us and we see how it all fits together in a way that we have not seen before," he says. "We're seeing it all laid bare, and saying, 'OK, this is how all of this was connected and came together.'"

Archeologists, for example, knew that the Maya had agricultural fields. But he says this data show "huge, huge expanses of these irrigated field systems in these low lying swamps."

And they knew that the Maya fought, often with each other, because defensive walls had been previously spotted. But this new information reveals "Maya fortresses and systems of interconnected watchtowers," raising the possibility of more sophisticated and large-scale warfare.

The civilization had a network of raised causeways stretching "many, many kilometers." They also were "channeling water for hundreds of meters or modifying hilltops so they become these impregnable areas."

...

The most important Maya city, Tikal, was found to be three or four times larger than the scientists had thought, with a previously undiscovered pyramid in its center. And Garrison adds that they're not totally sure they've surveyed the entire extent of that city.

Suddenly having a broad view allows archaeologists to ask many new questions, he says. And there's plenty of forest to still explore — the study area is a fraction of the total area where the Maya lived.

So this field of study, which is talking about "game-changing" discoveries from four months ago, and which discovery still only pertains to "a fraction of the total area where the Maya lived," is - in your view - susceptible to being boiled down to "pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies...tells us that there is no compelling archeological or other evidence to support the BOM."

You'll understand why I find assertions like this to be less than compelling.  We don't even know most of what we don't know about Mesoamerica.

Quote

That's why the BOM's historicity is not taken seriously outside of very small circles.

I disagree.  I think the BOM's historicity is "not taken seriously" because of generalized bias and malaise, and because Hamblin is right: 

Quote

The real problem with the rejection of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not that the Book of Mormon professes Precolumbian transoceanic contact with the New World.  Sixty or seventy years ago that possibility was almost universally rejected by scholars of Precolumbian America.  (The Viking site at L’Anse aux Meadows was discovered only in 1968.)  Now the possibility is widely accepted, at least in principle.  The problem with the Book of Mormon is not the claim that a small colony of Israelites from the Middle East might have come to the New World and thrived for a few centuries before beings subsumed in the broader Mesoamerican culture.  The problem is that the Book of Mormon professes to have been delivered by an angel, and translated by the power of God.  The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it claims Jesus visited the new world.  These claims—rather than its claims about Precolumbian American archaeology—are the fundamental reason it receives almost no serious attention by Precolumbian scholars.  To accept the Book of Mormon as history requires accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet and Jesus as the Christ.  In the modern secular academy, it is the religious claims of the book, rather than its archaeological claims, which dooms it to being rejected without even being read. 

That seems right.

Quote

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.

No, it's about teams.

Quote

Apologetics vs critical (scientific) approach.

These are not mutually exclusive.  LDS scholars are extensively "critical (scientific)" in their approach to studying the Book of Mormon.  In contrast, much of academia knows virtually nothing about the Book of Mormon.  More to the point, they aren't even trying to rectify this.  And even worse, you are suggesting that this state of affairs is fine and dandy.  That the proverbial cart should be placed before the proverbial horse ("We would need to have dramatic physicial evidence supporting the book's historicity before it could be taken seriously as a potential historical document").  What's wrong with examing the Book of Mormon with some real rigor, such as to figure out if it can or should be used "as a potential historical document?"

The LDS "approach" is to use scientific and scholarly training and resources to examine the Book of Mormon.  Contemporary academia's "approach" is . . . to ignore the Book of Mormon.

So it is about teams after all.  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").  That leaves us with . . . nothing.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Quote

Many apologists are capable of engaging with and producing critical scholarship.

Then why do you keep characterizing "apologetics" as a necessarily separate category from "a critical (scientific) approach"?  

I am saying that LDS scholars are doing both in terms of studying the Book of Mormon.  You are relying on generalized academia, which is doing neither in terms of studying the Book of Mormon.  Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the former and rely on the indifference of the latter to conclude that the Book of Mormon should not be studied.  At all.  I find that pretty weird.

Quote

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).

 

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

I understand the term fairly well.  With respect, I wonder if you understand it.

"Apologetics" is defined as "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine."

You brought up "Q Source," which is "a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark."  Advocacy or defense of this theory can readily be characterized as "apologetic" ("reasoned arguments or writings in justification of...").  And yet you suggest that "one can evaluate arguments for and against the Q source, for example, without even touching apologetic arguments."

If you mean Christian apologetic arguments, then I get your point.

But this is still an odd statement.  "One can evaluate arguments for and against the Q source, for example, without even touching apologetic arguments."  I agree.  One can also evaluate arguments for and against the Book of Mormon "without even touching apologetic arguments."  And yet you are insisting that "we would need to have dramatic physicial evidence supporting the book's historicity before it could be taken seriously as a potential historical document."

So which is it?  Why can the Q Source be evaluated using a "critical (i.e. scientific)" approach, but the Book of Mormon cannot?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2018 by smac97