Gray Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 1 hour ago, champatsch said: 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. Even if that were true, that wouldn't make the BOM historical. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 Personally, I see the case for the Book of Mormon historicity as far far stronger than when I grew up in the 60s and came of age and started reading for myself in the mid 70s. The faith boogies in those days were Brodie, the Tanners, and the Roberts Study, and I eventually read them and found them weak and far out-classed by what I had read elsewhere. I got to know the Ancient Near Eastern side by exploring Nibley, and later the FARMS Reprints, and such, and savored Sorenson's Ancient American Setting. And the next 30 years improved the case even more, with Gardner and Porter and several others. Just a few months ago I watched the National Geographic special on LiDar surveys in Mesoamerica in the Yucatan and saw all sorts of things that none of the authorities who so confidently knew the score before then had any notion existed. "casting up roads" indeed. I read the Coe's opinions in Dialogue, PBS, and the Dehlin interview, and rather that getting better, they got worse and worse, more and more out of touch with both ongoing Book of Mormon scholarship and the text itself. I happened to get laid off after returning to California with a fresh copy of New Approaches, and spent several months full time going through that, producing my long "Paradigms Crossed" essay in RBBM 7/2. Five years later, I read Barker's The Older Testament on the Melchizedek traditions and had it blow away the single strongest argument in Wright's essay, the most learned in the book. And much else. I came at my faith from a variety of different angles, comparative religion, history, philosophy, comparative mythology, Biblical tests for Prophets that, to my amazement, no one had ever done. But even that produced the insight that all arguments against Biblical prophets boiled down to people saying, "It's not what I want," or "It's not what I think," and the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth turned out to involve taking active measures to offer up what we desire and see as orthodox thought as potential sacrifices, testing them, rather than huddling behind them. I'd occasionally have personal experiences of the reality of God and the atonement that I would have completely missed had I bailed early on questions. I noticed over and over that the overwhelming arguments of one decade could be rendered obsolete in a moment. Whenever I read exit narratives from whatever approach to faith, that the God or Mormonism or Book of Mormon, or Christ that this or that person confidently demonstrated was false was never the faith, God, Mormonism, Book of Mormon or Christ that I believed in. I've learned from people who have explored aspects of the faith and texts and experience that I could not have imagined, left to myself, and have also had the experience of occasionally making fresh observations. I've learned that "all data is "theory-laden", that faith can be just as open-ended as science, if not more so. I've learn that paradigm choice always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved" and that any decision to decide "which paradigm is better" always involves bath a background of expectation that may be questionable, and an ideology that has implications. Pure objectivity is a myth design to shield a person from criticism, the most important of which is self reflection, removing the beam from one's own eyes, before one can expect to see clearly. I noticed years ago, how some scholars reflexively shifted to passive voice, when delivering the bad news, as though they had become impersonal truth machines, coldly calculating irrefutable facts. Yet there is always selectivity, subjectivity, contextualization, and temporality contributing. And the constraints that Kuhn saw as operating to provide a measure of objectivity showed up in Alma 32. I still think that is pretty cool. I've long been aware of the difference between settling for open-ended "cause to believe" versus "final, absolute, knowing." So many demand that faith comes as absolute certainty, certified by skeptical authority, and in so doing, utterly miss the irony. I've learned to play close attention to the metaphors and standard examples a person uses in constructing an exit narrative. How representative are the examples or situations cited? When people claim that they have proof or evidence, they always bring along standards of proof, and expectations for evidence. All too often, people claim an authority for LDS authorities that the LDS scripture completely undercuts. Mormonism is oriented towards "further light and knowledge" rather than "static orthodoxy to defend at all costs, either a "Big Book of What to Think" or to use as a convenient straw man, a place to apply some leverage to move the world to some desirable and less personally taxing location. And some claim an authority for science that human experience undermines. I learned to key my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then. The alternative is to make final decisions based in present knowledge, to insist on final answers now, and to never examine my own assumptions. A good example of that was Blake Ostler's Expansion Theory, which in 1987 was cutting edge, and very well researched, drawing upon all of the evidence at hand. I personally found it very useful, and saw many people report that it had helped them. But a lot has been learned in since then on most aspects of what he surveyed. Most notably, in my view, Margaret Barker, whose work rendered all of the criteria for identifying expansions, typically too Christian before Christ, obsolete. That's okay. The journey is important, and we do the best we can with what we have at the moment. I've learned to watch out for false dicotomy, too narrow a choice, to small a problem field. I just read an essay by George Handley saying that defenders and critics either strive to prove or disprove the text, ignoring the path of trying to understand how an ancient context can reveal something that a 19th century reader completely misunderstands while claiming obviousness. Both Sorenson and Gardner have talked at length about that, how the right context can change everything. I'm sympathetic to people like Hardy and Spencer who just want to read the text, and appreciate what they find in their close readings. But I always find that context can change readings in completely unexpected ways. For instance, "Christ shall be his name," which seems both obvious and problematic, until I read The Great Angel, and discovered evidence that "the Name of the Lord" is the visible presence, the metaphor being based on the anointed High Priest both anointed with wearing the Name to show just who and what he represents. "Plain meaning" can be a trap, and the only way to escape is correct illumination by context. Proof? No. Any one can say, "So what? to anything. "Cause to believe?" Yes. Lots. Even evidence of various kinds, ranging from Mesoamerica cyclinder seals, Uto-Aztecan cognates, Nahom in context, First Temple Judaism, Coronation rituals, earthquakes, all sorts of interlocking details, and John Welch wrote a very good essay on difference kinds and different standards. Trump can say "Witch Hunt!" all he wants, but that categorizes the evidence, attempts to discredit it by labeling and dismissal, rather than actually address what is there publicly documented in Russian Roulette that calls for further investigation and explanation, rather than hysterical dismissals while publicly take Putin's suggestions about canceling the military exercises in South Korea and asking back into the G8, despite Crimea, etc. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 4
Gray Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: 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. Yes, whether or not miracles happen can't be answered historically. However I understand that it's historically likely that Jesus was at least known as a faith healer. 19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: 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. "Vague and ambiguous" is the wheelhouse of spirituality. That's kind of what it's all about. Very personal, very subjective. Adds a lot of value to people's lives, can't be easily quantified.
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours 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. I think some of these can easily be explained by the mode of loose translation. Not everyone agrees of course - thus the debates over how similar to Milton the Book of Mormon's Satan is, issues with deutero-Isaiah and so forth. However I tend to think most of these aren't major and can easily be explained by a combination of proto-texts to deutero-Isaiah or other texts as well as looking at Egyptian parallels. An other problem is just that the range of beliefs in pre-exilic Israel just isn't well known due to limited data. (We mainly just have what's in the texts developed during the second temple period and then infer what is or isn't pre-exilic strata in those texts) So I think the anachronism issue with the ANE isn't that much of an issue - again assuming a loose translation heavily influenced by the KJV and other 19th century elements. The Mesoamerican issues are, as I've noted, harder to explain. Particularly metal. Much of the rest I think can be explained by semantic shifts. 2 hours ago, Gray said: 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. I'm not sure the two are opposed. I'd also quibble with calling most history or even archaeology scientific. If anything I think most contemporary apologetics are highly infused with an acceptance of critical and scientific methods/facts. It's just that again what's being argued is different. Within critical approaches one tends to appeal to arguments for best explanation in terms of the public evidence - although even there typically there's a strong element of politics and fad the less scientific one gets. (Even in the hard sciences this is an issue as we see with string theory) With apologetics the argument to best explanation isn't really what's going on. Rather it's taking a certain range of theological and historical interpretations within religion and arguing how they are plausible or at least possible within the critical and scientific framework. That can get contentious of course but there typically (although not always) is that presumption of working within the critical and scientific tradition. (Even critics of apologetics often make that point - there was a Sunstone article about 10 years ago along those lines) Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said: I think some of these can easily be explained by the mode of loose translation. Not everyone agrees of course - thus the debates over how similar to Milton the Book of Mormon's Satan is, issues with deutero-Isaiah and so forth. However I tend to think most of these aren't major and can easily be explained by a combination of proto-texts to deutero-Isaiah or other texts as well as looking at Egyptian parallels. An other problem is just that the range of beliefs in pre-exilic Israel just isn't well known due to limited data. (We mainly just have what's in the texts developed during the second temple period and then infer what is or isn't pre-exilic strata in those texts) So I think the anachronism issue with the ANE isn't that much of an issue - again assuming a loose translation heavily influenced by the KJV and other 19th century elements. The Mesoamerican issues are, as I've noted, harder to explain. Particularly metal. Much of the rest I think can be explained by semantic shifts. I'm not sure the two are opposed. I'd also quibble with calling most history or even archaeology scientific. If anything I think most contemporary apologetics are highly infused with an acceptance of critical and scientific methods/facts. It's just that again what's being argued is different. One tends to appeal to best explanation in terms of the public evidence - although even there typically there's a strong element of politics and fad the less scientific one gets. (Even in the hard sciences this is an issue as we see with string theory) With apologetics the argument to best explanation isn't really what's going on. Rather it's taking a certain range of theological and historical interpretations within religion and arguing how they are plausible or at least possible within the critical and scientific framework. That can get contentious of course but there typically (although not always) is that presumption of working within the critical and scientific tradition. (Even critics of apologetics often make that point - there was a Sunstone article about 10 years ago along those lines) I don't know. Some of the apologetics don't work very well, semantic shift or not. Take the story of Ammon tending the king's flocks. Basically, the only flocks the Mesoamericans kept were turkeys. They did do what we would call "herd management" of deer, but they weren't contained. So, reading the Book of Mormon account, one is left with the visual of Ammon and the others driving a flock of turkeys to a watering place. I suppose semantic shifts might work, in that flocks, driving, and water might not mean what we think, but that's a stretch.
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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? The main issue is that a fixed date can be put on the three main Gospels putting them within the first few centuries. Knowing that you can then look at commonalities, differences, and knowledge about oral traditions (particularly with Mark) to postulate some common sources. However what's key about Q is the dating. There's nothing about the Book of Mormon that prevents similar arguments. In fact I think for some sources for the Book of Mormon both critics and apologists agree such as the heavily influence of the KJV Bible. That's a source and an identifiable one (much as one can identify some of the scriptural texts used in the New Testament). Likewise even critics acknowledge ancient elements in the Book of Mormon. They just differ over sources. So you'll get arguments regarding the so-called esoteric tradition (largely magic, masonry, and neoplatonic elements) that are sources for the Book of Mormon. Apologists sometimes (although not always) will dismiss these sources as available in the early 19th century (or debate how available they were such as with the Enochian tradition). However the process of argument that's going on is actually pretty similar to arguing about the influence of Mark and Q or commonalities with texts from Qumran. A better parallel to the issues with the Book of Mormon isn't Q, simply because we can bracket the dates with Q fairly well to the first century. Rather it's contentious debates over dating other ancient texts - particularly pseudopigraphal ones which exist only in later (say 6th century or later) translations - especially texts that may have gone through multiple translations. One example of this might be say 3 Enoch. However you have the same issue with say texts like Job that have multiple strata of editing and redaction. I'd even say deutero-Isaiah or proto-Isaiah would fit. So what I'd say is that at a fundamental level the more critical apologists and critics are actually largely using the same sorts of argumentation as what happened with Q decades ago. Where they differ is really over what the genealogy of influences are and what should be seen as accidental due to Joseph Smith's creativity versus actual ancient influences. Typically critics, for understandable reasons, what the majority of influence to be 19th century. Even when there are possibilities of ancient influence (say neoplatonism, cabalism, Enochian traditions etc.) they'll prefer 19th century. So secret combinations are really about politics and 19th century masonry rather than ancient guerrilla warfare or robber guilds. The weakness of the apologetic position is that by necessity they'll have to hand wave to arguments from silence. i.e. we might not be able to explain metal but it's possible such elements haven't yet been discovered. Those kinds of arguments tend to undermine their overall argument from the critic's perspective, making 19th century influences far more likely to the critic's mind. Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble
Gray Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I still don't understand. You still sound like you are advocating the silencing or ignoring of one side (Team Y). It's clear you don't understand. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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: Do you understand what I mean when I say theological commitments? It's not a door that swings both ways. Critical scholarship doesn't take theological commitments into account. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. It's a book that posits a Christianity in the Americas several hundred years before the development of Christianity. For that alone it can't be taken seriously outside of Mormon apologetic and counter-apologetic circles without some compelling physical evidence to support it. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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). Again, you don't seem to understand either what apologetic or critical means. I'm happy to discuss if you're interested. Apologists can certainly engage in critical scholarship. But when they do so they are no longer engaging in apologetics. Two very different approaches. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Strange how many of these anachronisms aren't really anachronistic after all. Take, for example, this observation by Jeff Lindsay: Apologists tend to quibble and get lost in the weeds. The biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon, the one that disqualifies it as a historical text (without significant supporting physical evidence), is that it's a book that posits a Christianity in the Americas several hundred years before the development of Christianity. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. You're confusing counter-apologetics with critical scholarship. They're not the same thing. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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 sure what this would have to do with anything, other than revealing that you view this as some kind of team sport apparently? 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. There are no good responses for the major anachronisms in the text. Such as, the idea that Christianity existed in the Americas several hundred years before the development of Christianity. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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: We already know the Iliad is an ancient book. There's an issue you skipped over. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. A few examples: Christianity hundreds of years before the invention of Christianity Atonement theology (esp Penal Substitution) many hundreds of years years before it was developed Textual dependents on many Biblical texts that hadn't been written yet Christ theology and terminology used out of its historical context, where it wouldn't make sense Christology influenced by the gospel of John, but supposedly predating John Resurrection theology outside of its time and place Fully developed God/Satan dualism outside of its time and place And hundreds of other smaller issues 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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: Right, so no compelling or archeological evidence. We agree. That is what would be needed to overcome the types of anachronisms I listed earlier. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I disagree. I think the BOM's historicity is "not taken seriously" because of generalized bias and malaise, and because Hamblin is right: That might be a comforting thought, but even a cursory understanding of New Testament scholarship is enough to make it clear that the BOM can't be taken seriously as a historical text, other than for faith reasons. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: That seems right. No, it's about teams. 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. By definition, they're not critical/scientific when engaging in apologetics. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. I'm not saying that apologetics isn't a type of scholarship. But it's not scientific, by definition. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. You keep reading this into what I'm saying because you seem to see it as a kind of team sport. Most people who take on the issue are apologists or counter-apologists. That does turn it into a kind of team sport, but that's not what critical scholarship is about. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Then why do you keep characterizing "apologetics" as a necessarily separate category from "a critical (scientific) approach"? Because they are categorically different, by definition. Critical scholarship does not operate based on theological commitments. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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 Do you understand what critical means? It doesn't mean just making argument to support a position. https://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/what-is-a-critical-scholar/ 1
Analytics Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. Actually, Hamblin is spectacularly wrong on this point. To illustrate, say that after translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph gave his translated document and the physical plates themselves to Colombia University, in care of Charles Anthon. Scholars would be completely free to study the artifact, the characters on it, and compare them to the text. If that would have happened, would you (and Hamblin) really expect secular academia to yawn and ignore it because of the book's religious claims? No way. In that hypothetical universe, the book would have been considered the biggest archeological find of the millennium and would have received ten times more scholarly attention than the Dead Sea scrolls. Scholars pay attention to books with religious claims all the time. The reason they don't seriously consider the Book of Mormon is for the reasons Philip Jenkins said but that most other scholars are too polite to say: because compelling arguments to seriously consider it as an ancient record have not been presented to secular academia in serious journals. Secular academia is adept at looking at religious documents and religious sociology with a secular lens. In this case, in principle they could believe that a group of Jews sailed to the New World in 600 B.C., established a civilization, had their religion evolve towards the direction of Christianity, thrived as a civilization for 1,000 years, wrote their records and metal plates, and then hiked up to New York and buried the record in a hill. Secular academics would find the discovery of such a thing fascinating. The real problem is that even if you remove all of the religious implications, there is nothing about any of that which is particularly plausible, much less supported by evidence as having happened. 3
hope_for_things Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: 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. Thanks, I totally agree with the first part, but I'm not sure I agree with the last sentence. Can you help explain how religious truths and moral values function similarly? From my perspective these religious truths and moral values are culturally derived. Even young infants begin to learn how to act and understand what is socially acceptable long before they learn to talk. Morals values seem contextual to the societies they operate in (there is evidence that certain moral values are also evolved traits.) So when you say that we accept them because they work as part of our collective experience, that also means these same religious truths and moral values might not work in a different culture and context. And I would argue that anti-venom will continue to work across cultures and for anyone that gets bitten by that species of snake. 49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: 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. The thing about the practical use of spiritual experience that I find problematic is that I think people have throughout history used their intuitive/subjective/spiritual ideas to justify awful practices. Racism, sexism, all the isms, you can justify using spiritual experience. This way of interpretation of how we are supposed to be seems unreliable and biased against certain people and ideals. I think we need to seriously question the assumptions that our societies have developed as part of tribal thinking. Rigorous skeptical evaluation is needed so that we can continue to find flaws in our thinking and intentionally correct for those flaws. This includes our religious ways of interpreting the world. Because of this, I often wonder if the net contribution of religious tradition isn't a negative for modern society.
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't know. Some of the apologetics don't work very well, semantic shift or not. Take the story of Ammon tending the king's flocks. Basically, the only flocks the Mesoamericans kept were turkeys. They did do what we would call "herd management" of deer, but they weren't contained. So, reading the Book of Mormon account, one is left with the visual of Ammon and the others driving a flock of turkeys to a watering place. I suppose semantic shifts might work, in that flocks, driving, and water might not mean what we think, but that's a stretch. Well in that case I think the way people tend to read Alma 17 is unfortunately influenced by Friberg's painting of Ammon looking like a viking - sword and all, with sheep around him. With the text what it sounds like are animals that are moved from a place of slaughter or other use to a place for grazing with the grazing location being near available water. (The presumption being the place of slaughter wasn't) The main issue of "herd management" wasn't herding the way we think of sheep or goats but more protection from robbers. So it's about ownership not containment - at least as I read the text. So I'm not sure driving or water don't mean what they mean. It's just that the word for the herd used is flock since herd doesn't imply ownership. Again, I'm speaking as someone largely ignorant of mesoAmerican archaeology and anthropology. However my understanding was the deer weren't just used for utilitarian means (skins for leather, musical instruments, covers, meat for food, antlers for various functions). Rather they were also used live and sometimes trained for ritual. (I believe the Cuch ritual although there's probably other rituals I'm ignorant of) That'd require that at least some deer not merely just be left in a fashion akin to say the King's or Lord's deer in medieval England. Further the domestication (unlike again say deer in Europe) suggests something stronger than mere herd management as in England. So you have images of the deer tied to trees near ritual locations with the horns removed. Doing a bit of google, I found a few arguments for deer trade based upon isotope analysis in the southern Mexico/Guatemala region. Now while it's possible this trade was done with dead animals, it's more likely it was done with live ones to facilitate survival of the material during transport. If you're transporting and trading deer, then ownership becomes important and the Ammon account doesn't seem that out of line. Especially given how vague the actual work with the animals is. All we really need is movement of animals in trade, which is what Ammon discusses. The main issue in the narrative is moving the animals to an uncontained area with water yet preventing robbery of the animals. My understanding is that there are mayan vases showing deer inside palace areas and the like suggesting that for some period they were brought to such locations. The question then becomes when they weren't being used for ritual or trade, what was done? Honestly the Ammon account sounds exactly like what you describe - their being left largely in an unconstrained area but watched over so they aren't hunted/stolen. The one objection might be deer moving in both directions (from the king's palace area as well as to it) Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks, I totally agree with the first part, but I'm not sure I agree with the last sentence. Can you help explain how religious truths and moral values function similarly? From my perspective these religious truths and moral values are culturally derived. Even young infants begin to learn how to act and understand what is socially acceptable long before they learn to talk. Morals values seem contextual to the societies they operate in (there is evidence that certain moral values are also evolved traits.) So when you say that we accept them because they work as part of our collective experience, that also means these same religious truths and moral values might not work in a different culture and context. And I would argue that anti-venom will continue to work across cultures and for anyone that gets bitten by that species of snake. What I mean is that values and religious truth, like everything else, are dependent on the system within which we live. They aren't a matter of repeatable testing (though, presumably they come about because people have decided through repeated experience that they work) but are products of how we collectively interpret the world. I suppose that's the main distinction from the objective, which is verifiably repeatable. 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The thing about the practical use of spiritual experience that I find problematic is that I think people have throughout history used their intuitive/subjective/spiritual ideas to justify awful practices. Racism, sexism, all the isms, you can justify using spiritual experience. This way of interpretation of how we are supposed to be seems unreliable and biased against certain people and ideals. I think we need to seriously question the assumptions that our societies have developed as part of tribal thinking. Rigorous skeptical evaluation is needed so that we can continue to find flaws in our thinking and intentionally correct for those flaws. This includes our religious ways of interpreting the world. Because of this, I often wonder if the net contribution of religious tradition isn't a negative for modern society. I don't mean to imply that these values and truths are necessarily "real" or "correct." As I said, the mistake comes in assuming that these subjective things are "mirrors of reality" when they are simply subjective interpretation. Certainty has caused a lot of suffering in the world, and it seems ironic that people of faith would talk in terms of certainty. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Well in that case I think the way people tend to read Alma 17 is unfortunately influenced by Friberg's painting of Ammon looking like a viking - sword and all, with sheep around him. With the text what it sounds like are animals that are moved from a place of slaughter to a place for grazing with the grazing location being near available water. (The presumption being the place of slaughter wasn't) The main issue of "herd management" wasn't herding the way we think of sheep or goats but more protection from robbers. So it's about ownership not containment - at least as I read the text. So I'm not sure driving or water don't mean what they mean. It's just that the word for the herd used is flock since herd doesn't imply ownership. Again, I'm speaking as someone largely ignorant of mesoAmerican archaeology and anthropology. However my understanding was the deer weren't just used for utilitarian means (skins for leather, musical instruments, covers, meat for food, antlers for various functions). Rather they were also used and sometimes trained for ritual. That'd require that at least some deer not merely just be left in a fashion akin to say the King's or Lord's deer in medieval England. Further the domestication (unlike again say deer in Europe) suggests something stronger than mere herd management as in England. Doing a bit of google, I found a few arguments for deer trade based upon isotope analysis in the southern Mexico/Guatemala region. Now while it's possible this trade was done with dead animals, it's more likely it was done with live ones to facilitate survival of the material during transport. If you're transporting and trading deer, then ownership becomes important and the Ammon account doesn't seem that out of line. Especially given how vague the actual work with the animals is. All we really need is movement of animals in trade, which is what Ammon discusses. The main issue in the narrative is moving the animals to an uncontained area with water yet preventing robbery of the animals. I'm not going to dig into this tangent (sorry for derailing). I will correct myself in that I should have said that Mesoamericans dealt in deer population control, much as we do today. The animals still lived in the wild. The idea of a king owning deer and having servants moving them around grazing lands is not something you see in Mesoamerica.
hope_for_things Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 49 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: I've learned to play close attention to the metaphors and standard examples a person uses in constructing an exit narrative. How representative are the examples or situations cited? When people claim that they have proof or evidence, they always bring along standards of proof, and expectations for evidence. All too often, people claim an authority for LDS authorities that the LDS scripture completely undercuts. Mormonism is oriented towards "further light and knowledge" rather than "static orthodoxy to defend at all costs, either a "Big Book of What to Think" or to use as a convenient straw man, a place to apply some leverage to move the world to some desirable and less personally taxing location. And some claim an authority for science that human experience undermines. I learned to key my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then. Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I respect your approach even though I don't always agree. I think its also to important to respect those who exit the church based on whatever narrative they've constructed. From my vantage point the narratives people tell and the evidence they use to support those narratives should be respected as equally valid. I look at religious orientation a lot like orientation towards food. I personally love many different foods, but there are a some I just haven't been able to learn to like. People have different taste preferences and these tastes are influences by a variety of factors both nature and nurture derived. I'm thankful for the variety that exists in this amazing world, and can appreciate many different ways of orienting towards that variety.
hope_for_things Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What I mean is that values and religious truth, like everything else, are dependent on the system within which we live. They aren't a matter of repeatable testing (though, presumably they come about because people have decided through repeated experience that they work) but are products of how we collectively interpret the world. I suppose that's the main distinction from the objective, which is verifiably repeatable. I don't mean to imply that these values and truths are necessarily "real" or "correct." As I said, the mistake comes in assuming that these subjective things are "mirrors of reality" when they are simply subjective interpretation. Certainty has caused a lot of suffering in the world, and it seems ironic that people of faith would talk in terms of certainty. This makes sense, thanks for the clarifications.
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I respect your approach even though I don't always agree. I think its also to important to respect those who exit the church based on whatever narrative they've constructed. From my vantage point the narratives people tell and the evidence they use to support those narratives should be respected as equally valid. I look at religious orientation a lot like orientation towards food. I personally love many different foods, but there are a some I just haven't been able to learn to like. People have different taste preferences and these tastes are influences by a variety of factors both nature and nurture derived. I'm thankful for the variety that exists in this amazing world, and can appreciate many different ways of orienting towards that variety. Agreed. Kevin has obviously put a lot of thought and prayer into his approach, and it works for him. I respect him for wrestling with the issues and emerging with his faith intact and even strengthened. That he's a decent bloke doesn't hurt. Edited June 27, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 30 minutes ago, Analytics said: Actually, Hamblin is spectacularly wrong on this point. To illustrate, say that after translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph gave his translated document and the physical plates themselves to Colombia University, in care of Charles Anthon. Scholars would be completely free to study the artifact, the characters on it, and compare them to the text. If that would have happened, would you (and Hamblin) really expect secular academia to yawn and ignore it because of the book's religious claims? No way. In that hypothetical universe, the book would have been considered the biggest archeological find of the millennium and would have received ten times more scholarly attention than the Dead Sea scrolls. Scholars pay attention to books with religious claims all the time. The reason they don't seriously consider the Book of Mormon is for the reasons Philip Jenkins said but that most other scholars are too polite to say: because compelling arguments to seriously consider it as an ancient record have not been presented to secular academia in serious journals. Secular academia is adept at looking at religious documents and religious sociology with a secular lens. In this case, in principle they could believe that a group of Jews sailed to the New World in 600 B.C., established a civilization, had their religion evolve towards the direction of Christianity, thrived as a civilization for 1,000 years, wrote their records and metal plates, and then hiked up to New York and buried the record in a hill. Secular academics would find the discovery of such a thing fascinating. The real problem is that even if you remove all of the religious implications, there is nothing about any of that which is particularly plausible, much less supported by evidence as having happened. I think that there's some reflexive dismissal of the Book of Mormon because of its purported provenance, but I think the more important reason it's dismissed is that it simply doesn't fit anywhere in ancient America. As Michael Coe put it, there are no actors. Apologetics has succeeded in finding the least bad fits for the Book of Mormon, but they still are bad fits. 1
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm not going to dig into this tangent (sorry for derailing). I will correct myself in that I should have said that Mesoamericans dealt in deer population control, much as we do today. The animals still lived in the wild. The idea of a king owning deer and having servants moving them around grazing lands is not something you see in Mesoamerica. Well, recognizing you don't have time to delve in, I confess I'm just a tad confused. I can accept they don't do regular grazing methods as Europeans do with sheep, goat, and cows. Further I can completely understand why people would read Alma 17 in that fashion - particularly due to Ammon bringing the flocks back after watering them in verse 39. Yet it seems clear they do use them ritually, trade them, and so forth. The trading of live deer suggests the ownership issue I raised. At least I found numerous articles saying that. So the real question is whether verse 39 implies regular movement to particular grazing fields or not. I think that's ambiguous and I think could be tied to the particular event in question where Ammon kills the robbers. But I can completely understand why someone would read that chapter and assume European practices - I'm just not sure it's a necessary reading. Again, I'm really ignorant here, but just doing a quick literature search suggests that at least some maya used deer in a semi-domesticated way that's compatible with Alma 17's movement even if it doesn't go as far as European methods. Edited June 27, 2018 by clarkgoble
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Well, recognizing you don't have time to delve in, I confess I'm just a tad confused. I can accept they don't do regular grazing methods as Europeans do with sheep, goat, and cows. Further I can completely understand why people would read Alma 17 in that fashion - particularly due to Ammon bringing the flocks back after watering them in verse 39. Yet it seems clear they do use them ritually, trade them, and so forth. The trading of live deer suggests the ownership issue I raised. At least I found numerous articles saying that. So the real question is whether verse 39 implies regular movement to particular grazing fields or not. I think that's ambiguous and I think could be tied to the particular event in question where Ammon kills the robbers. But I can completely understand why someone would read that chapter and assume European practices - I'm just not sure it's a necessary reading. I don't think it's a necessary reading, either. I'm just saying I don't find it a good fit with Mesoamerican practices however it's read. I'm always open to correction.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Well in that case I think the way people tend to read Alma 17 is unfortunately influenced by Friberg's painting of Ammon looking like a viking - sword and all, with sheep around him. I think that Firberg painted the scene with sheep because that is what 100% of the people who read the Book understood by the word "sheep". It wasn't until we realized that there were no sheep in America that we started to say, hey, Friberg's paintings are ridiculous. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Analytics said: 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. Excellent questions, but they all avoid one central question; Does it matter very much whether one has a coherent belief system? That is a belief system which fits the real world, the world of physical reality, the world of sociological reality. Are some belief systems more survival-oriented than others? That is, are some of them more successful at addressing the major difficulties of life. And do they have longevity? Some of your comments suggest that Mormon socialization may have something like that value -- encouraging best behaviors. But that once again avoids the real question about the internal coherence of reality and thought: Does one's belief system "save he appearances," as we say in philosophy? Compartmentalization will only take a religion so far. And then there is the additional question of adjusting to change over time: Is the belief system able to change over time to meet new problems? Is it dynamic? Non-Mormon scholarship seems to be answering those crucial questions in the affirmative for LDS culture and thought. Are there other modes of thought and culture equally successful at negotiating the twists and turns of history? Surely. Are there failed systems? Most assuredly. Edited June 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Rajah Manchou Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think that there's some reflexive dismissal of the Book of Mormon because of its purported provenance, but I think the more important reason it's dismissed is that it simply doesn't fit anywhere in ancient America. As Michael Coe put it, there are no actors. Apologetics has succeeded in finding the least bad fits for the Book of Mormon, but they still are bad fits. My thinking is that if the Book of Mormon were to have been found in the basement of a church in any other country outside America, it would be taken far more seriously. Even if Joseph did dig golden plates out of a hill in New York, he should have claimed something far more mundane. Its the angels/bloody spaniards that most people doubt, not the plausibility of an ancient text.
jkwilliams Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: My thinking is that if the Book of Mormon were to have been found in the basement of a church in any other country outside America, it would be taken far more seriously. Even if Joseph did dig golden plates out of a hill in New York, he should have claimed something far more mundane. Its the angels/bloody spaniards that most people doubt, not the plausibility of an ancient text. Maybe so. For me, the text has glaring problems, regardless of provenance. It’s not that I don’t believe in angels.
smac97 Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) On 6/27/2018 at 10:33 AM, Analytics said: Quote 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. Actually, Hamblin is spectacularly wrong on this point. To illustrate, say that after translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph gave his translated document and the physical plates themselves to Colombia University, in care of Charles Anthon. Scholars would be completely free to study the artifact, the characters on it, and compare them to the text. So Hamblin is wrong because he is addressing the situation as it exists, rather than an idealized hypothetical that you propose? I think not. Quote If that would have happened, would you (and Hamblin) really expect secular academia to yawn and ignore it because of the book's religious claims? No way. I quite agree. Two plus two equals four, but if we change the problem to two plus three, we get a different answer. So it is with the point Hamblin is making. He's dealing with scholarly indifference as to the Book of Mormon as it actually exists now. If the circumstances were radically different, if we had the plates, if we had a recorded event, witnessed by thousands, of Moroni descending from heaven and returning the plates to Pres. Nelson, with instructions for him to turn the plates over to scholars for their examination, then I concede your point. Secular academia would not "yawn" at such developments. Alas, we don't live in that world, so your point is moot. And Hamblin's remains pretty cogent. Quote In that hypothetical universe, the book would have been considered the biggest archeological find of the millennium and would have received ten times more scholarly attention than the Dead Sea scrolls. If, if, if. We don't live in that world. An imaginary alternative reality doesn't do much for rebutting Hamblin's point about this reality. Quote Scholars pay attention to books with religious claims all the time. And yet they don't pay attention to the Book of Mormon. Witness the embarassing gaffes shown in Sorenson's open letter to him. Dr. Coe has plainly given virtually no attention to the Book of Mormon. He is manifestly ignorant of its substance, and of the ever-growing amount of scholarship being produced by LDS scholars in relation to it. All things being equal, I would hardly blame him. Life is short. But as soon as he presumed to speak about it publicly, he opened himself up to criticism for being ignorant about the subject matter. Quote The reason they don't seriously consider the Book of Mormon is for the reasons Philip Jenkins said but that most other scholars are too polite to say: because compelling arguments to seriously consider it as an ancient record have not been presented to secular academia in serious journals. Right. And how much of that is due to institutional biases and malaise, which is likely just as prevalent as it is amongst scholars and academics individually? Quite a bit, I think. Moreover, Hamblin addresses this. There have been several such publications. There are some pretty substantial pieces of LDS scholarship about the Book of Mormon which are not getting attention. Not because they lack academic rigor, but because the academy is too hostile to the book's religious truth claims to give it serious consideration. Quote Secular academia is adept at looking at religious documents and religious sociology with a secular lens. In this case, in principle they could believe that a group of Jews sailed to the New World in 600 B.C., established a civilization, had their religion evolve towards the direction of Christianity, thrived as a civilization for 1,000 years, wrote their records and metal plates, and then hiked up to New York and buried the record in a hill. Secular academics would find the discovery of such a thing fascinating. And yet virtually none of them is attempting to test the Book of Mormon along these lines. Quote The real problem is that even if you remove all of the religious implications, there is nothing about any of that which is particularly plausible, much less supported by evidence as having happened. Sure there is. You just said that transoceanic migrations are plausible. Hamblin makes this same point. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 11, 2020 by smac97
Rajah Manchou Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Maybe so. For me, the text has glaring problems, regardless of provenance. It’s not that I don’t believe in angels. Yes, but how many of those problems would be resolved if you had no idea where the setting was? If the claim was that the setting was an island in the sea somewhere in the Indian and/or Pacific Oceans. There are very few problems if we accept we don't know the setting. Even things like pre-Christian Christianity aren't a real problem as millenarianism/messianism and cleansing rites similar to baptism were quite common during the Book of Mormon time period, pre-Christ. The problem is our speculative opinions on location. We've got 99 problems and the book ain't one. Edited June 27, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
champatsch Posted June 27, 2018 Posted June 27, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I think some of these can easily be explained by the mode of loose translation. You don't mean "loose translation"; you mean "loose control", which is an extremely unlikely position. Rigorous thinking would go a long way here. If Joseph worded the text from received ideas, then the text absolutely indicates that he would have had to be a biblical expert. But then the text would have been a high-level pseudo-biblical text. Yet it isn't. Consequently, "loose control" must be rejected. Dozens of hard linguistic data points, individual and systematic, support that it is not a pseudo-biblical text. Another point to think about with "loose control" is that it would only be partial loose control; the names would have been tightly controlled. And Joseph would not have been a translator in the usual sense of the word. He would have been an author working from someone else's ideas. The Lord would have been a partial translator. Ultimately, "tight control" is extremely likely.
Recommended Posts